Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive 5

message: "Nutritional supplements often cost less than pharmaceuticals." has a number of issues. (1) My original point is that regulation can bring vast cost increases (retail prices as well as manufacturing, support, & mktg costs) with it. (2) The stmt's veracity at retail may be geographically conditional i.e. high drug costs, low cost supplements in the US may be true, but prescription priced supplements in Europe, Canada or Australia, at higher costs than US, vs lower drug costs outside the US, this statement is often false. (3) At actual manufacturing costs, this statement is probably often false. ie. 0.8 mg Baycol vs even 3 - 6 grams of cheap niacin ($0.05-$0.10 Costco retail), Baycol could have probably "won" with a lower manufacturing cost ("you", of course, would lose ;-> ).--TheNautilus 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points... I've rephrased a little, to be more clear about sourcing, but carried through the point that less regulation usually equals lower prices (U.S. compared to Europe). MastCell 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "cost"

message: Moved "alternative" here for discussion, it is already associated early on as nonexclusively complementary and alternative medicine in the second paragraph, previously part of the lede.  I don't mind recognizing that many specific recommendations of orthomed are still considered alternative by younger generations, even if many orthomed treatments may *derive* from, greatly expand upon, or parallel, much older mainstream medical research and practices, such as described in Vitamins in Medicinefree pdf (eds. 1942, 1946, 1953, 1980) with modern, much safer, more effective supplement forms and protocols (if not proven to an adversarial fault, as well as expensive "Class I" evidence). Or that some are still in the embyronic research or experimental category of medical schools.  However orthomed is by no means identically "alternative" or even "CAM", it has significant overlaps in mainstream medicine, but they are silent largely because there is not much to discuss, is there? The mainstream is slowly developing, absorbing, and modifying, many, many materials and positions used in orthomed, conveniently and about 12 - 60 years late(r), without any recognition - then it's just orthomolecular medicine in the eyes of the mainstream. In terms of conventional medicine, orthomed is unsubtantiated at the level of FDA drug trials (non-patented, -able foods also don't need advanced ) and is conjectural, experimental and/or empirical in nature. 
So let's not just throw a debatable personal opinion (too generalized a statement) in the faces of readers in the first sentence that might distract readers wrestling with what the very concept is on the first instance, or just poison the subject.  There is plenty of space below to discuss their common inheiritances and divergences.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OM is undoubtedly a form of alternative medicine, I found a reliable source on this and replaced the link (we could also cite the NIH for this link pxxii, or NCCAM link p5, or this review link). It might also be a good idea to note in the introduction that many in mainstream medicine and science regard some of these practices as forms of quackery, but I'll look for a good source for that, but noting that OM is a form of alternative medicine is the very minimum required. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "alternative"

message: Is the recent addition by User_talk:24.122.18.130 qualify as a blog under WP:EL?  Comments?Shot info 07:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, and it looks like editors on every other article he's added to agree as well.  It's a blog by a non-notable author.  It doesn't look like he even comments on the articles he links to.  He just finds articles he likes, copies the first few paragraphs from them, then links to the full article.  Certainly not a link that should be on an encyclopedia article of a topic as well-defined and stable as Orthomolecular medicine, but that could be said for much of the External links section. --Ronz 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog?

message: ::see also a similar discussion continued at Talk:Multivitamin
Moved Andrew's reference, here, for discussion. I didn't see any mention of orthomolecular medicine or OM design and this paper's presentation is greatly overweighted even if it were OM encyclopedic. Certainly not placebo controlled either. In fact I probably agree with the result of this paper, as subjects who might have strongly benefited from orthomolecular advice.  You see, I seriously doubt that any real orthomolecular advisor would have recommended the multivitamin formulas presumably involved or certain component dosages, especially with regard to iron (as well as possibly d,l alpha-tocopheryl acetate, among other questionable formulation practices for broad use).  
In orthomolecular circles, excess iron for males or various iron accumulating risks - perhaps up to 11% with the various heterozygotes, much less with prostate cancer is a big no-no, something to be minimized/optimized for the individual situation (iron management may be medically necessary for a variety of reasons) or avoided altogether. At the time of this study the primary multivitamin formulas were generic with iron (usually 9, 16 or, most common, 18mg, some non-prenatal formulas still 27+ mg!), unless specifically reduced by brand (0 to 4 mg) or segment (e.g "male" or "mature" usually costs more, even for 0 mg Fe as the only change - "iron free" usually isn't cost free). 
Also consider this 2006 NIH paper (just pulled it up) about efficacy and possible cancer benefits of multivitamins but not population significant either. 
One of the things a serious orthomolecular person is going to watch like a hawk is iron supplementation in males, especially older ones. After checking for anemia related to improper diet/digestion, folic acid, and B12, and probably not recommending the common inorganic iron forms found in many conventional multivitamin formulas if not encouraged more nutritionally.  For all the big supplements floating around, one that you will notice is the prevalence of iron free formulas in OM / megavitamin circles (for 20+ yrs), now even leaking into the conventional "male" and "mature" multivitamin formulas. Two Theragran-M (type) tablets, a type specifically referred to in the study, would deliver 54+ mg iron per day. Two generic "one-a-day" multivitamin-multiminerals under medical supervision i.e. often 36+ mg of iron ?!?  62(average), male, prostatic, presumably usually not anemic (on average) and "pregnant"???  What were some authors (not) thinking?--TheNautilus 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-orthomolecular study

message: The title of this section is potentially misleading or confusing.  Should "method" refer to the biochemical effects that given compounds have on specific physiologic states or pathologic conditions?  Should "method" refer to the method that practitioners use to come up with a given therapy?  Should "method" refer to the manner that the therapy was evaluated?
PedEye1 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method? 

message: Interested parties should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel tolerance and voice their opinion. Lumos3 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Cathcart and Bowel Tolerance articles are up for deletion 

message: This article reads like a dissertation. Cleanup is needed to make it encyclopaedic. Gordonofcartoon 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General flavour

message: I have removed the Self Published sources tag which was not supported by any discussion here. Any self published material in the references falls within WP:SELFPUB and is acceptable in this context. If I am wrong please state which items are not acceptable. Lumos3 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Published sources 

message: Move NPOV tag here for initial discussion. An anonymous IP has not discussed any disputed content, per the tag's literal wording, Please see the discussion on the talk page..{{Neutrality}) tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNautilus (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV discussion

message: I have moved this discussion of this edit to Talk: Catherine Kousmine.--TheNautilus 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kousmine

message: I have (re)moved this sentence as duplicating the *alternative* medicine point, already overstated POV since OMM has common roots in molecular medicine that is the basis of modern biomedicine, as far as acceptance and substantiation.  The QW link is actually off topic and adds no expertise. These APA authors were subsequently shown to be off in exactly the many ways Hoffer rebutted early on, just 30 years for "mainstream" to acknowledge that before a new, still lightweight, experiment began 2005. If QW's article were remotely current on OMP alone, where are the omega-3 fish oil, copper-zinc balance, amino acids, B, C & D vitamins generally discussed, among other nutrients, in the "expert" QW link?  The link is mostly offtopic because it is usually addressed as a separate topic in common applications as well as the separate article at WP, although Orthomolecular Pyschiatry is definitionally a subset of orthomed and has common nutrient bases. This addition and link is exactly one of my points about QW being promoted as a reliable source.  It isn't, remotely, unless you also think 1 is greater than 20 (a low to typical factor of misformulation, as well as other common protocol breaks BS misrepresented as "mainstream" study replication). Also it would be undue weight and poisoning the well in the lede. 
That particular QW's "sentiments" article has already been linked at appropriate places on orthomed articles, that particular link is twice in Orthomolecular Psychiatry and at least once in Megavitamin therapy.  I see the Criticism section has still has a lot of damage from earlier efforts to bring one of the medical students up to speed on orthomed issues, with several lines missing. I will have to review that area (been meaning to).--TheNautilus (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: obsolete, duplicate point, unreliable link

message: The above statements show that more V RS, precise text is needed to help clarify rampant misinformation & distortions, decades long, being repeated here.  These underlying distortions, misrepresentations and erroneous "factoids" often derive from WP recognized unreliable sources, that are also V RS noted to have severe "systematic bias".  I have added the V RS direct quote to show Pauling's intro of orthomolecular medicine in 1967. LP's 1967 introduction ties mainstream accepted "molecular medicine", that LP pioneered, to his evolution & definition of the "orthomolecular" category. Also the confusion over various (over &) megadosage (including non-OMM) related topics being synonymous with OMM continues, including with the historical dates.  I have added orthomolecular type examples, related to OMM topics of interest, dating to earlier 1906 & 1909 scientific and medical publications.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise English may not be your first language, but could you possibly rewrite this comment so that your meaning is a little clearer? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's a bit clearer, I assume when you say "the V RS direct quote", you mean a "direct quote from a reliable source"? I do sometimes find the meaning of your talk page comments very hard to grasp, this may have contributed to the misunderstandings between us in the past. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The  "Cancer Medicine" p. 76 Dekker reference is not available and will not be easily available to me and, probably, most editors. Could you excerpt the p. 76 paragraphs that refer to OMM to the new subpage that I've created, please? Thanks.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually I chose that one since it is freely-available on-line through the NCBI (Link). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the linking to the section of the book.  Linking it at the first instance would be even more appreciated. You asked what I meant by V RS. In short, the usual with more emphasis on fact checking. What are often presupposed as RS sources about CAM, especially orthomolecular medicine, despite the obvious economic conflicts of interests of many of the supposed authorities, is that their statements are often flatly contradicted by WP:V facts. Often fact checking is needed to weed out, at least, the most blatant forms of bias and error by these supposed authorities or authoritative statements on orthomolecular medicine.  Especially when the "expert sources" distort, insinuate, omit, misstate, etc the OMM definitions, practices and hypotheses so badly, or that they generalize about their own "mistakes", while they seem to trend heavily into scientific misconduct.  WP:V & Science cuts both ways, and we need to discuss some of the recent references that you've given in this vein.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Whose? Which part? There are lots of issues here.  The clear bias & error discussions immediately above are traceable to sources where their complaints are also WP:V (e.g. "experts" WP:V sandbagged experiments in 2-3 serious, hard to AGF or remain RS, ways). As I said, including the AMA ref and the verbiage, especially in the lede, appears SYNTH or OR (or off topic). You might consider reviewing the Talk page and archives, por favor.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your comment here is almost indecipherable, please try to express your ideas more clearly, or we will be unable to consider your arguments. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking Fill to clarify his previous comment , consider confounded "mainstream" sources' bias, and review the OMM Talk archives on V, RS & "science" issues that bedevil this article.  Although I may need to precede long sentences with shorter summaries, you seem to have difficulty with complex subjects & sentences in this unfamiliar area.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I honestly do my best with your comments, but what you might mean by phrases such as e.g. "experts" WP:V sandbagged experiments in 2-3 serious, hard to AGF or remain RS, ways is very hard to discern. I could try to guess, but that will only lead to misunderstandings. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequent misconceptions (cont'd) & V RS text

message: I think this talk page needs to have no more posts today.  We're making no progress.  Can we agree to leave the article alone for a day or two, and then try again from a fresh perspective?  If so, post here, and I'll archive this 175 kb talk page tomorrow.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to be off here for two days.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Take a break