Talk:Complementary medicine

message: * Complementary and alternative medicine -- An extensive set of definitions, contemporary usage  of CAM, as well as the branches of CAM per the NCCAM classification system.
** It is a top-level, umbrella, or parent article.  Top-level articles always present a broad overview of the topic without getting bogged down in details that are covered in the sub-topic articles per the rules of good hypertext document design.
*** Article cleanup and development for any specific branch of CAM belongs on the respective articles.
*** Criticism, Effectiveness, etc should be mention if at all by referring to the respective sub-section of the respective articles that covers those sub-topics. Skeptics really need to bone up on how to write a well designed hypertext document.
** Alternative medicine -- The pro or con debate or everything negative about practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. The practice of alternative medicine is illegal in many jurisdictions.
*** When not inappropriately used as slang, it is a low-level or sub-topic article.  World class encyclopedias like Wikipedia always should stress the correct definitions of terms over their slang usage.
*** The professional practice of alternative medicine by non-physicians consists mostly of Alternative Medical Systems.  These are the schools of health care that are currently competing with medicine, as a replacement.
** Complementary medicine -- Everything positive and negative about practices that are are used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine. There is no debate taking place on this article, since by definition complementary medicine is both legal and a recognized branch of medicine per the medical boards of the respective jurisdictions of where it is legally practiced. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics of the respective articles 

message: I placed the tag there for several reasons. Firstly I disagree with this statment on two grounds "As physicians are using complementary medicine in their daily medical practice, calling what they do as being alternative and outside of medicine is simply no longer correct". There is a push towards evidence-based medicine in medical practice. Giving a treatment that is not evidence based when there are evidence supported treatments available puts doctors at professional and, in some places legal, risk. It does not turn a treatment from being alternative to being conventional/complementary. Only evidence can do that. Secondly are more doctors doing it? There is no reference for this.
Then there is another issue which is somewhat related to the disputed title, "The new practice of complementary medicine shields physicians from disciplinary action in many different jurisdictions for unprofessional conduct or failure to practice medicine in an acceptable manner as long as board specific practice requirements are satisfied and the therapies utilized do not present "a safety risk for the patient that is unreasonably greater that the conventional treatment for the patient's medical condition." This is a Texas view. This is not a worldwide view and probably not even a USA wide view. Also the article forgot to cite this "the practice rules for integrative and complementary medicine does not protect physicians against liability for knowingly misrepresenting their experience with alternative therapies or promising particular results." so basically physicians can give a treatment but they have to point out there is no evidence that it works. This "Whether conventional treatment options were discussed." also suggests doctors should be offering patients conventional treatments first. It should also be considered that this is a legal reference and does not represent the opinion of any medical body. Then there is the issue that all of this has little relevance to the title and cannot support the claim that "Calling it "alternative" is no longer correct". The final nail in the coffin is the fact that article itself does not support the distinction between complementary and alterantive medicine making statements such as "Many alternative medicine therapies are considered holistic..."
In short I think the section should be removed and the article should be merged with alternative medicine JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I totally disagree.  And, I will probably address all points that are addressable before today is over. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I inserted a reliable source and the information from that source, altered the title. The section still supports the opinion that the term "complementary" is more correct, but in a different way (patient use as opposed to doctor prescription). Since I agree with most of my own edits I removed the tag. If anyone disputes my changes and wants to reinsert the tag they may do soJamesStewart7 (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed section reasoning

message: Readers maybe interested in this new article published today in the UK  showing the UK government's plans to regulate Alt med. It also contains some interesting current data about alt med in the UK. Peter morrell 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. The key section, in terms of whether to merge the various alt/comp articles, is this one: Both alternative and complementary approaches to medicine — when a therapy is used as an alternative to conventional medicine and when it is used in conjunction with it — will be covered by the new regulator, although treatment without consideration of mainstream medicine is likely to come under greater scrutiny. Clearly, and as the article recognises, alt med and comp med are not the same thing. Vitaminman 08:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and another!  Peter morrell 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Times article

message: John Gohde are you trying to tell us that the POV of the mind-body intervention section has been distorted because we decided that the disucssion of the efficacy of specific treatments is better placed in articles about the treatments themselves? I really don't say that this is the case. It would be distorted if we put this information in there as the article would have to point out RS statements for ineffective mind-body interventions. As of now, the efficacy of all specific mind-body interventions is not mentioned. I could see a case if we pointed out all the treatments that did not work but refused to include all the treatments that did but that really isn't the case here is it? JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited?

message: Changes discussed at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine#Boldly merged where no merge has gone before  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldly merged where no merge has gone before 

message: So no one, no scientists, real medical professionals and so forth has any problem with the idea of "Complementary medicine"? --192.94.73.4 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: Move uncited POV & OR text here for discussion: The expressions complementary medicine and alternative medicine are not used to describe different methods, only to describe the different settings in which the same alternative methods are often used.  This assertion is different (more restrictive) than the NCCAM answer, below, and contradicts the reality of closely related therapies that physiologically are necessarily different between complementary and alternative versions as I have discussed at Talk:CAM several times. 
From NCCAM, "CAMbasics: What is CAM?":
Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other?
Yes, they are different.
* Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapyA therapy in which the scent of essential oils from flowers, herbs, and trees is inhaled to promote health and well-being. to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.
* Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor.
I think that several historical notes need to be added here, too. "Complementary medicine" goes back more than 15 years and tended to imply some distinction of medical or scientific acceptability that has now shifted more to "integrative medicine", as more diverse practices are being allowed or embraced.  
And yes, I accidently missed the "Preview" button and needed to re-sign in.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: improvements for content consistency

message: Andrew Vickers, "Clinical review: Recent advances Complementary medicine," BMJ 2000;321(7262):683 (16 September), some discusion letters, identifies potential academic sources with more CAM side b/g e.g. Peter Morrell
*Hoffer A. Healing Schizophrenia. Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments. CCNM Press (July 1, 2004)
*Hoffer A. Healing Children's Attention & Behavior Disorders: Complementary Nutritional & Psychological Treatments. CCNM Press (July 1, 2004)
*Hoffer A. Pauling Dr. Linus: Healing Cancer: Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments. CCNM Press (July 1, 2004)
*Hoffer A. Misconduct in High Places; Freedom to Practice Complementary Medicine Gaining Momentum. J of Orthomolecular Medicine, 8:67-68, 1993. (No known electronic link)
*Hoffer A. Integrative, Complementary Treatment Options for Cancer with Orthomolecular Medicine--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: working on potential new sources

message: This reversion has not been discussed here, and it has been clearly discussed in the presence of Fyslee at the Talk:CAM page. (1)A correct formulation must address facts that do not fit the statement. (2) Further, an issue that probably does need more discussion is "non-conventional" vs "altrernative". Many complementary treatments may not be alternative treatements - such as old treatments no longer taught in med school, not advertised or supported by marketing, that was "forgotten" after 10, 20, 50 yrs despite meeting the clinical and/or scientific standards of the day but whose folio has not been updated to current new treatment regulatory standards - methods so unfamiliar they are simply non-conventional. 
(3) Double poisoning: The sentence placement also seems to dismiss the "Complementary medicine" article, as "never mind it's all (bogus) alternative medicine anyway" as does the text.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reading alot more into it than intended. It's a simple explanation that helps readers understand. That's it. Now as to whether "unconventional" should be used, well that happens to be one of the words often used in definitions of "alternative". Hmmm. I just don't see the problem, and I doubt readers will either, since this is a special interpretation based on some personal way you are thinking. -- Fyslee / talk 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have simply pointed out the need for precision in wording, applicability, and placement to avoid the error of overgeneralization.  I have previously shown real world examples.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is page editing going on, by the way, on pages that are supposed to be about to merge? Redheylin (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaccurate formulation 

message: There is a difference, in science and by health care organizations and governmental agencies that separates CM from AM from IM and TM.  A redirect to alt-med is misleading as a) CM and AM have different acceptances by scientists, governments and insurance companies.  CM has an established body of literature with plausible biological rationales.  Not all CAM professions and interventions are equivalent.  These differences should be noted as IM>CM>AM. DVMt (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the same thing, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources state they are different, specifically relating to levels of evidence of effectiveness and safety. see NCCAM .  DVMt (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to alt-med