Talk:Alternative medicine

1. Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category

Wiki Education assignment: Anthropology of Happiness

— Assignment last updated by KMurray04 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Article seems quite biased

This article is exceedingly heavy on the POV that all alternative medicine is "quackery", and some sort of scam as compared to modern patent medicine. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to try to maintain a NPOV? Most of "modern medicine" is based on isolating the testable active constituents of traditional/folk medicine, synthesizing similar molecules, testing them for comparable activity, patenting them, and proceeding to claim they are safe and effective, while as the same time claiming that the original folk medicine is ineffective, or worse yet, dangerous. It's a matter of perspective which one is truly intending to take advantage of the patient. Thoric (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is biased for mainstream science. For each alt-med remedy which gets turned into a mainstream medicine, "Big Pharma" has to research 9999 alt-med remedies which are dead ends. Alt-med is dangerous especially for making people forgo effective treatment.

E.g. TCM says boil Artemisia. What does boiling do? It destroys the active ingredient.

Besides, harvesting Artemisia is an awfully inefficient way of getting the substance needed for producing artemisinin. A GMO yeast does the job much better than harvesting the plant. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a perennial complaint, and the answer hasn't changed all of a sudden. Editors who want to complain should look through the talk archives first. There is no need to continue this talk section any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The current article fails to maintain a clear distinction between what is evidential (empirically supported) and what is merely conventional (institutionally accepted), conflating the two in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Use of judgmental terms like “quackery” and generalized framing of all “alt-med” as dangerous contradict WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:TONE. Specific modalities supported by credible, peer-reviewed sources are treated dismissively or not at all, contrary to WP:DUE. This issue deserves serious review—not just archived deflection—and should be revisited with policy adherence, not personal bias. I propose reopening the discussion with evidence-weighted distinctions and NPOV-compliant language. Thoric (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is not evidence-based, by definition (as this article explains, with great sourcing). It's an alternative to mainstream medicine. When sold, it's quackery (also by definition). Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion you propose should start with you bringing some WP:MEDRS sources that demonstrate the accepted efficacy of the particular brand of ALT-MED (woo) that you think we have been unfair to in our assessment of wooness. Hint - wooists have been trying to do this since wikipedia began, and have failed with great spectacularity and ribaldry from the peanut gallery. Roxy the dog 18:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. To clarify: I’m not arguing for pseudoscience or fringe theories. I’m pointing out that some practices categorized here as “alternative” (e.g., herbalism, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda) have peer-reviewed support for specific modalities—including Cochrane and JAMA reviews—and are still broadly labeled “quackery” without distinction. This conflates institutional non-acceptance with lack of evidence, in conflict with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:FRINGE. The tone also violates WP:TONE, as “quackery” is inherently non-neutral. The core issue isn’t promotion, it’s compliance with policy and encyclopedic standards. Thoric (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, bring us sources to see, not just mention what you think they say with authority. It may help you to read WP:MEDRS as I already told you. Roxy the dog 18:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here are some WP:MEDRS qualified pubmud sources supporting things classified by this article as "quackery":

• 2010. Effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression.
• 2013. Yoga for low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.
• 2014. Peppermint oil for IBS: systematic review and meta-analysis.
• 2014. Meditation programs for stress and well-being: systematic review.
• 2016. Meta-analysis on St. John’s wort in depression therapy compared to SSRIs.
• 2018. Acupuncture for chronic pain: updated meta-analysis.
• 2019. Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
• 2020. Acupuncture vs. drug prophylaxis for migraine.
• 2021. A systematic review and meta-analysis of Ayurvedic herbal preparations for hypercholesterolemia.
• 2022. The efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
• 2022. Effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic medicines in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus management.
• 2023. Yoga for major depressive disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.

These are all WP:MEDRS-compliant, PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses that support the efficacy of practices currently generalized as "quackery" by this article. Dismissing these therapies wholesale contradicts WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DUE, which require that significant viewpoints supported by reliable secondary sources be represented proportionally. This is not about promoting unproven claims — it's about correcting a structural bias in the article that conflates non-conventional with non-evidential, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Thoric (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Either out-of-date, primary studies, not altmed or in dodgy journals (e.g. WP:MDPI). Some of the stuff you posted and hastily deleted was better, like reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The reason for such a mess (?)

I defend that "Alternative Medicine" should not extend further than a very short, blunt, simple article constrained within the framework of semantics, as it's lack of epistemic authority is insurmountable. The amount of content in this article appears to be directly related to its divergence from Wikipedia's purpose or standards. I'm too much of a beginner editor, perhaps I shouldn't even be in an article's Talk page...but where are the administrators? (Please, don't ban me.) Leuzim (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ADMIN role is not to deal with article content, but with editor behavior. There are probably several of them that have this article on their watchlist. On WP, the article content is not constrained by semantics, but by the topic's coverage in WP:RS, preferably academic ones for a topic like this. And there are tons of those, so Category:Alternative medicine has a lot of stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I appreciate your clarification, still I don't have enough brain juice to visualize this particular article heading to a consistent, unbiased encyclopedic entry. I believe that the only consensus here is that, although having an extensive wardrobe, Medicine is unable to attend a (scientifically-)rigorours dress code party. Leuzim (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That's pretty obscure to those of us who seek clarity. I have no idea at all what you mean. Roxy the dog 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog My point is that a great deal of medical sciences' state of affairs lacks epistemic rigour, therefore I believe "Alternative Medicine" might not be a viable article, which of course doesn't affect "Alternative Medicine" as a category. Leuzim (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Nope, you still aren't making sense. This article is about Alt Med, so I'm not sure what your opinion on medical sciences has to do with it. Not a viable article??? It looks pretty good to me. - Roxy the dog 16:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Scientific Method entails consistency. As to how (or whether) Medicine relates to the previous statement, I was honestly unaware of my mistake. I hope you accept my apology. Leuzim (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog I concede that I might also be wrong in assuming that the content in Alternative Medicine should be necessarily related to the Medicine article. Leuzim (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

We've all been new editors, at one time or another. I'll try to explain it this way. Wikipedia bases article content on what sources say, not on what editors think. There are lots of sources that describe the topic of alternative medicine in the way that this article does, and we just follow the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish I sincerely don't have an opinion on this topic. I'm no more than slightly familiar with any non-mainstream healthcare claims. All I tried to call attention to was either the possibility of admittedly fuzzy concepts (from within the very same source, for instance), or the possibility of unreliable information provided by reliable sources. I strive to understand how should I measure "appropriateness" (is that even a word?) in order to be a contributor rather than a nuisance. Leuzim (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Well first you could start by making sense - not in vaguely describing "there is a problem", but rather - by describing what precisely the problem is. That a concept is not epistemically rigorous doesn't mean it doesn't merit a Wikipedia-entry. This article is about alternative medicine, and the article does a pretty good job at explaining the epistemic shortcomings of the concept and why it is flawed. CFCF (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Any source can be wrong, become outdated or whatever. WP-articles can be even wronger than its sources for a bunch of reasons. This is noted in plenty of media, Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Reliability of Wikipedia etc.

You can make suggestions like "I suggest removing this paragraph per WP:DUE" or "I think this bit can be moved to the corresponding sub-article" etc. The more specific, the better chance people can give a constructive response. But "very short, blunt, simple article constrained within the framework of semantics" doesn't help me at all.

You might prefer Googles AI-summary:

"Alternative medicine is a broad term encompassing a variety of medical modalities. Tradition typically supports these and is seldom taught in a Western medical setting. Such modalities range from the ancient Eastern practices of acupuncture and Tai chi to herbal medicine, Reiki, chiropractic manipulation, and more." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That however is false. CFCF (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)