Talk:Naturopathy

Sources for opposition to naturopathic medicine

American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine

American Academy of Family Physicians http://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/naturopathic.html http://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/advocacy/workforce/gme/ES-FPvsNaturopaths-110810.pdf <----comparing education and training between NDs and MDs specializing in family practice

NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/naturopathyintro.htm#hed5

Medscape article published by Kimball C. Atwood, IV, MD http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/471156

Perhaps there are more?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.2.109 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

85.212.2.109 Why do you need to propose sources for opposition to naturopathy? Let's review your sources.

1. American Cancer Society is not opposing to naturopathy. It is declaring that naturopathy cannot cure cancer. Can you quote a main body of knowledge for naturopathy pretending to cure cancer? This source is not relevant for opposing to naturopathy from a scientific point of view and from WP:RS.
2. American Academy of Family Physicians is not opposing to naturopathy. It is opposing to licensure of naturopaths. This source is not relevant for opposing to naturopathy from a scientific point of view and from WP:RS.
3. American Academy of Family Physicians is not opposing to naturopathy, but comparing the number of training hours between MD and ND. Knowing that a ND is not a MD, the comparison is useless without also comparing the scope of practice. This source is not relevant for opposing to naturopathy from a scientific point of view and from WP:RS.
4. Kimball Atwood is opposing to naturopathy with at least a strong Anglo-American bias and without any scientific demonstration. Piling-up examples is an illustration, not a demonstration from a scientific point of view.

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014

Just came across the correct URL for the dead link at footnote 41. I believe it should go to: http://aanmc.org/careers/licensure/ Thanks Tommyher82 (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks for finding that Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices

I am questioning the neutrality WP:NPOV of the sentence: "Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices".. My edits have been rejected by Alexbrn.
The questioned sentence is a quotation from the abstract of an article written in 2003 by Kimball Atwood. Let's review how well it does align to Wikipedia principles.

Due and undue weight

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
The author, Kimball Atwood, is writing in the last paragraph of his article: "This is the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of "naturopathic medicine." and that "...if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical". This is clear confirmation by the author himself of the minority of his opinion. This undue weight shall be removed by at least quoting its minority.
Or, this undue weight could simply be removed due to his "tiny minority", because it is the first article on this topic published in a reliable source. Other articles usually used as reference for supporting this one do not cover exactly the same topic.
Or, this undue weight could be balanced by a quotation of the opposing opinion, from the same published reliable source, for example “Naturopathic medicine is indeed legitimate, effective, and wanted”..

Article structure

WP:STRUCTURE: "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight."
Quoting a minority opinion in the first paragraph is a structural issue. This quotation would be better located in the section dedicated to Evidence basis.

Opinions as facts

WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts.(...) opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"
The author, Kimball Atwood, is a member of an American NGO, The Skeptics Society, devoted to promoting scientific skepticism. As such, he can be seen as at least a promoter or as an advocate of a cause, but not as a neutral observer of the situation. He is having a conflict of interest WP:COI. My opinion is supported by the following statement from a published reliable source: “Atwood is misleading, objectionable, and flagrantly biased". It illustrates the fact that Atwood’s sentence is a controversial assertion.

Nonjudgmental language

WP:YESPOV: "prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject".
The word "replete" (plenty of something) is a judgmental language, while a neutral wording would be "contains".

Anglo-American focus

WP:WORLDVIEW: "should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them".
The author, Kimball Atwood, is writing that his article is "a summary of the current state of naturopathic medicine", based only on documents published by Anglo-American sources. It does not reflect the current state of naturopathic medicine worldwide. It is neglecting the fact that naturopathy is largely used, recognized and integrated in the national health system in German culture countries, such as Germany, Holland and Switzerland. This cultural bias shall be removed.

Proposal

I am proposing to address the above problems by replacing the questioned sentence by:
"In the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine" Kimball C. Atwood, an American Skeptic, concludes about naturopathy in the Anglo-American world that "naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices"
I am welcoming factual and documented comments and seeking help for improving this article in a more neutral way.

References

References

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

Discussion

The statement is sourced and accurate as is, I have no problem with it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, I full agree with you: the statement is sourced and accurately quoted. This is not the problem. I am raising the WP:NPOV issue. Please comment on the factual issues I have raised regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:YESPOV, WP:WORLDVIEW. It cannot simply be ignored because the statement is properly sourced and accurately quoted.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

---

Agree, it's well sourced and uncontentious. According to WP:PSCI policy we need to make sure this mainstream take on naturopathy is prominent here, to be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I am not pretending that the statement is right or wrong, but it is factually contentious. This is not my opinion, but a documented fact, according to a published and reliable source and according to a reliable recognized scientist: David L. Katz, associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. Please comment and respond in more details on the issues that I have raised.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

References

• That text by Katz is a comment on an article, right? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, right, this is a comment. Does it undermine the validity of the opinion expressed? Being a direct critical comment by a well known and reputable scientist confirms the contentious aspect of Atwood's opinion. This comment being published by a reputable source confirms its quality, but not the validity of one against the other. MedGenMed would not publish a dummy or doubtful comment from an unknown and unverified source. My intention is not to enter into never-ending arguments about naturopathy. My personal opinion is that what some people call naturopathy contains some pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. This is not the question. This is not my debate. My opinion does not count here. I am simply aiming to bring objectivity and neutrality WP:NPOV to the naturopathy article. Thank you for taking the time to answer each one of the various issues raised: WP:UNDUE, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:YESPOV, WP:WORLDVIEW.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

• Not WP:RS, not usable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I think it'll put an end to the conversation faster if you explain why it is not a WP:RS source and therefore not usable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better for editors go get familiar with the WP:PAGs rather than I provide a potted version (which then invites the opportunity to take issue with how I've potted it). It is however also common sense that we don't use weak sources (comments) to undermine stronger ones. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but suit yourself. It's your time. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I am keen to get familiar and I am doing so. How would you think that individual members of the scientific community would respond in a reliable manner to Atwood article, if not by writing a comment in the same publication. This comment is not to be used for writing an article about naturopathy. This comment is not to be used for undermine a source used for writing an article about naturopathy, but simply to illustrate its contentious aspect. According to WP:RS, the creator of the work, David L. Katz, associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine, is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. It is not questionable. Even if you would not agree with my point of view on this matter, it does not prevent you to answer the other issues that I have raised, independently from this comment. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

What I think and what you think is immaterial (even if you base your opinion on interpreting comments, which is WP:OR). Wikipedia shall reflect reliable published sources, and for a WP:FRINGE topic like naturopathy the the bar is lower from normal when finding sources that identify the fringe view. Without new reliable sources, this discussion is pointless. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, then let's use the only recognized source, Atwood himself, when he is writing that " This is the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine. " and that " if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical ". Isn't it a reliable source confirming the minority and the contentious aspect of his opinion?(Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

User: erik.o.nelson, I was just wondering what y'all would think about this article which is also from PubMed and a credible journal (from Primary Care) and is not as biased and outdated (2010) of a review as the one being discussed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883816 — Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Failure to understand "neutral" in NPOV

Paulmartin357, as a newbie here, we're cutting you a lot of slack because we know it's not easy to understand all these policies and guidelines (PAG). You make a common mistake, by expecting our content and sources to be "neutral". You write in your edit summary:

• "According to the author of this sentence (Atwood), .... As such, his personnal opinion is not majority nor neutral."

Personal opinions are allowed, non-neutral comments are allowed, and we are required to document controversies, and even minority opinions, especially if they are published in RS. In this case Atwood represents the scientific majority, but since mainstream scientists tend to ignore fringe matters, scientific skeptics like Atwood express their opinions. Those skeptics are often experts in their subject areas. They are scientists, researchers, authors, etc..

There is never any indication in our PAG that sources or content must be neutral. It is editors who must remain neutral in their editing. That's the key to understanding NPOV. Editors are not allowed to misuse sources, or fail to replicate the exact spirit, bias, prejudice, or tone of a source. Censorship is not allowed. If the source is critical, the content will sound critical. If it's biased, so be it. We must remain neutral and reproduce that bias, even when it conflicts with our personal POV.

If we only used "neutral" sources here, no article would contain any opinions, we could not deal with controversies and disagreements, in fact we would have very little content at all! Our job is to document the sum total of human knowledge, as it is documented in reliable sources. That "sum total" includes opinions and very non-neutral sources and content.

It is editors who must remain neutral and not take sides by adding their own commentary. We all have our opinions, and they become obvious on talk pages. That's okay, but when we edit, we must edit neutrally. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thanks for your useful explanation and for your support to a newbie. I fully understand that editors must be neutral and that sources must not be neutral. I fully understand that WP content must be written from a neutral point of view. I fully understand that fringe articles are under high scrutiny. I am not questioning Atwood's quote itself, but the way it is included in WP article. I understand and agree that I should not have written that Atwood's opinion is not neutral. It is my mistake. Sorry for that.

So far, despite valuable efforts by Alexbrn, I have not seen factual arguments for demonstrating that I am 100% wrong with all the issues that I have raised. I agree that one of my source (Katz) could be seen as weak, even if WP:RS does not define explicitly weak sources and comments.

How can you factually support that " Atwood represents the scientific majority, but since mainstream scientists tend to ignore fringe matters "? This statement does not sound like a scientific fact or a scientific observation. With all respect, a minority of loud activists does not make a majority of opinions.

Other issues that I have raised have not yet been answered, e.g. WP:WORLDVIEW.

Let's turn it the other way around. What is objectionable in my proposal, which is mainly quoting (in bold) Atwood himself: " In the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine, Kimball C. Atwood, an American Skeptic, concludes about naturopathy in the Anglo-American world that naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices "? It does not undermine Atwood's opinion. It is disclosing the exact and factual context in which Atwood is expressing his opinion, which is a scientific way of presenting things.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

"Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." - I don't know much about naturopathy, but this sentence is hilariously non-neutral, and reads like someone speaking with an axe to grind. The idea that editors should be neutral but articles should not is also ridonkulous, when the opposite is true by any standard of journalistic integrity. That said, this sentence would easily fixed by saying "According to the scientific community" or "According to such-and-such". It's a strong opinion, and the fact that it's an opinion held by many scientists is interesting and noteworthy but largely irrelevant. A similar statement could be inserted, for example, into the Wikipedia description of religion. ("Religion is replete with unprovable assertions and has often led to unethical and even deadly choices."). A widely-held view by a particular group in a particular profession is fascinating, but it doesn't really have anything to do with WHAT THIS IS, and, as such, strikes as discordant in the first paragraph that would traditionally (and conventionally) be a summary / description of what something is, not what a particular group thinks about it (which would belong in something like a controversy section). Please approach contributions with a little more maturity. 70.68.80.235 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientists are experts in the field of medicine and as such their evaluation on the effectiveness of Naturopathy and pseudoscience in general are relevant and therefore valid to include in this encyclopedia. That's more than an opnion scientists offer, that opinion is based on the complete lack of evidence for the effectiveness of Naturopathy. Please don't launch ad hominem attacks on fellow editor by insinuating they are immature, be WP:CIVIL. AadaamS (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy and cancer

In order to reflect the latest (Jan 2015) development of the research in oncology regarding the use of naturopathy for cancer, I am proposing to amend the end of last paragraph of the first section as follow:

(...) According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published." However, the relevance of naturopathy in human cancer is beginning to be appreciated, as documented by renewed interest in nutraceutical research, the natural anticancer agents of dietary origin. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

References

That would be a misrepresentation of the source. The article as a whole is focused on neutraceuticals and money quote is "... nutraceuticals have shown great promise in in vitro studies, but have fallen short in translational studies. The bioavailability of nutraceuticals remains a major concern." So the source actually agrees with the ACS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if this sentence would really misrepresent the article, why would this sentence be the first one on the abstract published on PubMed? Even if so far only in vitro is promising, it does not turn down the fact that the relevance of naturopathy in human cancer is beginning to be appreciated. This is a valid sentence from a valid source. It is an interesting and up-to-date addition to the statement made by ACS. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

Best not unduly to pick bits of of (especially) abstracts, but to take the whole article and properly reflect its overall content. This article is excusively about neutraceuticals (rather than naturopathy at large as defined here on WP) and the "relevance" to human health is clearly made. This "beginning to be appreciated" stuff is just special pleading like "more research is needed" and we generally omit that kind of thing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, who better than the authors of the article themselves can duly pick bits of their own article for writing a conclusion or an abstract? The authors themselves are naming naturopathy, not me. Naturopathy is a set of tools and techniques, nutrition being one of them. The relevance of this naturopathic tool in the field of cancer is beginning to be appreciated. Which WP principle is supporting the fact that we generally omit to mention promising fields of scientific research where scientific evidence is still missing? In the context of naturopathy, where scientific evidence is still missing, it is worth mentioning that science is making progress while a number of novel nutraceuticals are under investigation (...) which clearly support naturopathy as a tool for modern medicine. Ignoring this source would be obscurantism. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is why we wait for solid WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews of multiple good research studies with concrete results. Anything less allows for OR in the form of cherry picked data. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Concur with BR. When studies have been published and reviewed then there is encyclopedic content. The list of treatments that have been "under investigation" is endless and not particularly selective. When MEDRS quality sources discuss a subject paraphrased content can be developed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus

I am proposing to review the first section of the article in regard to WP:WORLDVIEW

1. Reference is missing for Today, naturopathy is primarily practiced in the United States and Canada..
2. Details specific to North America, such as Naturopathic practitioners in the United States can be divided into three categories (...), shall be moved to chapter 4.1 North America.
3. Atwood Kimball reference is based exclusively on Anglo-American sources

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

You're talking about the lead, which duplicates (mentions, paraphrases, etc.) sourced content in the body. For example, search for "divided" and you'll see that your concern is unnecessary. It's found in the body, with references. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, thanks for helping the newbie. Let's address these issues one by one. I confirm that reference is missing for the statement Today, naturopathy is primarily practiced in the United States and Canada.. The source #24 (Romeyke 2011) does not support this statement. Please check this source. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

I see what you mean. That one ref would support "rare in Germany", which isn't the same as primarily USA..., although that is still true. We just need a better source, since the content is true. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, please read the source again. With all respect, you are wrong. The content is wrong. You are misunderstanding the article and making a syllogism. Let me explain why I disagree with you, with the source and with the statement, and why it should be removed.

1. Let me paraphrase Alexbrn: Best not unduly to pick bits of of (especially) abstracts, but to take the whole article and properly reflect its overall content. This article is exclusively about cost of stay of inpatient naturopathy in Germany (rather than statistics about worldwide distribution of naturopathy). The sentence you are quoting is the first one of the abstract, in the background section. It does not reflect at all the content of the source. This source cannot be used for supporting the questioned sentence.
2. The questioned source does not say that naturopathy is rare in Germany. It says that inpatient naturopathy is rare in Germany. This is absolutely not the same meaning. It also makes a lot of sense if you understand what naturopathy is in German culture. This source does not reveal any valid information about the prevalence of naturopathy, as such, in Germany, let alone United States and Canada.
3. Even if naturopathy, as such, would be rare in Germany, you could not validly conclude that it is primarily practiced in the United States and Canada, without making a syllogism or an Anglo-American bias. How would you know that none of about 200 other countries on the Earth have a lower rate of naturopathy? This is simply not the fact.
4. As a conclusion, this sentence is more than questioned. It is simply wrong. It shall at least be removed from the lead and preferably from the entire article.

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

I accept your reasoning and will not oppose your removal of the sentence ("Today, naturopathy is practiced primarily ...") and the ref in both places where the sentence is used. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, thanks for your coaching and thanks for your agreement. For your information, the prevalence of naturopathy in the US is 0.3%, while it is about 3-4% in German culture countries, according to national statistic sources. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Lets address the second point. 25% of the lead is dedicated to details concerning only the USA, while the USA population is less then 5% of world population, while USA is only one out of 20 countries where English is a national language. I see it as a clear USA bias. The content of the paragraph is not key for understanding what naturopathy is about from a global point of view. This paragraph shall not be included in the lead, but remain in the chapter 4.1 about North America. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

The lead must be based on the content of the article, not on any realities "out there" in the world. To fix any USA bias, add more material and sourcing for other countries and cultures. That's how we build the encyclopedia. Also please add those statistics you mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, I do not contest the fact that the lead must be based on the content. I am wondering what makes this paragraph intrinsically so interesting that it deserves to pop up in the lead. What are the WP criteria for being in the lead ? This paragraph is an insignificant detail about administrative issues concerning a tiny percentage of the world population. From an international reader point of view, this is a very strong Anglo-American bias. There is enough space in Chapter 4.1 for it. What about the other 200 countries on this planet ? Do they also deserve a space in the lead for their national particularism ? How large could be the lead ? (Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

I don't have any particular burden for keeping that (3rd) paragraph in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, do you have any particular burden if I remove it ? In order to understand your point of view, may I ask if you are an Anglo-American citizen ? I am not (that must have been obvious so far). (Paulmartin357 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm okay with you removing it. I'm an American, but have spent most of my adult life in Europe and most of my young childhood in Asia. The content in question was not added by myself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problem fixed

I am trying to fix a problem with the Naturopathy article because of people just reverting edits that were meant for fixing a NPOV problem.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finally coming here and Talking. NPOV doesn't mean what you think it means. Please actually read WP:NPOV, and in particular the section WP:PSCI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PSCI DOES NOT APPLY to naturopathy because all the claims behind naturopathy are mostly scientific facts.-- 67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are asserting that. However, the article presents many reliable sources (as defined in WP:MEDRS) that contradict your assertion. WP content is based on reliable sources (which for health content, are defined in MEDRS), not on assertions of editors. If you don't understand that please read WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, which are WP policy. That is how we do things in Wikipedia. (and btw, making your assertion bold, all-caps, and red-colored doesn't add validity to it.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have links to peer-reviewed papers that identify and study our "special vital energy" and its healing properties? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN and Jytdog, this special vital energy you are talking about is basically your immune system. Now, it's my turn to fix the WP:NPOV problem on this exact article.

Please heed what NeilN and Jytdog are saying, they are correct. Do you have any peer reviewed articles that support your position at all? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And you can tell the state of a person's immune system by looking in their eyes. Very scientific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's Energy (esotericism) which is yet another pseudoscientific concept. AadaamS (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by "vital energy fields" is immune systems, with immune cells INCLUDED. -- 207.241.247.150 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)