Talk:Alternative medicine

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alternative medicine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Science

Q1: Where does the statement that alternative medicine is not evidence-based or scientific come from?

A1: The source for this statement is a report produced by the National Science Foundation, which—while surveying scientific beliefs among the public—used the term "alternative medicine" to refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using the scientific method. The report went on to describe the American Medical Association definition as "neither taught widely in U.S. medical schools nor generally available in U.S. hospitals." The source is different than the definitions used by major medical bodies and its use as a primary source is not consistent with Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable medical sources, but its inclusion remains important to some and a point of contention to others.

Q2: Why don't I see lots of references in the lead?

A2: To keep the lead from looking like a jungle with all the references which are actually used, they have been hidden from view, but are visible when in the editing mode. If a reader has a serious question about the sourcing for a statement in the lead, they can start a thread on this talk page and request to see the reference(s). Then, an editor will unhide that reference for them.

Whole medical systems was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 September 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alternative medicine. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Top‑importance

	Alternative medicine is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chiropractic High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems: Systems theory High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems theory.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Old discussions at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Ayurveda#Tridosha system|doshas]] The anchor (#Tridosha system) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 15 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelica.gnlz (article contribs).

Mainstream reflects popularity not a specific medical practice

The article creates false dichotomies between broadly applied and innovative practices. No critique of pharmaceutical practices is provided (i.e., what works in highly controlled clinical trials may be far less efficacious in the "real world"). A more helpful start to this topic might first parse medical care for acute and chronic physical injury and disease, mental and behavioral trauma and progressive illness, and personalized genetic functionality and dysfunction. This said, indivifual situations might reflect a combination of physical, behavioral, and genetic issues thereby calling for a combinatorial approach. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can improve the article then find useful sources and then make use of theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cheers 22FatCats (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references will not ballance the bias in the entre. An implicitclaim is made that alternative and complementary care is ineffective. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no a priori assumption that CAM is ineffective. But if a CAM approach is shown to be effective, it is no longer CAM, it becomes mainstream medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream likr 5NP acuponcture for managing withdrawal ? An assumption must be made that a treatment may be effective before it is declared to be ineffective. There are areas of treatment where safety and egficacy have been demonstrated under controlled vonditions. Behavioral health is an underserved aspect of mainstream healthcare. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture is neither mainstream nor effective. See Acupuncture. --Hob Gadling (talk)

If you cannot improve the article within the framework of Wikipedia rules, then you cannot improve the article; you are in the wrong place and should go to a forum instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 30, 2023

Efficacy and Safety of Auricular Acupuncture for DepressionA Randomized Clinical Trial

Daniel Maurício de Oliveira Rodrigues, PhD1,2,3; Paulo Rossi Menezes, MD, PhD1; Ana Elise Machado Ribeiro Silotto, BSc1,2; et alArtur Heps, BSc1; Nathália Martins Pereira Sanches, MD4; Mariana Cabral Schveitzer, PhD5; Alexandre Faisal-Cury, MD, PhD1

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2345138. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45138 BlueSkiesRI (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the guidelines for sourcing on medical topics at WP:MEDRS. This paper does not meet that standard. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSkiesRI, that's an odd choice. It shows safety but lack of efficacy.[1] It is also not suitable here as it does not pass muster as a MEDRS source. We prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our standards are higher than those used by medical journals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The rules of evidence preclude. I am through here. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Anthropology of Happiness

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2025 and 3 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lenasotirop45 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jimmyhoban11, Elliefeuster.

— Assignment last updated by KMurray04 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]