Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Archive 1

message: I'd say that the study of such factors and their incidence on psychiatric symptoms and syndrommes is the reponsibility of Psychiatrists in general:
* They know about genetic, metabolic, endocrine, immunologic and toxic influences on psychiatric symptomatology - they are trained medical doctors.
* Levels of vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, other cations and anions, hormones, immunoglobulins and glucose are ordinarily measured by medical doctors and the correction of any abnormal values is a set of medical procedures that any doctor, including a psychiatrist, should be able to perform.
* Most medical doctors undergo training in toxicology that enable them to learn about herbicides, pesticides, petrochemicals and other toxins, measure them and correct imbalances.
* SLE, among other immunological disease, is a known cause of psychiatric symptomatology (i.e., "lupic psychosis").
Besides, the article is terribly written.  Since I'm not a Psychiatrist, I'd rather not work on it (I'd probably delete it).  --Lmsilva 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it any different from traditional Psychiatry?

message: This article is one-sided and needs substantial cleanup; one reading it would never know that orthomolecular psychiatry is generally and rightfully considered quackery. -- FRCP11 08:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the article needs cleanup.  -- Samir   धर्म 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You folks obviously agree with QW sentiments but do you actually have any knowledge about this subject or its history? (I have never personally met a doctor that even knew well/used a 50 year old conventional medicine overlap with orthomolecular medicine even though it is obviously cheaper, in many, perhaps most cases, more effective and scientifically documented - even the pharmas have grudgingly started using it to bolster their not so effective products). Orthomolecular medicine & psych are in fact based on an evolving natural biochemical/biological scientific approach, financed on a shoestring and a lot of sweat, that is directly counterposed to pharma commercial interests and pejoratives.--69.178.41.55 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am leaving the cleanup tag but pitching FRCP11's tagging, see tag Talk at npov tag Orhtomolecular medicine and Megavitamin therapies as well as "Dumped for cause".--69.178.41.55 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: An anon IP added the following to the page:
*There has been research into the link between the protein beta-casomorphin-7, found in milk, and the symptoms of schizophrenia and autism. A small study from the University of Florida  examined the effects of a milk free diet on children with schizophrenia and autism who had high amounts of a metabolite of milk protein in their bloodstreams. Of 81 children with autism or schizophrenia, 95% showed 100 times the normal level of this protein in their bloodstream and urine. When these children were placed on a milk free diet 80% saw a remission of their symptoms. This, along with the link between gluten and schizophrenia opens the doorway to highly effective dietary treatments for a subset of schizophrenic patients. R. Malcolm Privette, Dr. Zhongjie Sun, Dr. J. Robert Cade,(2006)
Checking out the reference, it is to a popular publication from 1999 that discusses preliminary results.  Unless the scientific reference in a peer-reviewed journal can be provided, it's pretty much out in my mind.  WLU 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon addition 

message: Modern medicine sees all mental illness including, deriving only from the brain - primarily from neurotransmitter imbalance and nothing else - the truth is that in many cases there is often an underlining physical cause (eg: infection, celiac disease, etc) and this is often never investigated,  and so its no wonder today we are faced with the current tragedy that the Mentally ill die 25 years earlier, on average!. 
We have found many interesting medical studies such as:
'Enterocolitis in children with Autism'
'an autopsy of 82 patients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Gastritis was found in 50%, enteritis in 85% and colitis in 92%.' read more...
'99% certain of a genetic association between schizophrenia and coeliac disease'
Gut and mental illness  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.235.237 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam.  Won't go on the page as a reference or link.  WLU 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative mental illness treatment 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The scientific support passage needs to be clearer on the fact that Wilson's disease (the acknowledged copper accumulation disease) is always accompanied by liver damage, whereas histapenia with high copper is not.
Unlike Pfeiffer, Bush has not been ostracized.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to make the link between the two any clearer.  Without a referenced link between the two that's getting closer to original research.  The point isn't to prove that AD and copper are linked (that's reported here, not proven, per WP:V and WP:NOT), that they're linked or not linked, the point should be a description of orthomolecular psychiatry.  Right now the problem is that Bush isn't linked by sources to OMM/OMP, but the section portrays it as if this were so (this also happens with the schizophrenia info).  None of this is explicit evidence that OMM/OMP are valid lines of inquiry, they're just areas where scientific studies appear to agree with the theories of OMM/OMP.  Admittedly it's a judgement call, but I think it looks like, if not a textbook synth, then a very suspect one.  Are we mutually satisfied enough with the current version that we want to ask for a 3O or did you still want to make some tweaks?  From my end, I think it's as good as it's going to get.  WLU (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a couple problems with this phrasing - first, there's no citation for Pfeiffer saying so (easily fixed with a citation) and the relevant citation would need specific mention of Wilson's disease (less easily fixed if Pfeiffer didn't mention Wilson's).  WLU (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some re-working of the content, I'm now going to go forward with a RFC on this aspect of OMP - the link between copper, alzheimers and OMP.  I still think it's OR, but let's get an outside opinion on the matter.  WLU (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashley Bush's research and histapenia with high copper 

message: The section on current research describes scientific support for some ideas within Orthomolecular psychiatry, but references for the supported ideas do not specifically refer to orthomolecular psychiatry.  There is disagreement on if this is a valid use of references, or represents a synthesis or other type of original research.  
===Comment in response to the RfC===
I agree that the section on Scientific support is Original Research. My problem is that it takes the findings of Ashley Bush to be a vindication of Carl Pfeiffer's theory. This might be more believable if there were citations both ways (i.e. the OMM people were following Bush's work, and evolving their own theory as a result, or if Bush were citing OMM and using some of their thinking). I haven't seen any data presented for either connection. It's like saying (a) Bush worked on metals, Pfeiffer worked on metals, to they must be colleagues, (b) both scientists faced early opposition, so their scientific viewpoints are analogous. Neither (a) nor (b) is correct, so far as I can tell. The suggestion that these scientists are connected appears fanciful. Anyone is welcome to search for citations to show that OMM influenced Bush, but I imagine there are none. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is where it would go, and the RFC hasn't been answered yet.  You're not really neutral given our previous discussion on my talk page, so I'd say the RFC should come from someone else.  If the RFC keeps dragging, we could ask some admins for their opinions as well, or post this on talk:OR.  WLU (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would yield to more experienced people on whether my participation is proper.  The link to the RfC that you provided over at the official RFC page has a non-working section link on my browser. Isn't the light bulb the place where other people (besides me) ought to put their comments? EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, sometimes this takes a bit of time for other editors to get to.  Plus, it's the holidays.  The RFC page link sort-of works, taking you to the talk page but not the relevant section.  I'm going to try tweaking it, see if a bot smacks me down.  I still would say that for both appearances and reality, the comment should come with someone who's not been involved - otherwise it can look like you'd made up your mind before the comment was requested.  WLU (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried tweaking the template, hopefully it'll help.  I don't think I'm supposed to link a section heading in a section heading.  WLU (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the section on Current research original research? 

message: I agree that the section on Scientific support is Original Research. My problem is that it takes the findings of Ashley Bush to be a vindication of Carl Pfeiffer's theory. This might be more believable if there were citations both ways (i.e. the OMM people were following Bush's work, and evolving their own theory as a result, or if Bush were citing OMM and using some of their thinking). I haven't seen any data presented for either connection. It's like saying (a) Bush worked on metals, Pfeiffer worked on metals, to they must be colleagues, (b) both scientists faced early opposition, so their scientific viewpoints are analogous. Neither (a) nor (b) is correct, so far as I can tell. The suggestion that these scientists are connected appears fanciful. Anyone is welcome to search for citations to show that OMM influenced Bush, but I imagine there are none. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is where it would go, and the RFC hasn't been answered yet.  You're not really neutral given our previous discussion on my talk page, so I'd say the RFC should come from someone else.  If the RFC keeps dragging, we could ask some admins for their opinions as well, or post this on talk:OR.  WLU (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would yield to more experienced people on whether my participation is proper.  The link to the RfC that you provided over at the official RFC page has a non-working section link on my browser. Isn't the light bulb the place where other people (besides me) ought to put their comments? EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, sometimes this takes a bit of time for other editors to get to.  Plus, it's the holidays.  The RFC page link sort-of works, taking you to the talk page but not the relevant section.  I'm going to try tweaking it, see if a bot smacks me down.  I still would say that for both appearances and reality, the comment should come with someone who's not been involved - otherwise it can look like you'd made up your mind before the comment was requested.  WLU (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried tweaking the template, hopefully it'll help.  I don't think I'm supposed to link a section heading in a section heading.  WLU (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment in response to the RfC

message: I'm re-ordering per the MOS (see standard appendicies) and trimming the grossly bloated further reading section (see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links).  The section should include the most relevant, and be kept to a minimum.  Further, it should related to orthomolecular psychiatry specifically, not sub-topics liek alzheimer's. Also, it should be alphabetized.  I also moved the links to treatment centers to the EL section, and deleted the EL to Pauling's paper - that should be a source, not an external link.  I've also commented out the info about Kidder's role in the Kent treatment facility - per WP:BLP, that kind of information should be sourced either to Kidder herself (including a blog if she's got it) or a reliable source - a news paper, magazine, major organization, something like that.  WLU (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of MOS, what would you say to putting up a first section of "introduction".  It would move that bothersome contents box above the main text, making it clearer and easier to follow.  The box is in an unnatural place.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's 100% against the MOS actually - the lead should not have any section headings above it.  As far as an 'intro' section, what would you put in it that's not duplicating the lead?  There's manipulations that the wikisoftware can make to move the TOC around - it's actually in the standard position.  The page may look odd to you because it lacks pictures and/or an infobox, but I'm not sure what would work.  Perhaps a pic of Pauling or Pfieffer.  WLU (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia specifically doesn't use an "introduction", but a WP:LEAD, and they aren't totally identical. -- Fyslee / talk 09:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS and further reading, other stuff 

message: Just way too short.  Much of the criticisms section could be moved here, and I think it should be.  WP:CRITICISM provides some guidance, but I haven't given it a thorough read. WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This will be complex to cover well and NPOV. Hoffer et al and Pfeiffer's history from ca 1950 to 1967 are reflective of conflicts (of interests) in the mainstream between the old guard with psychodynamic and more invasive procedures vs the emerging (and diverging) molecular, biochemical approaches, one with the fast acting patented neuroleptics, the other with still evolving, cheap chemically, expensive diagnostically, more complex, more fundamental biochemical-nutrional approaches (OMP related).  After the neuroleptic crowd vanquishes its older rivals, it turns to the still immature field and utterly trashes it (in retrospect Hoffer's criticisms have panned out). Between ca 1968 - 1972 is a cold war, and in 1973-1975 the rupture is complete with relatively few overt OMP authors in mainstream journals after that, Hoffer in CMAJ occasionally and Pfeiffer et al doing somewhat better Biological Psychology and some other mainstream journals.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, complex doesn't mean not worth doing though!  Write it and cite it.  Remember to be WP:NPOV.  WLU (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orthomolecular_psychiatry#History|History]]

message: This title encapsulates three separate ideas.  They should be split into three sections or subsections, and each expanded separately.  I've already moved some text from the specific treatments, but this should be refined. A brief summary of each condition that OMP has treatments for looks like a good idea to me.  A section called 'approach' or 'paradigm' would be good here as well - the talk page has had comments that indicate OMP tries for a more individualized approach, and objects to conventional treatment and research approaches.  This should be sourced, summarized, and the 'why' made clear.  Edelman is referenced a lot here, there should be page numbers.
Bipolar and schizophrenia are two different conditions, so there's no reason to put them into a single sub-section.  And what's a HOD test?  
Depression looks SYNTHy.  Reference 14 discusses the difference between normal and depressed levels of plasma tryptophan, sourced to Pfeiffer.  There should be a page number for such a specific finding; if Pfeiffer is a tertiary source and cites a study, then the primary source is preferred.  The use of SSRI's by mainstream psychiatry is dangling and looks odd, it gave me a 'so what' moment - is someone trying to be subtle, has the link between the two been erased, or is it just unrelated?  The publication of a study by the Lancet more than 20 years ago doesn't vindicate Pfeiffer, but that looks like what it's trying to say (more of my OR/SYNTH bugbear); has this been bourne out by later studies?  If a study is going to be cited, is there a more recent one that can be found?
I'm still not thrilled by the placement or wording of the Treatment centers section (not to mention I used 'centers' rather than 'center', but it invites further notable ones to be added).  WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HOD is the Hoffer - Osmond Diagnostic perceptual (distortions) test they developed and used 50+ years ago to split out their specific treatable group from the then broad schizophrenias of the day into something that more closely resembles the mainstream grouping of acute schizophenia today.  Apparently psychiatrists of the 1950s and 60s did not formally differentiate various schizophrenic disorders well. Perhaps one of the big reasons the 1973 APA test had all those other types of patients contaminating (dominating) the results.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved your comment.  HOD should either have it's own page, or be spelled out.  I'll put in the full text, it'd be nice to have a link, external or wiki, to either a descrption, or better yet a journal article describing it and its use.  WLU (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've trimmed the schizophrenia section in this section, and removed bipolar from the subsection title since it wasn't mentioned.  I've also commented out the 'ongoing research on niacin flush' bit, because it was sourced to a webcache rather than current page; I think the use of the niacin flush is still viable, and appears to have some ongoing research or interest , but medical journals are better if possible.  Note that the above page appears to be teh personal page of one of the members, not an official page, here is the main page for niacin.  Also, this appears to be a company (?) and companies aren't reliable sources for much beyond that they sell their products.  If they publish results, those are of course suitable.  WLU (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orthomolecular_psychiatry#Diagnoses.2C_treatments.2C_and_scope|Diagnoses, treatments, and scope]]

message: Obviously my concerns about OR still stand.  I like the lead, but that's 'cause I think I wrote it.
For food allergies - there are three sources - Edelman, Pfeiffer and Kalaydjian.  Kalaydjian, I notice, discusses only those patients with schizophrenia who have celiac disease.  Edelman and Pfeiffer are both books, with no page references.  I've no objection to them being used as references, but do they discuss only the intersection between celiac disease and schizophrenia as Kalaydjian does?  Do Edelman and Pfeiffer discuss a subset of patients, or all patients with schizophrenia?  
For copper - same concerns as before.  No more specifically, Pfeiffer talked about a type of schizophrenia and dementia (which he called histapenia apparently).  Schizophrenia and dementia are not the same thing as Alzheimer's disease, which is what Bush discusses (speaking of Bush, it'd be good to have primary sources here as well as the USA Today article).  The other mental illness related to copper in this section is depression.  There are four conditions here linked to copper.  Copper#Toxicity lists Wilson's disease, and symptoms similar to arsenic poisoning, listing organ failure.  Psychiatric symptoms appear to be limted to headaches, delerium, and for chronic poisoning, there are lots of cancers, but no psychological signs or symptoms.  Chronic copper poisoning (under toxicity) appears to be rare and does not appear to involve psychological symptoms.  This page links it only to possibly reduced intelligence.  Wilson's disease apparently produces symptoms like Parkinson's, but it also lists "early dementia, mood disorders or psychosis and signs of asterixis (a flapping tremor of the hands)".  Obviously dementia, mood disorders and psychosis show overlap between the symptoms of schizophrenia and alzheimers.  I'm concerned about the portayal of orthomolecular psychiatry as vindicated by these findings when the support is more for isolated causes for single diseases than clear support for an entire (controversial) approach.  
Basically, the involvement of copper in schizophrenia/dementia/hisapenia a la Pfeiffer needs to be clarified.  Research on copper poisoning and alzheimer's needs to be clarified.  The statement "..a development that does not prove Pfeiffer's histapenia claims" just looks weird; I understand that it's an attempt to avoid or preclude any OR/SYNTHy concerns, but as far as WP:OR is concerned, I think removal is more appropriate.  WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orthomolecular_psychiatry#Current_research|Current research]]

message: My only problem with this section is the involvement of Kidder with the public clinic.  This should be easy to verify from Kidder's home page, or the clinic's home page.  Other than that, Vonnegut neeeds a page number.  WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just mark Mark V. ({cn}} if it really bothers you or consider looking it up yourself (you may be better situated in a larger univ library), it's a slow to go to remote libraries and dig this out, that certainly doesn't help the energy crisis.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think the MV reference is critical, it'd just be nice.  Incidentally, I spent some time looking for a reference to Margot Kidder helping start up a clinic in Kent, and found nothing.  Even what I believe is the clinic itself (website) doesn't seem to discuss her.  Per WP:BLP, I'll remove it, though if anyone can find a solid referernce it can obviously be re-added.  WLU (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orthomolecular_psychiatry#Notable_patients|Notable patients]]

message: I got hold of a 1998 edition of Edelman's book at the Boston Public Library and will be able to add page numbers for the individual citations soon. There is nothing in the 1998 version about Mark Vonnegut. Does anyone reading this have the 2001 edition at their fingertips?  That is the one included in our reference list (ref #9). Curiously, the Edelman book is not widely held in East Coast US libraries, as verified through worldcat.com. Though it's an enthusiastic work, Edelman's book is well organized and has a lot of references. If nobody has access to a version that actually mentions Mark Vonnegut I think that sentence should be removed from the article, since that is currently the only source for our comment about his use of the method.  EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can AGF that it's in the 2001 edition for now.  Note that if the information in the article is sourced to Edelman, but that source cites a journal article or other source, our preferred citation is the primary one.  That is, whenever possible Edelman should be replaced by the source that Edelman herself cites.  Make sure to leave the 2001 version up in at least the Vonnegut section, I would replace the remainder with the 1998 citation :  WLU (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References that point to Eva Edelman's book 

message: Well, I was going to say that I've alerted TV, but obviously he's already here in all his terror and glory.  WLU (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a bit jet-lagged to be honest. The gluten thing was overstated, but the relationship between copper and AD is certainly a genuine area of research, although local deficiency seems a more likely hypothesis than increases in this metal. I added some citations, if anybody wants the Pdfs for full-text of these reviews just e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you satisfied that the section is now OK, or will you be making more edits or suggestions at a later date?  WLU (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It looks OK, since this is a page on the beliefs of orthomolecular psychiatry, more emphasis on these ideas than mainstream research is justified, however the mainstream research was not presented accurately in the previous version. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TimVickers 

message: Homocystine recycling depends on the enzyme 5-Methyltetrahydrofolate-homocysteine methyltransferase, which uses 5-Methyltetrahydrofolate to methylate homocystine. This substrate is a form of folic acid - vitamin B9 - not vitamin B6, which is pyridoxal phosphate. Are you sure Carl Pfeiffer used B6, and not B9, since B6 could have no effect on homocystine metabolism. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed my recollection.  Here's one of several patients who reports using B6 and not B9.  --Alterrabe (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This page also references B6.  --Alterrabe (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at that second link you provided it mentions folic acid but says not to use this as a supplement in "Histadelia". Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Folic acid is often high in histadelia, for whatever that's worth.  Eva Edelman goes into some detail as to what folic acid levels are found in histapenia and histadelia.  This site  has nice things to say about B6 and its effects on homocysteine.  Pfeiffer, by the way, was chair of the Pharmacology Dept at Emory, before he left academia to devote his life to the treatment of schizophrenics.--Alterrabe (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Homocysteine recycling

message: There is an RfC about whether this page is to be an article or a redirect. During the RfC and while this page is protected, article development can continue at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Temp. There is some discussion at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine#Proposed wording for RfC (beginning with Phil153's comment, i.e. the 5th comment) about reverting this page before the RfC is complete. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm requesting speedy deletion of the temporary page.  I was the only editor of it, and have put the content into a version of this page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary page 

message: After the close of the RfC on whether to merge with Orthomolecular medicine and the additional clarification by the closing admin, I'm reverting to article form.  See discussions in page history: Merge from Orthomolecular psychiatry Request for comment: merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry and Discussion of result of RfC on merge with Orthomolecular psychiatry (3 sections in a page history version of Talk:Orthomolecular medicine).
I'm reverting to the version of 01:17, 28 October 2008 which contains much material which was removed by ScienceApologist after his attempt to redirect in November was reverted 3 times by 2 other editors; I haven't had time to review the material yet but hope to look through this version of the article and the page history since then and consolidate the best of both along with other editors.  I suggest that discussion of content of this page be on this talk page.  ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you recreated a highly POV article.  Good job there Coppertwig. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article doesn't conform to WP:NPOV, the wikisolution is to edit it, not to eliminate it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to article form 

message: The Hoffer-Osmond diagnostic test is not recognised as such by any expert body and has not been reported as a reliable schizophrenia diagnostic. As such, it doesn't belong in the lead of this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoffer-Osmond diagnostic test