Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Orthomolecular psychiatry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orthomolecular Psychiatry:

In 1979, orthomolecular psychiatry was defined in the Medical Journal of Australia as follows:

"Orthomolecular psychiatry is the study of the genetic, metabolic, endocrine, immunologic and toxic disturbances that are contributing to, perpetuating, exacerbating or even causing the psychiatric symptomatology.

"It is the investigation of vitamin (coenzyme) levels, mineral (cofactor) levels (or toxic levels of lead, copper and other heavy metals), hormone levels, immunoglobulin levels (especially IgA and IgM), electrolyte levels (especially bicarbonate, calcium, blood sugars, and so on). What can be corrected is corrected and the patient is followed up regularly."

However, in 1998, this needs updating because orthomolecular psychiatrists also use amino acids, bioflavonoids such as Quercetin and Rutin, coenzyme Q10 (Ubiquinone or CoQ10) and n-3 and n-6 essential fatty acids. Vitamin therapy is not synonymous with orthomolecular psychiatry. It is only a sub-speciality.

An excellent book discussing Nutritional Influences on Illness (sourcebook on clinical research) is that of Melvyn R Werbach (Assistant Clinical Professor, School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California). Also his book Nutritional Influences on Mental Illness.

These books support what I said in 1979 and now with up to date controlled double blind studies for many medical conditions and psychiatric disorders.

However, in 1998 Orthomolecular Psychiatrists also have to be aware of herbicides, pesticides, petrochemicals and other toxins and lectins in foods, and measure these in blood or urine where appropriate. Also antibodies to various tissues and organs, etc., are looked at to exclude autoimmune disease and risk for SLE, coeliac disease, etc.

By DrChrisReading - Orthomolecular Psychiatrst Dr Reading http://www.gutandmentalillness.com

Why is it any different from traditional Psychiatry?

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)

Assuming that the text hasn't changed enormously, this is a blatant distortion of the debate about orthomolecular medicine. "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."

The debate is not whether doctors could and should ordinarily measure "vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, hormones, immunoglobolins" and, for all I care, their patients' distance to alpha centauri, but rather whether they are measuring the most meaningful measures, and whether they understand how best to respond to these measures.--Alterrabe 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This article is one-sided and needs substantial cleanup; one reading it would never know that orthomolecular psychiatry is generally and rightfully considered quackery.[1] -- FRCP11 08:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the article needs cleanup. -- Samir धर्म 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Anon addition

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)

Alternative mental illness treatment

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)

Spam. Won't go on the page as a reference or link. WLU 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Kidder and the reading list

I moved Margot Kidder from 'support' to 'notable patients' - a single patient is not support, it's anecdotal evidence, but it still deserves a mention.

I'd also like to trim down the reading list; at minimum, I've already removed books already cited within the article. I wouldn't mind taking out more as well, but I don't know which are the big names and which are less important. Unfortunately the Guide to layout isn't much help; this is the best advice it gives, and to my reading it looks like the section is only for books written by the aricle's subject. Seems a bit restrictive to me.

I've also figured out who Pfeiffer is, but I still think the statement looked odd where it was, and didn't really help the page at all. WLU (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pfeiffer's book is by far the best short introduction to OMP that I've read. (I haven't read Hoffer's.) Edelman's book is an exceptionally thoroughly researched and meticulous vademecum to OMP. The other books at less. I would suggest leaving the two Hoffer books in further reading, and adding Pfeiffer and Edelman in recognition of their value.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the further reading section is usually for books not cited in the body text, and that both books are cited several times in the body text, I don't think there's a need for their inclusion in further reading. It's similar to external links and see also, if a link can be embedded in the text then it should not be included in a separate section. As it says in the guide to layout, is generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article.

Have a gander at WP:TALK, your formatting is still a bit off and it makes the page harder to read and edit. Mostly, add a colon for every reply and undent when you get too far over. Makes it easier to see who said what when. WLU (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This section basically echoes the GTL section. If something is going to be duplicated as an embedded link and in the Further reading section, make sure it is the book to read about orthomolecular psychiatry. WLU (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-phrased the sentence with Pfeiffer's law to relate with the transition between initial conventional treatment and orthomed prescriptions. Pfeiffer and Braverman reflect much of the biochemical diagnostic-pharmacological thinking developed following Pfieffer's dedicated bichemical research for Hoffer in Canada, the state of NJ, and perhaps some other less conspicuous govt agencies. Werbach is more generally nutritionally oriented. Added Edelman as another contemporary view to get as close as what appears fairly complete in some major areas of orthomed focus from authors based on background, clinical and research experience, if not canonical, and realistically reflect what might be available in public & local university libraries.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Bush's research and histapenia with high copper

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) I have corrected this.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is the section on Current research original research?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Non RFC discussion

Orthomolecular psychiatry appears in many guises, different names and labels, often the same research viewed from different times & places, describing deeply interrelated topics, often not recognized by the casual passersby. The pioneers of orthomomoecular psychiatry are an important historical and scientific part of "therapeutic nutrition", "psychopharmacology", "molecular medicine" and "biological psychiatry" (among others), for a time in the 1950s and 1960s considered to be at the forefront of scientific research (that's WP:V from mainstream psychopharmacologists). In large part what many people see today in the nebulous "mainstream" is hagiograpic, deletionist history rewritten by the commercial victors, pharmaceutically based psychopharmacology & psychiatry, with incomplete accuracy to say the least.

I have attempted what I consider a valid summary of the area and having avoided drowning it in references. I would appreciate a slower Q&A approach to answer your concerns. I notice that sometimes when I use more WP:V references, that gets complaints too. The version that I support attempts to develop the subject's history and science in a scientifically sensible way on an area still active in experimentation (and dispute) where in fact orthomed has scored a number of WP:V scientific points on the 1973 APA report's shortcomings & bias (the more specific scientifically based critical questions that I have seen were not contained in the 1973 report either and do not seem to have been accepted for journal publication either). The "natural" molecular medicine side may have its shortcomings, as do all scientific subjects in development, but dismissive edits and statements should be heavily scrutinized under WP:V and NPOV. The abbreviated version has naked "well poisoning" terms (e.g the naked "quackery" opinion of the partisan QW site in the lede - at Wikipedia not a scientifically reliable source, per arbcom statements, as well as some clearly biased statements on orthomed that *strongly* violate scientific methods and discussion) and aspects of construction that reflect known bias, misrepresentations, and obsolete "facts".--TheNautilus (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC section is the appropriate place for this, I think it'd be better off in its own subsection. Also, do you have any citation for your statements about OMP changing over time? Are they published in reliable sources? Your comment about the 'commercial victors' raises redflags for me. Unfortunately, 'drowning in references' is what is desired in most article, particularly contentious ones. More references is better, and ideally references from external parties and peer-reviewed journals. OMM in general is a fringe topic/science which means the pool of best sources, peer-reviewed journals, is already pretty shallow and old. I don't mind a slower question and answer, did you want to move this to a separate section? I am fine discussing and changing my individual edits, it's slower but it builds a much better consensus. The fact that OMP and OMM is considered, if not quackery, then at least contentious and is rejected by mainstream research is a very valid point to make in my mind. I used quackwatch because it's a convenient source that purports to represent mainstream science (and is really the extremity of skepticism), but there are probably others that could be used. Unfortunately, with non-mainstream topics, science and scientists tend to ignore it so there's not as much in peer-reviewed journals. I'll see what else I can dig up. But I think the RFC on the support section definitely needs to be answered and is unrelated to my last edits (I think, I haven't had a chance to review my last set of edits yet). WLU (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you providing your opinion, or the official RFC? I don't know if your involvement in the discussion on my talk page here precludes an acutal RFC. As far as if it's OR or not, my preference is to wait for the RFC to run its course, though I agree with your comments. WLU (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

do you have any citation for your statements about OMP changing over time? the story is more about how psychiatry and medicine have changed over time from the 1940s toward the *much* criticized complex we see even the mainstream editors-in-chief turning against. Abram Hoffer has important details in his books and papers. cont'd next question

Your comment about the 'commercial victors' raises redflags for me. Hoffer more eloquently explains this himself, and even books by conventional psychopharmacologists now sometimes discuss this 50's-60's history to a degree. Basically Hoffer was a leader in the mainstream science charge to displace psychodynamic ("talk") and more brutal therapies (electroshock, insulin, lobotomies) with biochemical hypotheses, molecular medicine, biochemical methods, early double blind RCTs, and developing simple objective test methods (HOD). Unfortunately for Hoffer, the money is in new (patentable) fast acting (club, thunk!) molecules (molecular medicine split into xenobiotic$$$$ and orthomolecular camps) that partially treat & immobilize rather than fill or cure organic deficits - he & orthomed types were first pushed aside and then prejudicially attacked in the 1973 report (his lengthy analysis & rebuttal of that report being highly flawed & severely biased is increasingly accepted, grudgingly in the "mainstream", hence the new, more modern Beersheva trial). He, as well as others, became an APA non-person (even QW doesn't say his name). Parts of this story are noted in recent conventional RCT summaries, books, perhaps the opening wedge of a "Glasnost" in the history of biological psychiatry and psychopharmacology.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also on the "quackery" part, I invite you to dispense that word with greater care since in orthomed it can rapidly make its bearer look like a bigoted, pseudoskeptical, technical illiterate, or some pharmaceutical $dependent, as well as simply being a poorly defined, non-scientific word. As for as research disputes, Orthomolecular medicine redefines and continues the therapeutic research of mainstream medicine, *before* the pharmas abandoned ship, looking for new patentable fields, after exhausting even cheap, patentable, synthetic (dangerous) analogs, with safer, more optimal forms in more sophisticated combinations & protocols, with better diagnostics. By the way, in specialty chemicals (including pharmaceuticals) and advanced electronics, standard corporate operating procedure is to destroy the viability of the previous generation going off patent if brand dominance can't be maintained, or competitors' related lines of technology, by *any* means possible. Just ask Intel. Generics, like most orthomolecular substances, are fair game and soft targets because they have little economic wherewithal in comparison, and hence, much smaller resources for technical support in marketing wars with "competitive research".--TheNautilus (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I used quackwatch because it's a convenient source that purports to represent mainstream science (and is really the extremity of skepticism) QW has been noted at arbcom as not being a (technically) reliable source, whereas in some cases it has been said to reflect the opinion of many, although QW and its sponsors driving public opinion for ~39 years, without much independent academic notice or review, with might be more accurate. The QW sympathetic are significantly numerous at Wikipedia trying to promote QW as a reliable source, and its article is RS & NPOV problematic and incomplete. Although I have always noted QW's articles myself as a significant sentiment, more substantial scientific critics with statements that are *WP:V current* and accurate should be sought - there is a lot of dangerously (and scientifically) inaccurate POV statements in the press of OM's aggressive competitors - WP:V scientifically demonstrable misrepresentations in economically competing "mainstream publications".--TheNautilus (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Note that I split the section off from the RFC above since the two are only somewhat related - the RFC was based on my discussion with EJ and Alterrabe from December, and TheNautilus' comments seem to be related, but also refer to a whole different set of edits made by both of us. I think. If there's going to be ongoing discussion of the specific section of Orthomolecular_psychiatry#Scientific_support, then the RFC should probably be removed. If it's discussion about other topics, then the RFC should say and the discussion continue. I've still got issues with the current version, based on my edits on the 2nd. I'll go into greater detail once we know what's the what what. WLU (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Ed Johnston's conclusions for the following reasons, which I am willing to insert into the article.

1) Pfeiffer and Bush cannot have been colleagues, because Pfeiffer passed away long before Bush was studying medicine. They both are, rather, doctors who pursued unconventional theories about copper loads.

2) It's clearly evident that Bush's theories do not vindicate Pfeiffer and that Pfeiffer's theories do not vindicate Bush's. In so far as Bush's theories have yet to be proved Bush's theories cannot vindicate Pfeiffer's. What they are is suggestive that the theory that copper toxicities can cause brain problems has once again found a foothold in academia.

I think "scientific support" is the wrong title for this section, because it does suggest that these issues have been resolved. How about I use the title "renewed scientific interest in orthomolecular theories"? Insofar as I am one of the parties to this second opinion, I'll allow myself to remove phrasing I myself disagree with.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comments to the bottom per WP:TALK. The disagreement we're having on this matter is why I sought a RFC - you (and Nautilus?) think it's not OR, while myself and Ed do. The RFC is an independent attempt to get someone else's opinion on who is more correct in interpreting the policy and statements on the page. And the reason why I think it's a synth is because you are saying 'Bush and Pfeiffer both followed theories about copper loads, Pfeiffer was researching orthomolecular medicine, therefore Bush is an orthomolecular researcher as well' or some variant of that set of statements. But let's see what the RFC says about it. Further, 'renewed interest' would also be a mis-nomer or OR/SYNTH - I've yet to see evidence that Bush or anyone else is interested in orthomolecular medicine/psych, they just happen to have theories that involve in this case, a common focus on metals in the brain. This could probably go into the copper page, possibly Alzheimer's, but I think it's OR to say that Bush is doing OMM. Much like the whole omega fatty acids and bipolar doesn't vindicate OMM. From my understanding, OMM says that many diseases and conditions can be cured/managed/treated solely through non-drug use of foods or avoidance of certain substances. Because certain conditions (i.e. bipolar disorder and alzheimer's) happen to have research showing that these particular conditions do respond given these specific interventions, does not mean that all of OMM and it's paradigm and approach is valid. I'm mostly laying off editing the page until the RFC clears, then I'll be more interested in discussing specific aspects of the page I still consider problematic. To clarify a bit more, if Bush says 'oh, yeah, I'm studying this because of OMM/using the OMM paradigm', then all the problems go away. But from my reading, he doesn't mention it at all. Which makes him a scientist doing work that has a single factor in common with OMM, not a scientist studying OMM. Again, this is my opinion, and I put up the RFC because we're disagreeing without resolution. But in a very civil fashion, which I appreciate. WLU (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to allay your concerns, I have removed all the verbiage to which you object that I can, without, I believe, compromising my best effort to make this a good wiki article.

Bush isn't doing OM research; he's trying to patent a drug that removes copper from the brain. Let me be clear, I have never claimed that Bush is doing orthomolecular research. What I have claimed is that Bush is pursuing a revolutionary theory (copper causation) that dovetails very nicely with a theory of orthomolecular psychiatry. If he were to test the drug he's using on schizophrenics with high copper it definitely would be pertinent. I believe that a mainstream scientist linking copper and dementia is already noteworthy.

To make it clear that there is no synthesis, (i.e. because Bush maybe onto something Pfeiffer must have been right), I've added research into the link between copper and postpartum depression. By doing so, I hope, I've made it clear that there is continuing (mainstream) interest in psychiatric and neurological woes arising out of copper dysregulation. I for one don't claim that because Crayton and Walsh (a good friend of Pfeiffer's) are getting data on copper issues published, that Pfeiffer must have been right, rather I think it's proof that the Pfeiffer's lines of enquiry haven't been forgotten. --Alterrabe (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By adding yet another paper on abnormal copper levels correlating with behavioral disturbances, I hope to have made it clear that I was not implying that if Bush is right, Pfeiffer must also be, but rather that Pfeiffer's line of inquiry into copper levels and behavioral disturbances continues to this very day, whatever the APA may say.--Alterrabe (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise is indeed very nice.

But again, your second paragraph and that third paper looks like a rational for WP:OR, and a synth respectively, which is why I've done the RFC. We're at a fundamental disagreement on if it's OR or not, which is why I'm going for an outside comment. I see your point, I just think it's wrong :) That it dovetails with OMM but isn't OMM means Bush's hypothesis shouldn't be on the page, in my opinion, because it's fundamentally not OMM. But again, that's why there's the RFC. It's possible I'm being overzealous, which is why I'm seeking the RFC rather than edit warring. If the RFC disagrees with my interpretation, then we try to hammer out a wording that's acceptable for all editors to produce WP:CONSENSUS, for now the fundamental nature of the whole paragraph bothers me. I'd rather avoid re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic if the paragraph is going to be removed completely; it's a waste of everyone's time to discuss wording of a section that may not be justified at all. WLU (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand orthomolecular medicine!

Orthomolecular psychiatry has two aspects: diagnosis and treatment. Neuroleptics are often used as a stopgap measure. Orthomolecular psychiatrists do, however, reach diagnoses according to OM guidelines, and then, when the circumstances merit it, treat histadelia (high histamine) with anti-epileptics, dilantin is particularly effective, rather than methionine and pyroxidine. The idea is to get the patient well, not slavishly adhere to dogma. It's a controversial branch of medicine, and not a religion. Bush's work is quite pertinent to the diagnostic part of OMP. What would be interesting is if OMP is relevant to Bush's research, i.e. can Alzheimer's be treated with supplements.--Alterrabe (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am completely mistaken, Pfeiffer would use penicillamine to treat histapenia with high copper on rare occasions when he felt it was warranted. Generally he reported that he found that increasing zinc allowed the body to rid itself of excessive copper.--Alterrabe (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

General questions about Orthomolecular Psychiatry

For the sake of argument, suppose someone wants to learn more about OMP. Here are some questions that might be germane (I imagine at least some WP readers might want to know this).

Are there OMP practitioners who are also conventional doctors? (or do they drum you out if you show any OMP tendencies).
What are the most scholarly books about OMP? (Isn't there anything newer than Pfeiffer's work?)
Do mainstream journals pay attention to OMP these days, or is it just ignored?

Since OMP is so exotic for most people, I think that a little space could be given to discussing some recent orthomolecular books, and perhaps including conventional responses or reviews of those books if there are any. Just putting then in Further Reading is not too helpful, given that the titles of many of these books sound spacey. (Smart Nutrients: Prevent and Treat Alzheimer's, Enhance Brain Function. That does not sound like a book I am going to rush out to buy). But this article has a chance to convince me it's important, assuming it is recognized by some reliable sources as a significant work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, every orthomolecular psychiatrist is a board-certified MD. However, anyone who throws vitamins and minerals, even a multivitamin, at another person can claim, with varying degrees of accuracy, to be providing orthomolecular therapy. The regulation of OMP varies from country to country, and often from state to state within each country; in the United States with a few dozen exceptions, more leeway is shown doctors who rape their patients than those who heal their patients using OMP, my understanding is that Brazil is the most liberal country in this regard.
There is a Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, an International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine, and various countries also have associations of doctors who practice orthomolecular psychiatry, with stunning results might I add. David Hawkins and Linus Pauling wrote the best book on OMP. The University of Kansas, I believe, just added a professor who teaches "orthomolecular medicine." At present, I understand, it's mainly about the adjunctive use of orthomolecular medicine, but it still is a big step forward.
Ever since the APA declared ex cathedra that orthomolecular medicine doesn't work, it's essentially been a taboo in "mainstream medicine." It's not ignored. It's taboo. The same researchers who had their research published effortlessly in mainstream journals in 1967 found by 1975 that they couldn't even find publishers to publish their books. There is little, almost no, funding for orthomolecular research, and a consequent dearth of subsequent publication. Unfortunately, as long as OMP and OM is banned, it is be next to impossible to get "authorities" to a) conclude that it's legit, and b) stake their reputation on it. In their day, Linus Pauling (2 Nobels), Albert Szent-Györgyi (1 Nobel) and Otto Warburg (1-2 Nobels depending on source) did endorse OM, Pauling was particularly close to OMP. --Alterrabe (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any books currently listed in the article that are written by orthomolecular practitioners who are also MDs, and have published articles in peer-reviewed journals? If there are any such, I think that could be a reason to highlight them. EdJohnston (talk)

I know for sure that every book except Edelman and Werbach are by scientists who did publish in peer-reviewed sources. Pfeiffer was a dept chair at Emory. I think adding MDs and PhDs indicates that these were serious people.--Alterrabe (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike some of the louder critics of OMP, Werbach is a board certified MD in Psychiatry and Neurology, as well as a long time faculty prof at UCLA med school. *Many* of the published orthomed pioneers are physician-scientists (MD+PhD, or some from the 20-30's, +MS).--TheNautilus (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you added a section 'Noted orthomolecular research and treatment centers.' You've used the magic word 'noted' which activates the Wikipedian brain to demand some reliable sources for that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the word "noted" doesn't change our inclusion criteria. It looks more like free advertising. Gone now. -- Fyslee / talk 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fyslee, if this article were about services such as parole officers or truancy officers, whose existence and necessity are undisputed, you'd be absolutely correct that mentioning specific instances would smack of free advertising. Since, however, many are unsure, if not confused, by the orthomolecular psychiatry and the controversies it arouses, explaining that there are treatment centers that have been in business for - in one case - decades is highly germane to the discussion at hand. The PTC is particularly interesting since it has been able to help quite a few autists. We can get a third opinion, but any effort exclude such pertinent effort smacks of censorship and NPOV. Do let me know.--Alterrabe (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My only concerns were about free advertising. Usually there are inclusion criteria, either by establishing notability using V & RS, or using V & RS as references. Without them it can be contrued as gratuitous advertising, also known as linkspam. There are thousands of things of interest we can't add here without sourcing. That's what I'm asking for and Wikipedia requires. -- Fyslee / talk 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the concerns. I listed the larger centers because the PTC is notable; it has its own wiki page, and because they have the time to establish a web presence explaining their treatments. I have changed notable to larger; if you wish I can change it to largest, or some mutually agreeable phrasing. The idea is simply to establish that OMP is here, and in business.--Alterrabe (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfeiffer Trmt Ctr appears in the news(e.g. "Drug-less therapies for kids make waves", 11-28-04, MM Breslin & BM Rubin, Chicago Tribune), but perhaps more often in popular science articles for founder Wm Walsh's work on metals. As for Fyslee's "free advertising" comments, I find them at least ironic given his demonstrated expertise sewing QW plugs even when he was warned about (scientific) source reliability problems at BvR.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that I do not use Quackwatch as a scientific source, but as a very well known and extremely notable source of skeptical opinion that is supported by the mainstream. That's life. Also note that I am not adding it, I am restoring it. POV deletionists who don't like its criticism often remove it using various specious arguments, thus violating NPOV, but it is a referenced source that is being used as a source of opinion./ In this case its removal even turned other references red. I suggest that a certain user who hates Quackwatch take his concerns and misinterpretations of BvR elswhere. NPOV still applies to this article. -- Fyslee / talk 10:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with Alterrabe that mentioning that a center exists could be done without worrying about advertising, since this is an unusual service that most people probably haven't heard of. (They might assume that OMP was an historical thing from an earlier period). I'd be more willing to accept such an entry if it were a place where one of these noted practitioners works (who I hypothesized above). That is, an OM psychiatrist who was board-certified in his specialty and published the results of his OM work in peer-reviewed journals. I'm happy to agree with Fyslee that sourcing for such an entry is needed, and of course that sourced criticism should be included if there is any. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Earth House, to which I linked, originally began as the Princeton Bio-Brain Center, with Carl Pfeiffer, one of the big figures in OMP as its physician. The APA having put out a fatwa on OMP, there is no board-certification for OMP doctors. The PTC, whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has the Chair of Loyola U - Chicago's psych dept on its board. Please visit the PTC wiki page. Does this suffice?--Alterrabe (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at the entry you made on this page for the Pfeiffer Treatment Center:

* The Pfeiffer Treatment Center and Health Research Institute. The Pfeiffer Treatment Center is a research institute, noted mainly for research into the neurobiology of violent behavior and delinquency, that also provides medical care according to the precepts of orthomolecular psychiatry.

I see that William J. Walsh has peer-reviewed publications. In a quick glance, I saw a paper of his reporting measurements on autism patients, but that paper didn't talk about metal levels. If you have time, perhaps you could locate a paper published by Walsh in the last five years that does talk about metals and is in some sense in the orthomolecular tradition. The closest thing I could find was the second item under 'Publications' at Pfeiffer Treatment Center, but that was only an abstract. Also I think we'd need to see more sources for your claim that the PTC provides 'medical care according to the precepts of orthomolecular psychiatry.' Where is the list of the precepts? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this works. [2] Here's information about the therapies the PTC provides [3]. The precepts of OM are explained in the article.--Alterrabe (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been reading the talk page as much as I usually do and missed this discussion of the center. Generally an embedded EL in the main page is odd, and looks very much like spam. Rather than playing with the section, I deleted it but moved the EL's to the EL section. If they practice OMP, then there's a case to be made for them being here, though if more get added we should consider trimming. WLU (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the paper by William Walsh et al. (2004) found by Alterrabe (just above) could lead to some additional text in the article. It appears to me to be an observational study and might need a bit of scrutiny to see how believable it is. E.g. was there a control group? Exactly what is the treatment, since it's tailored to each patient? If these questions were addressed in the text it might belong. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I see the same problem as with Bush - it doesn't mention orthomolecular anything in the abstract, so it's hard to defend it being related to the article. We have to interpret its methodology as being orthomolecular. Unless the body of the paper has more detail and an explicit mention of OMP, it looks like a) The paper was done at the Pfeiffer treatment center b) the treatment center does OMP, THEREFORE c) the paper is about OMP. I think that's OR territory. WLU (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The abstract is nothing but OMP related diagnoses: metal-metabolism disorders (possibly copper toxicity) methylation abnormalities (histadelia and histapenia), disordered pyrrole chemistry (pyroluria), heavy-metal overload (heavy metal toxicities), glucose dyscontrol (hypoglycemia), and malabsorption (seen in food allergies.)--Alterrabe (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if the paper in question featured a control group. It may have been impractical, and even unethical. Mainstream psychiatry has also been known to otherwise influence the control group in such fashion as to promote favorable results. A dearth of funding has been OMP's Achilles heel. William Walsh got involved in OMP by visiting violent criminals, including those on death row, and deciding to investigate what made them the way they were. The other Achilles heel has been that since treatments are tailored to individual the cookie cutter comparisons so beloved of mainstream psychiatry can't be made, even if the overall outcomes are spectacularly superior. Here's more: [4]--Alterrabe (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If WLU agrees that there's a case to be made for including them in the text, in a limited number, I think we should do so. It's not that common, but then neither are physicians who practice orthomolecular medicine.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a response to WLU's comment that it might be OR to include the paper I mentioned. I did get hold of a copy of Walsh, Glab and Haakenson (2004). It does cite Pfeiffer's work, but the word 'orthomolecular' does not occur in the body of the text. I guess that is an argument against using it here. There exists a 'Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine' though I don't know what their editorial standards are, and the journal archive does not seem to be available online. There is a paper by Hoffer et al. (1990) from J of Orthomolecular Medicine in our current reference list, and a PDF copy is available, but that article reads more like an opinion piece than a scientific study. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem of semantics, and nothing else. The treatments are very clearly those pioneered by Pfeiffer, whether or not they have been repackaged as nutritional therapies. If we must do so to get Walsh included, we could rename the entire article to "orthomolecular and nutritional psychiatry." This would allow us to include Truehope [5] a therapy derived from veterinary medicine that has proven to be life-saving in some cases. It too ran into a wall of artificial controversy orchestrated by individuals with very close links to competitors.--Alterrabe (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the PDF by William Walsh that was supplied above by Alterrabe. Unfortunately even in this PDF Walsh refers to what he does as 'nutritional therapy' and doesn't use the word orthomolecular. Maybe WLU can see if there is any rewriting or repackaging possible that gets this material in (actually, not the PDF file itself but any scientific papers that may have been submitted by Walsh and colleagues based on this program). EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Semantics, logic and 'it's very close' are all words for original research in my mind. Again, this is why I want the RFC - an independent examination of the page and its ideas to see if it's OR or not. If it's been repackaged, that repackaging needs to be sourced, and theoretically the page could be moved, or at least linked to the new packaging. Just because something was pioneered by someone doesn't mean that it is the same thing. Again, it looks like a syllogism to me - a) Pfiffer studied x b) Pfiffer was an OM pracititoner c) Y studies x d) therefore y is an orthomolecular practitioner. It looks like a classic synth to me - in my mind, anything other than an explicit statement saying X is orthomolecular medicine IS a synth. It might be worth bringing in some others for comment, seeing as the RFC appears to be lingering like a dead woodchuck rather than moving forward. Alt - how do you feel about trying to find some admins we can both agree will give a valid, neutral opinion, or bring this up at Talk:WP:OR? I keep running into an aversion to the sources and edits you suggest because if WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH, which I interpret as precluding all of your 'this is OMM/OMP even if it doesn't say so.' User:FisherQueen I know quite well, trust very much, and she's said 'no' to me many times. Plus, she's not a doctor, so she wouldn't have preconceptions on the topic. Most of the other admins I rumble with are doctors, so I don't think they'd be acceptable. I'm not the last gasp here, I just have persistent concerns that haven't been addressed to everyone's satisfaction (mostly mine). I'm deliberately holding back from editing the page proper because until these basic issues are addressed, it's not really worth discussing other concerns I have. And there are a fair amount, as you'd imagine :) WLU (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It may appear to be a syllogism to you because of your (and others') unfamiliarity with the OM subject, this is one of the bases of my comment about drowning the article in references. Linking trivial information steps, word-by-doubly referenced-word (or name), for the utterly uninformed or some adversarial editors seems unusually burdensome to me, and distracting for readers.

...which I interpret as precluding all of your 'this is OMM/OMP even if it doesn't say so. Sounds like an open invitation for what Fyslee might want to describe as "free advertising" because OM book and papers do describe it so, but I have to admit it would/will be tedious to match (or explain) sound bytes so literally every 2-3 words with several references. As far as "fringe" goes, there are a lot of overlaps and absorptions of prior OM positions but then there simply is not much to discuss - with conventional medicine (or nutritionists), the attitude is more or less "so, its mainstream (now), wasn't it always so?" (e.g. prenatal folate), unless you are one of the spinal bifida or other birth defect victims, or their relatives (secondary victims).

PTC founder, William Walsh, has long & repeatedly participated in orthomolecular functions. He is clearly identified, w/o any protest known to me, by a number of organizations, as "orthomolecular" or the orthomolecular advisor/director, starting with Hoffer et al's Int'l Orthomolecular Society (ISOM) Feature Speakers include internationally known leading pioneers in Orthomolecular Medicine:...William Walsh, PhD (co-founder, Chief scientist, and PTC's public persona).

Also ISOM seems to have a strong impression that the Pfeiffer Treatment Center is orthomolecular: on its page listing of "Web Resources" Orthomolecular treatment and Research Institutes, ISOM lists and directly links to Pfeiffer Trmt Ctr as Health Research Institute (the parent org) - Since 1989, HRI's Pfeiffer Treatment Center has...

Finally, the Pfeiffer Treatment Center literature, explicitly named after orthomolecular pioneer Carl C Pfeiffer, cites CC Pfeiffer's specific orthomolecular positions, chapter and verse, as its own, The Pfeiffer Treatment Center has observed that most victims of depression fall into one of five biochemical classes: (1) high histamine, (2) low histamine, (3) pyroluric, (4) high copper, and (5) toxic overload. (Biochemcial Treatment of Mental Illness and Behavior Disorders, p.3, WJ Walsh, 13 July 2001). The PTC self-identities with, lives and breathes OM psychiatry.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've other concerns about the JoOM being a reliable source for anything other than what doctors of OMM believe, since WP:MEDRS probably precludes it from making any claims about effectiveness or cures. WLU (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ISOM and JOM are WP:RS for a number of things, among others: (1) describing who and what is orthomolecular, and those that are not, (2) describing the history of (ortho)molecular medicine pertaining to orthomolecular medicine, (3) describing what the clinical and scientific evidence is', which often (surprising to incredulous newbies) is more than "conventional medical commentators" position of *nothing* experimentally *relevant* or correct on the subject - some literally rigged "dbRCT" experiment (e.g. long known (50+ yrs?)& stated wrong molecules, quantities, patient subgroup, and/or protocol), Enron accounting, or simply adversarial intrepretations with low science scores. (4) Describing the technical rationale of an actual OM practice or recommendation as OM's claim.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about your concerns, and can understand your trains of thought. I would urge you to get your hands on Pfeiffer's short, or Edelman's more extensive book. Once you understand that what Walsh did with violent adults is exactly what Pfeiffer did with schizophrenics, you'll understand that it's exactly orthomolecular medicine. Furthermore using specific nutrients to change behavioral disorders is orthomolecular by definition. This is neither OR nor synthesis. Reading Pfeiffer and Edelman explain OMP so much better than I ever could. This discussion is somewhat pedantic, or about splitting hairs. But that, alas, is precisely what editing encyclopedias is about. Before we get comments or third opinions, it behooves us to see what differences we can resolve ourselves. In this spirit, I'll answer in a new section.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current format of that section. My original concerns about advertising were based on the formatting (using direct links rather than references to second or third party sources) and lack of referencing, and I simply didn't notice the wikilink to the PTC, my bad. It's notability is already established by the existence of the wiki article, and its relevance to this subject is obvious. PTC should be mentioned. -- Fyslee / talk 09:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS and further reading, other stuff

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)

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)

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)

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)

A New Title?

WLU has expressed concern that some research using orthomolecular diagnostic methods and prescribing orthomolecular treatments may not fall within the scope of this article on orthomolecular psychiatry because the author doesn't specifically describe his work as "orthomolecular" in nature. OMP clearly is a contentious topic, and I can easily understand that skeptics may feel that pedantic levels of precision are of utmost importance in what is meant to be a reference source; I agree whole-heartedly with these concerns. So before we seek comments and even third opinions, why don't we see which differences we can resolve ourselves.

In this spirit, I suggest that this page be renamed "Orthomolecular and other nutritional therapies in psychiatry." This allows us to discuss OMP and therapies that would fit Linus Pauling's description of orthomolecular medicine (i.e. nutritional therapies in general), but do not describe themselves in these terms, without having to worry about just how to split certain hairs. It would also allow us to enrich this page with more research on omega-fatty acids in bipolar disorder, which has already become mainstream, Truehope's product, and perhaps other products of which I'm ignorant. This shouldn't be about ego, but about making the wiki article as informative, helpful and accurate as possible.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As the articles develop, and sources and text accrue, we could of course then separate this proposed new article into two articles: orthomolecular psychiatry, and non-orthomolecular nutritional treatments in psychiatry. Incidentally water with high lithium concentrations, but "subtherapeutic" by today's standards, has long been used as a tonic for frayed nerves, in Doctor Pepper if memory serves me right.--Alterrabe (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to establish that orthomolecular medicine is a coherent body of teaching that has remained steady over time may be too difficult. Attempting to 'tack on' nutritional therapy as though it was organically connected would probably defy any sourcing that we might come up with. Instead, I suggest that the main effort be put into scientific biographies of the leading practitioners such as Linus Pauling. Carl Pfeiffer and Abram Hoffer. It might even be justifiable to create an article on William J. Walsh. It is easy to establish that Pfeiffer's work is by Pfeiffer, while it is not always easy to show that a given paper should be considered part of orthomolecular medicine, as in the recent effort to make Ashley Bush an outlying member of the club. Let me know if this sounds workable to anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about OMP, not OM. I would imagine that Pauling et al. and others did organically connect nutritional therapy with OMP, when you remember pellagra (niacin), scurvy (vitamin C), lithium and bipolar disorder. I could find sources. Putting details into biographies is an excellent idea, and ought to be done.

It might take a phone call to the PTC to determine if Walsh, a friend of Pfeiffer's, identifies himself as orthomolecular per WP:RS, as opposed to colloquia. The idea of starting a wiki page on William J Walsh is a good one. One way to overcome concerns about OR and SYNTH would be to spin the copper discussion off into a separate page on research into copper toxicities as a cause of neurological and psychiatric disorders. This would allow a discussion of the subject without any implication that Ashley Bush himself endorses OMP. A similar page about food allergies and neurological and psychological issues would also be exceptionally useful. How does this sound?--Alterrabe (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want an article on copper toxicities I think it would have to be scientifically based. Then its coverage of OM would be limited by WP:UNDUE, and might have to be small. There are probably some articles around about the significance of trace metals in medicine, and to the extent that the OM people have done any studies, they might be discussed there. OMP is allowed to get more coverage in a dedicated article, but then you can only include material that identifies itself as OMP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An article on copper toxicities has to be scientifically based. Since Kuhn's work, we (scientifically) know that science, too, has its ideologies, and makes mistakes; I wouldn't hesitate that to mention that OMP has been a subject of controversy among scientists. For me, reading about Bush in an article on OMP is neither an endorsement of OMP nor a claim that Bush does OMP, but I understand how more superficial readings could allow such an impression to arise. Particularly in encyclopedias, precision is of essence. My goal is not to eke out the maximum possible cyber column inches for OMP, but rather to get the pertinent facts - in a non-confusing manner - into the wikipedia record. This may be an elegant way to explain in the OMP article that the copper brain problem link is not dead, without befuddling the less sophisticated reader, and allow an article on Ashley Bush's work and similar theses to eventually grow out of it. To me this sounds like win win. OMP gets better, and Ashley Bush's work, WJ Walsh's work and parenthetically Pfeiffer's work, all get better. Any suggestions for what the title should be?--Alterrabe (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a secondary source that defines this field differently than just 'Orthomolecular psychiatry' and includes the additional topics that you have mentioned? Are there multiple sources that would agree on such a broadened definition of this field? EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understood your question correctly, Ashley Bush has been published in Neurology, which is as mainstream a medical journal as there is, had an image of his face grace the front page of the Wall Street Journal and more. A link in the article links to the USA Today. OMP is stuck in a backwater, but not Ashley Bush. [6],[7]--Alterrabe (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood. You want to change the article title to 'Orthomolecular psychiatry + X', and I'm suggesting you find a secondary source that does likewise, and evidence that multiple secondary sources all have the same conception of the broadened field. I don't think WP should do its own unique broadening. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In so far as OMP has always been defined as a work in progress, virtually every book on OMP will allow for, generally even suggest, that additional nutritional therapies will be of use. For my example, to my knowledge, Hoffer wasn't into omega-3 fatty acids. "OMP and further nutritional therapies" would be nothing more than to reiterate OMP's manifesto. Braverman and Pfeiffer did work with therapeutic aminoacids that wasn't "classical OMP," and may not even have been defined as OMP stricto sensu.--Alterrabe (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I'm short on time so this is short and doesn't represent my thoughts after reading the comments since my last post. Here's my one comment - has someone brought up WP:POVFORK yet? It was my first thought after reading the suggested page re-name. WLU (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So far it doesn't seem so. We can't make up the name of a field "A + B" and have an article about it, when the literature doesn't recognize A + B as being a 'thing,' or a coherent subject of study. I know that the early OM people such as Pauling were also into megavitamin therapy. That's why an expanded bio article on Pauling with a section on his OM work would be logical. We could include his megavitamin ideas there, since they have the common property of all being interests of Pauling. I see that Alt. has used the term "classical OMP", and "OMP strictu sensu", but we can't use either term in the article unless the term is widely used in the literature. I suppose an option is to arbitrarily pick somebody like Pfeiffer, and just say that our article is about what Pfeiffer thought that OMP was. So long as it's given as his opinion, it might be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To really get a definition of what orthomolecular is, you'd have to dig up Pauling's 1968 article in Science, in which he coined, and defined the term. Any therapy that meets Pauling's definition would be orthomolecular.--Alterrabe (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Separating two very closely related, but not identical topics, in order to avoid confusing the less sophisticated is not, and cannot be, a povfork. What it is instead is a WP:Spinout. I find it tiresome to deal with editors in whose eyes I seem unable to do any right.

Here's a summary of what OMP is: "In the case of phenylketonuria, treatment has consisted of restricting the amount of dietary phenylalanine. Similarly, galactosemia can be treated by eliminating milk, which contains galactose, from the diet. Pauling cited these strategies as examples of orthomolecular psychiatric therapy, which he defined in "Orthomolecular Psychiatry" as "the treatment of mental disease by the provision of the optimum molecular environment for the mind, especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the body." He later broadened this definition to include orthomolecular medicine, which he defined as "the preservation of good health and the treatment of disease by varying the concentrations in the human body of substances that are normally present in the body". He sometimes appended "and are required for health" to this definition and noted, "the adjective orthomolecular is used to express the idea of the right molecules in the right concentration" (emphasis added). The treatment of diabetes by the injection of insulin and the prevention of goiter with iodine are other instances of orthomolecular medicine.

As you can see from the examples of orthomolecular medicine discussed above, sometimes decreasing the amount of a substance in the body is beneficial (see also the article on homocysteine in this newsletter). Orthomolecular medicine is not "alternative"; rather, it should be considered as an adjunct to appropriate conventional medicine. Pauling became especially fascinated with vitamin C in the mid-1960s and quickly recognized that the intake of this vitamin and, consequently, its concentration in the body, significantly influences health and disease. "

Obviously, prescribing multivitamins, folate to prevent spina bifida, Vitamin C to those with scurvy, niacin to those with pellagra, these are all orthomolecular therapies, the last arguably OMP. Even if they don't realize it, or announce it, many physicians practice OM on a daily basis, and this cannot be ignored.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very broad. You have now made all drug treatment, and all conventional medicine, be orthomolecular. Pauling's views as you summarize them above seem rather simplistic. Now treating pellagra with vitamin B is orthomolecular? Is there any medical therapy that is *not* orthomolecular? EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is broad. But it doesn't encompass all drug treatment. Lipitor, viagra, prozac, and all other patented drugs are not orthomolecular. They are not natural substances that occur within the body normally. Similarly herbs, e.g. aloe vera, chamomille, and more, who have been a mainstay of medicine for millennia cannot be orthomolecular. A good example is that some patients with depression have reduced levels of tryptophan and or serotonin. Mainstream medicine generally plugs them up with an SSRI, which mimics serotonin in the brain, and has a plethora of side-effects (sexual dysfunction, possible suicide and more.) The occasional OMP practitioner will prescribe tryptophan, or some precursor, which is a serotonin precursor. The end-effect is essentially the same, but the side-effects and costs are much less. Whether or not mainstream medicine acknowledges that treating pellagra with niacin and or dietary changes (the southerners disabled by it had awful diets) is orthomolecular, the fact remains that it is per Pauling's definition. What would not be orthomolecular would be if they'd develop a pill that prevents niacin from being metabolized, and market it as a cure for niacin.

Ideally we should work in references to the therapeutic use of aminoacids in psychiatry; tryptophan and analogs are useful in some cases of depression, tyrosine in others, and gamma-aminobutric acid is just as good as valium, which acts primarily at the gaba receptor, without the side-effects. But this article is only about the use of orthomolecular treatments in psychiatry. There is a fair amount of evidence that there are specific plasma aminoacid anomalies in some psychiatric disorders.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections

I'd written a bit for this already, it got wiped. Crap. Basically it's a section-by-section breakdown of what I see are the problems with the page. This is going to be short and ugly 'cause I'm kinda pissed at my web browser. WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

First sentence OK. Second links too specifically to a specific conclusion which should be in the body. Third has criticisms of the APA's analysis of OMP - this isn't in the body and is too specific for the lead. Should be moved to history and this can be lumped in the lead into a generic statement of how the approach has been rejected by mainstream medicine. Specifics involving problems in how the APA dealt with the first batch of OMP findings should be in the article, but they should not be in the lead. The final sentence can also be moved into the body, and its intention lumped into the general statement about the controversial status of the approach. WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The criticisms of the 1973 APA report's severe flaws, slowly vetted in the mainstream, are summarized at the bottom of the Criticsim section. AMP actually reflects ongoing research and disputes in acience and medicine, with nutritional, genomic and metabalomic research covering OMP topics where only an idiot would hang a target like "OMP" on their research proposal. Only some of the emeritus professors are willing to too clearly "out" themselves even at that late date, so the rejection part is touchy given the grossly misrepresentative slams are so often what Pauling warned about prejudice and bad science parading as "medicine", where the repeated retreats of the (self?) supposed mainstream go less reported with few mea culpas.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and that the APA report was criticized should be mentioned in the article. I think it's arguable that it should be in the lead, more accurately I think the lead should summarize OMP and point out that there is controversy. I don't think it should have specific criticisms. I think that the APA and other organizations rejected OMP should be pointed out, and that there have been responses from OMPists that disagree with the APA's reasoning and conclusions. I just don't think the specifics should be in the lead. I think a better lead could be:

Orthomolecular psychiatry is a branch of orthomolecular medicine whose proponents claim that dietary supplements and other treatments can be effective in treating mental illness. The approach uses individualized testing and diagnosis to establish an etiology for each patient's specific symptoms, and tailors the treatment accordingly using a combination of nutrients, dietary changes and medications to enhance quality of life and reduce symptoms. The origins of orthomolecular psychiatry date to the 1920s, and the work of Abram Hoffer in the 1950s established the orthodoxy of the field. In 1973, a task force of the American Psychiatric Association examined and rejected the practice and it has been considered an alternative therapy since that time. The methods and conclusions of used by the APA to reject orthomolecular psychiatry have been challenged, rejected and strongly criticized by proponents of orthomolecular psychiatry for being politically motivated and scientifically unfounded. Current scientific research appears to support some of the theories advanced by orthomolecular psychiatrists.

I don't like the final sentence for OR reasons, but it does represent the current contents of the article. Note the lack of citations within the lead - in my mind the ones currently in the lead should be moved to the appropriate sections further down. The lead is written based on the contents of the body text, not the contents of specific references. WLU (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on the new potential lead? Like it? Hate it? Can I paste it in? WLU (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a lack of comments to be tacit consent, so I've pasted in the new lead and moved text from the old lead into the body - mostly history but also in diangosis. WLU (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

History

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)

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)

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)

Diagnoses, treatments, and scope

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)

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)

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)

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 [8], 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)

Criticisms

As above, I think much of this could be fruitfully integrated with History.

Further, I don't think it's a bad thing if it ends up looking somewhat like a 'he-said, she-said' between the APA and OMPsychiatrists, at least initially. That way we'd get a clear view of what each side was saying about the other, and in a historical section, chronological order isn't a bad thing at all.

There's weasel words and unsourced statements. The first sentence could be sourced to quackwatch. The second uses unnamed 'critics', when we've got at least two - the NIMH and the AAP. The section on the APA task force could doubtless be elaborated on, and I think the use of long quotations is unnecessary - its findings could be summarized as 'didn't find megavitamin therapy very credible, and this enhanced by the failure to evaluate OMP through scientific research and publications. They also criticized the extensive use of advertising to promote OMM as "deplorable".' The second long quote is also strange, and there's a citation mid-quote, to the citation, not to a citation within the quote. I also think that reference 26 to Hoffer would be better portrayed as Hoffer's opinion (looks weaselly as is, as if implying that Wittenborn didn't get further funding; there's no need for this, since Hoffer says Witenborn may have lost further funding from the NIMH). Also, the Mosher statement is suspect, since according to his obituary he supported behavioral or psychogenic interventions, not orthomolecular, vitamin or nutrition-based interventions. As portrayed, it looks like Mosher supported orthomolecular psychiatry, when it would more accurately be portrayed in my mind as Mosher didn't support the American Psychiatric Association. Weakening the APicA does not strenghten OMP, so I think it's inappropriate here. It was a pretty quick scan of the references though, perhaps I'm missing something. WLU (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's work on a better general sketch first.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already too much of QW severely biased opinions referenced here for just the sentiment note, where we have a rather interesting phenomenon several MD-PhD with distinct medical breakthroughs (in the mainstream) with hundreds of pubs and remarkable recoveries from devastating illness, including many subsequent MDs and PhDs(!), criticized by an author with 2 less technical articles in the main trade group's publication, one controversially co-authored for a 4th grade science project, investigative reporting even more controversially published in the trade journal[9], and criticized for its deceptive methods (Hufford, 2003) in research.

I think a sketch of the history would be better, the criticism has turns that need to be treated separately to be comprehensible that we don't just turn this into the anticompetitive soapbox of certain obsolete elements known to broadcast their rather severe biases as the mainstream of something (certainly not science). Wittenborn didn't get later NIMH funding, that's historical according to Hoffer, the why is Hoffer's story and opinion. The Mosher obit merely shows notable commonality of perception by MD camps less impressed with a purely pharma psychiatric approach about the APA's rather close association with the drug companies (in some current med schools, the first and second yr students coming out of the main lecture hall only need to cross a 4 or 5 foot sidewalk to head into a big drug company building after the prof imparts ~~natural~~ human biochem with his latest research on something patentable in case they get confused :). Also Mosher seems to emphasize two of Hoffer's four treatment elements without the fourth, natural biochemistry. Mosher's criticism backs up Hoffer's statements where Hoffer and Mosher do not see eye to eye, an independent agreement.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved your comment again, left a note on your talk page about it. Note that QuackWatch itself is only used once in the lead, which disappears if the lead is re-worked per my above text. It is used as a convenience link to justify the rejection by the NIMH and a verbatim of the APtricA statement - we're citing the APA statement, using QW to link to actual text. I looked for the original on-line, based on this page, no weblink is available. It does not appear to have been superseded, but it could be replaced by a non-weblinked citation to the actual report, though naturally this reduces ease of access for readers to the text. I think QW should remain on the page, if not as a reference then as an EL; I think someone had mentioned Quackwatch coming up in arbitration, could they point it out to me so I could familiarize myself? I've sent an e-mail to the NIMH to see if we can get something more solid, you can't cite an e-mail but they might be able to clarify a reference.

I think the APA controversy could be placed in a sub-section of history, called APA controversy where an extensive history can take place. It was over 30 years ago, so it's definitely history. Placement in history puts in in this context. As far as working out a sketch first, we can sketch it in 'criticisms' or in 'history', either way the sketch needs to be done. Or we could use a sub page.

Mosher 'seeming' to practice OMP tickles my OR radar again. An explicit statement by Mosher makes this redundant, but interpreting his work to fit into OMP, particularly when we don't seem to have a coherent definition of OMP and when he appears to focus almost exclusively on behavioral treatment, seems like a very thin rational for including him on the page. Suitable for the APA page and criticisms of psychiatry, yes, but for this page, I don't see it as relevant.

As far as further agencies that have rejected OMP, the Canadian Paediatric society did in 2004, archive, though I've no luck in finding a current version or revision of their earlier statement. I also found this, which seems to have some valuable references though not for this page. This page mentions some mental conditions and references. WLU (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Mosher *is not* OMP, he was a 1973 APA report author and NIMH rep against OMP where Hoffer directly describes the extremely prejudical behaviors he (AH) had encountered with some of various APA Task Force members, especially its "putatively unbiased" chairman with some choice examples. Hoffer in various venues discusses the pharmaceutical interests in (and against) new vitamin forms as well as offers (and extortions) on patent control for some of his own niacin related work. Mosher's quote, independent of OMP, related an expression of serious concern by someone on the 1973 task force and (then) a NIMH associate.

As for the cancer.org ref, they are repeating BC Cancer Agency (see below) statements that seem to be addressed to unfamiliar or biased audiences, that drown out the known mainstream science results, many from 50+ years ago, about what previously would be recognizable as malpractices or subterfuges in a test. Today the medical & younger science population, unfamiliar with the old literature, is ripe for every kind of rigged test (tests that a knowledge of older literature should have known would produce an "unfavorable" result - or favorable if one were in opposition or COI with one's industry). In my discussions at OMM, I had come across a mainstream (Nobelist Henrik Dam) reference (and warning) about the complex interactions of vitamins A & E together in oxidative or liver stress situations that is routinely ignored or violated in the modern tests disparaging the bad results with smokers. hmmm, poor (no) decent literature search? or just "oops, I did again"? The Vitamin A result is then disparged for the general population, then the *combined result with vitamin E* is used to generally disparge vitamin E (both use alone, w/o high vit A, and for the whole population, hmmmmmmm). Last month, I found a fragment on the internet that quoted Vitamins in Medicine (1953 ed?) as saying that the presence (i.e. continuous levels) of vitamin C was necessary for vitamin A + E to deal with the deletrious vitamin A metabolism effects in the oxidatively stressed, but I don't have a copy of Vitamins in Medicine (1953) available in my part of the world.

I have previously dissected why the BC Cancer Agency is prejudical, WP:V *very* bad science (not scientifically current and not really about Orthomed treatments, just POV & sound byte bashing) and not acceptable as as a reliable source.[10][11]discussed at length--TheNautilus (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If Mosher is more or less irrelevant to OMP, the let's take him out of the page. Putting him in the criticisms section on this page makes it look like he's criticizing the APA for it's role in dismissing OMP. If I understand your text, Mosher left the APA for reasons totally unrelated to OMP. Makes him good for the APA page, and a section on criticisms there, but not for OMP.

Cancer.org could be useful for three things - one, we can mine it for sources. Two, it's a potential source for the history of OMM/P. Three, it's a major position piece on OMM from a major national organization. Though given your concerns, if it is to be cited on the page, it should be used carefully, and would be more appropriate for the OMM page than this one. Ditto for BC Cancer. Thanks for the links to the discussion, I trust there's merit there so I'll leave the cancer links alone unless I see a good reason to bring them back up. Given it's a provincial agency, it's too specific for the (OMM or cancer) page to even cite as an opponent to ortho anything. WLU (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that citing Mosher can be taken as implying that Mosher approved of OMP. This should be changed immediately. What is desparately needed, however, is a source for Mosher's statement that he'd gone into the panel saying that even if every other shrink in the US would adopt OMP, he would refuse to believe in OMP. This, and Mosher's later repudiation of the APA, which hosted the panel, are directly pertinent to the credibility of the APA's OMP panel, and OMP itself.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BC CA's OMM page is a previously discredited webpage for failing WP:V on 4 specifically discussed items where there are an additional half dozen seriously erroneous items with enough time ("strike" 4 is enough) and was reviewed by a number of WP MDs including oncologists and medical researchers.

cancer.org simply broadcasts its apparent confusion about OMM, starting with the first sentence, for example confusing orthomolecular medicine as all megadosages generally vs providing optimum molecular environment which includes withdrawal of deletrious substances, sometimes zero dosage, as well as specific protocols and using safer forms, rather than random mega- use or self destructive attempts. With many OMM substances, someone swallowing a whole bottle may more risk choking on the tablets. Another of cancer.org's misconceptions confutes OMM with non-orthomolecular overdoses where iron is not the common supplement or multimineral in OMM that it is in conventional medical OTC (OMM types long ago developed low iron & *iron free* supplements for over half the population), ditto magnesium based antacid poisonings where OMM is far more likely to recommend digestive aids such as betaine hydrochloride to augment for age or illness related parietal cell out declines in stomach acid (or enzymes for other dyspepsia), and malabsorption. I can't say I recall OMM recommending antacids either (vs specific diet).--TheNautilus (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not that I'm not advocating either page be added to the page as either a reference or an external link. At this point, the only use I see for them would be possibly looking into their references section for more stuff on OMP. WLU (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Mosher's text, if we do turn up the quote by Mosher about OMP, that's relevant, but I don't think the section removed was, or ever will be, considering Mosher's resignation was totally unrelated to OMP. WLU (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is about the quality of the 1973 report's criticism, the counterview of the OMP proponents, OMP proponents's supporting facts & incidents, and the bias of the APA and its rather unrestrained task farce. I've added more context on conflicts of interest that help make the relevance of Mosher's later repudiation of APA ("drug patsy") to his earlier part in the 1973 report, more clear. This is actually a short, mild review of the APA task force's bias as related by Hoffer & Osmond (publicly unchallenged as far as I am aware) where Mosher's comment more generally agrees with Hoffer's expressed concerns, in specific to Thomas Ban and the NIMH as reflected by APA. There's plenty of source material about bias there, it's kind of lengthy. And we have not even started on Pauling's review of scientific integrity, acuity and accuracy for the 1973 APA report, where Pauling has been very quietly vindicated on a number of points previously dismissived & overlooked.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to source criticism of the 1973 report, if criticism is truly deserved, would be from a peer-reviewed article that was re-analyzing some of the science offered in that report. It's not clear how relevant it is to quote Abram Hoffer saying that he believed Thomas Ban was biased, due to his receiving support from drug companies. The report is itself a scientific work, though it could have some defects. We should be looking for scientific rebuttals. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, as others have pointed out, what orthomolecular figures say & reasonably think about OMP is relevant in this article. Many of Hoffer's and Osmond's technical objections about the 1973 APA report have subsequently been shown to have merit in mainstream literature or NIMH trial descriptions, so Hoffer & Osmond's reply is not just some empty diatribe. Hoffer's recounting is an important set of historical & technical details in this otherwise mysterious & controverted area. My thinking is that some writing needs polish and (reading) more books (me too), perhaps mining their references, will help strengthen the historical references here over time. Hoffer & Osmond's discussions were not mere scurrilous theatrics, many of their points have been repeatedly driven home, and acknowledged for new mainstream trial descriptions or .--TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>The current version, even with the linking text and whatnot, still seems an odd inclusion for Mosher. From what I can see, the only thing we can reasonably say is that Mosher objected to OMP (possibly objecting to any therapy for schizophrenia that was drug based). I still don't think it's appropriate to discuss his resignation from the APA and patsy comment on this page as they are unrelated to OMP. He was disgusted with the APA, not with it's treatment of OMP. WLU (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed that I included the word unanimously, which makes it clear that Mosher did not endorse OMP. I can't agree with your belief that Mosher's repudiating the APA is not noteworthy, particularly because he accused it of being captured by a "special interest." Mosher had been chief of schizophrenia research at the NIMH, *any* person in that position resigning amidst accusations that the system had been corrupted is noteworthy. That he helped to bury OMP makes it all the more ironic and interesting.--Alterrabe (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's noteworthy, but his criticisms of the APA are not necessarily noteworthy on this page. The APA page, yes, but not this one. The only use I see for Mosher on this page is to say that he did not support OMP, adding to the list of people who rejected it. His rejection of the APA seems completely separate to any thoughts he may have had about OMP, but placing the two together makes it look like he quit because of OMP. I'm having a go at re-wording. WLU (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Current research

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)

Notable patients

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)

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)

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)

References that point to Eva Edelman's book

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)

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 :{{cite book |author=Eva Edelman |title=Natural Healing for Schizophrenia & Other Common Mental Disorders|publisher=Borage Books |location= Eugene, Or|year= 1998 |pages=238 |isbn=0965097668 |oclc= |doi=}} WLU (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mark Vonnegut

We are still not sure that Eva Edelman's book, the 2001 edition, says anything about Mark Vonnegut's adherence to OMP. The comment about Vonnegut has been in the article for much longer than it has been cited to Edelman. Since Vonnegut *does* have a biographical memoir called The Eden Express (1975), which is one of the references in our Mark Vonnegut article, I found that book. Here are a couple of passages:

"The doctor who had apparently been able to bring me out of it [schizophrenia] has been working from a biochemical model." (page 193)

"..the objective evidence for schizophrenia being biochemical is overwhelming" (page 210).

A few pages later he recommends orthomolecular methods to a friend, (using the term 'orthomolecular'), and approvingly cites Hoffer and Osmond, How to live with schizophrenics, and Carl Pfeiffer, The schizophrenias, yours and mine.

Still not clear how important it is to give OMP a 'celebrity endorsement', and others may have more experience on this point. If Vonnegut changed his mind later about OMP, that's not shown in the book. (Between 1975 and the present, a period not covered in the memoir, he obviously had plenty of time to change his views). EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed

I've misplaced my 2001 Edelman, but I distinctly remember reading about the Eden Express in it. Citing the Eden Express, a primary source, is even better than citing Edelman. On most other topics, I wouldn't be keen at all to include celebrities and their opinions. In this case, however, I think it's pretty important, because OMP is so controversial. As the article expands and improves it may become superfluous, but at present it does add to the OMP article.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To comment - this isn't about celebrity endorsements (though obviously it can look like that, so we have to be careful about the wording, so it doesn't), it's about notable people who are on the public record as having used OMP. WLU (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Homocysteine recycling

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)

That is indeed my recollection. Here's one of several patients who reports using B6 and not B9. [12]--Alterrabe (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This page also references B6. [13]--Alterrabe (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's very odd. There must be some kind of mistake here since the two vitamins are completely different molecules. Could we check the original, where did Pfeiffer publish this research? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 [14] 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)

We need a source though, we can't say that B6 reduces HCy and that Met increases methylation unless a reliable source has published some data that supports this. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pubmed

I'm starting to look through [www.pubmed.org pubmed] for journal results, I've added one in schizophrenia, I've also found the below, it could be added to at least a couple sections, but this also somewhat understates the findings of the review article as it cites a lot of conditions. Right now I'll add it as an addendum to bipolar, but it could clearly go in other places.

Kidd PM (2007). "Omega-3 DHA and EPA for cognition, behavior, and mood: clinical findings and structural-functional synergies with cell membrane phospholipids". Altern Med Rev. 12 (3): 207–27. PMID 18072818.

This journal, though not useful for medical information, might have some valuable information about the rejection of OMP by mainstream meds, assuming someone can get the full text (Tim? Could you, then e-mail it to me?)

Rudnick A (2002). "The molecular turn in psychiatry: a philosophical analysis". J Med Philos. 27 (3): 287–96. PMID 12187435.

In spanish and about OM in general, but possibly useful to better justify some of the basic points.

Martínez Bradshaw A (2005). "[Ortho-molecular nutrition]". Rev Enferm (in Spanish; Castilian). 28 (3): 48–50. PMID 15871343.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

Obviously critical, came up when I searched for 'orthomolecular', no abstract, useful for the 'criticisms' section but would need the full text (Tim?).

Braganza SF, Ozuah PO (2005). "Fad therapies". Pediatr Rev. 26 (10): 371–6. PMID 16199591.

I've also turned up a couple odd Pubmed articles that are in Dutch, so I've asked User:Jfdwolff to have a read and see if there's anything useful for this article (he's a Dutch doctor). WLU (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that our current diet generally doesn't get the right omega3:omega6 ratio which affects most organs, particularly the brain. Getting this balance right allows improvements in many illnesses. There even is evidence that some cases of cancer remit on a therapy including many omega 3 fatty acids. Szent-Györgyi who was on close terms with Pauling and good terms with Warburg believed cancer was a bioelectronic phenomenon; not having enough omega3s impedes some electron transfers.

As to the other changes. Why remove the fact that OM psychiatrists do *NOT* categorically reject medication?--Alterrabe (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fish oil as a "fad therapy"^dif reflecting poorly on OMP from the PIR paper? The authors, Braganza & Ozuah, upon publication, had to backtrack and eat some crow almost immediately, see their acknowledgement in PIR's Rapid Response comments. Although they mention publication lag, good science ability involves being able to discern clear trends and possibilities from less than lead pipe cinch data (or "authoritative" conclusions) hitting you hard on the head so soon, and making allowances for or mention of relevant less certain data to avoid embarrassing yourself. Luckier or more prescient authors might have left it out of a "fad" article in the first place.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the comment about removing medication aimed at me? I had left it in the article - my last edit of today to the page had two mentions of medication that I can find, Schizophrenia and [15]. I edited to try to split it from a single section covering three topics, to three topics each with one, and have no problem with a stronger statement about OMP's opposition to, or emphasis on a more nuanced use of, medication.

I wouldn't say B&O ate crow, particularly considering their reply. Not having access to the full text of the article, I can't say if the three comments made in response to errors in the article represent the entire contents of the article, obviously it's use will have to properly represent its contents. WLU (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First, your reference to the article in the May 2005 issue of Pediatrics, (1) which examined supplementation with fish oil in children who have developmental coordination disorder, was published after submission of our article for PIR. Our statement that data are insufficient to support the use of docosahexaenoic (DHA) in children was based on two double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials by Voigt et al (2) and Hirayama et al, (3)which did not find significant improvement in ADHD symptoms in children supplemented with DHA. Hence, we concluded that additional research needed to be conducted to evaluate the role of DHA and other fatty acids. The recent publication in Pediatrics adds good evidence to support the use of fatty acids for children who have developmental coordination disorder.

Having to acknowledge any bona fide treatment in the general age group with disorders, so soon, undercuts the rather broad & baldly accusatory "Fad therapies" title which tends to impugn the treatment substance as much as the detailed treatment of a specific diagnosis in a somewhat related population where the claim is "insufficient data" rather than either a larger, more clear, null result or an actual contraindication.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Jfdwolff has commented on the Dutch articles, his reply is here if anyone's interested in reading it. As is, it looks like they're not really going to be helpful for the current incarnation of the page, though they may be useful in fleshing out the 'Relationship to mainstream psychiatry' section at some point in the future. WLU (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Boyd Haley and amalgams

Boyd Haley believes that amalgams are unhealth, though he points specifically to the mercury in amalgams. Does this jive with the OM beliefs regarding amalgams and/or mercury? If it is mercury that the OMPists object to, then there's more information and pubmed studies that can be referenced, if it's something else in the amalgam then my only question is, is it worth trying to insert Haley into the text somewhere? WLU (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfeiffer wrote books in which he didn't mention amalgams as a source of mercury in humans. Amalgam and its many problems (more or less uncontroversial in Germany) aren't a core belief of OMP. I suspect they made their way into the JOM partly because it's a journal dedicated to non-mainstream medicine. Amalgam illness partly falls into toxicology, partly into environmental illness, and partly dentistry. I wouldn't bother with Haley. Haley is a friend of Hal Huggins, who in turn is a friend of Sibelrud, who published in the JOM. --Alterrabe (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented out the sentence and reference In 2006 a FDA panel refused to endorse the FDA's findings that amalgam fillings are safe."Questions and Answers on Dental Amalgam". Food and Drug Administration. 2006-10-30. Retrieved 2008-01-04. as from what I read in the document, it does not say this at all. The 'worst' that page says is:

the panel did raise concerns about the lack of knowledge concerning the effects of dental amalgam on specific groups, including pregnant women, small children, and people who are especially sensitive to mercury. During the meeting, FDA presented a draft white paper that reviewed the scientific literature from 1997 to the present on the safety of dental amalgam. FDA asked the panel for its opinion on this paper. The panel recommended that the FDA reevaluate the literature. Specifically, they wanted to know if there was additional information available regarding the effects of dental amalgam on pregnant women, small children, and sensitive individuals, and on exposure levels during initial placement or removal of amalgam fillings. (question 4)

I wouldn't stretch that to a refusal, at worst it's a call for more information, an acknowledgement that the information is limited. WLU (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-worded - the statement didn't say the amalgams were unsafe, they were concerned that they could not say conclusively that they were. I think the current wording better represents the position on the web document. WLU (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was a POV-fork

Not a separate article from Orthomolecular medicine unless you want to build a Wikipedia:Walled garden, I redirected the article back to its appropriate place. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be hundreds of scholarly sources for this topic which will easily support a separate article. Redirection is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

- The article is in much better shape than it used to be. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

- - Actually Private Warden, there's about no scholarly sources. Unless, you mean there's some sources (not very scholarly) that the field exists in the mind of certain individuals. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend merging with Orthomolecular medicine. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I don't understand how it's considered a POV-fork; could someone explain? I see no particular reason why POVs described in this article would be different from those described in orthomolecular medicine. Do you mean it's a POV fork from some other article besides that one?

I favour keeping this as a separate article. The amount of material is too large to merge easily. The amount of source material out there on orthomolecular psychiatry is fairly large, I believe, enough to justify a separate article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the merger proposal. Verbal chat 12:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and orthomolecular medicine; for some specifics, I like the presentation better in this article. Merging the two would create an article of higher quality.

@Coppertwig, orthomolecular psychiatry is a fork, in my opinion, because it shows the same POV tendencies as orthomolecular medicine does. Why not also create "orthomolecular oncology", "orthomolecular immunology", "orthomolecular toxicology", etc.? Because all of these categories are minor parts of orthomolecular medicine, itself just a term invented by some rather fringe scientists and not accepted by mainstream medicine. The publications in these "disciplines" have been published, for the most part, in one special-interest journal established by one of the early fringe scientists as a response to what he and his colleagues considered a conspiracy by mainstream science to reject their papers by peer review....and what the alleged conspirators probably considered the normal response to a bunch of mediocre research. All forms orthomolecular xxxxxiatry and orthomolecular xxxxxology (if they exist at all, as someone said before, outside the minds of a few alternative doctors), are just part of orthomolecular medicine, and one article on the fringe phenomenon will probably do. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

POV forks are two articles on the same topic written from different perspectives; but here, according to what you say, we have two articles on different topics written from the same perspective, therefore not a POV fork.

The question is whether there's enough material for a separate article. I'm under the impression that orthomolecular psychiatry is a very large part of orthomolecular medicine. There might or might not be enough material to support separate articles on other aspects (I haven't looked into that), but I believe there is for orthomolecular psychiatry. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the same subject and topic - just this one has slightly more specificity. This should be reintegrated into the parent article. This is a fringe topic and we don't need multiple articles on it. Verbal chat 16:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of reintegrating. Any help with the talk page would be appreciated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this so I shall revert. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. As usual. Threatening an edit war is blockable.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the POV pushing of Colonel Warden. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see consensus. There are vague arguments for keeping an article by Coppertwig which have been refuted and then there is CW's vacuous obstructionism. There are four people in favor of the merger. Revert by CW was actually against consensus. Thanks for restoring sanity, OM. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig seems to want to play "nicey nice", so it's not clear what he's saying. Corporal Warden's POV is well known, and should be discounted without prejudice. The consensus from remaining editors is to merge, so we're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The last comment from User:ScienceApologist above was in support of the current article and we had a 3:3 position. If it is now 4:2 then this is still not consensus. The Orthomolecular medicine article is now too large at 80K. This separate article is a sensible division per WP:SIZE in that Linus Pauling's seminal paper upon Orthomolecular Psychiatry was the first usage of the term Orthmolecular and so this was the founding branch of the more general field. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient consensus here to say that your false claims of non-consensus are ignorable. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is a matter of reasoned argument not counting heads or ignoring views. The grounds for the merger were that this was a POV fork and this has not been demonstrated since it seems to be agreed that the POV of the two articles are aligned. The objection of User:Coppertwig and myself is that the topics are too large to all be put into one article and this is well supported by the evidence and guidelines. The logical position does not therefore favour merger. Moreover, a consensus was not agreed prior to the merge and there seems to be no impartial voice to settle the matter. I shall sleep on the matter and return to this tomorrow, seeking dispute resolution as appropriate. The various incivilities above may require attention too - please withdraw them as they are unhelpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If 80K is too large, there is certainly more condensing to do. Some information has no doubt been duplicated during the merging process. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that CW actually considered the merge itself. This is a usual tactic: a mergy happens and then some supporter of the original article objects to the redirect rather than considering the fact that all the relevant material was reincorporated elsewhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Corporal Warden is just attempting to get his way. And despite his throwing consensus around, it actually doesn't subvert NPOV, RS, VERIFY, and of course, FRINGE. Which this is. Fringe bullshit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish to refer the issue of whether to convert this article into a redirect to a broader community discussion, perhaps in the form of AfD. I'm looking into it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not post on the WP:FTN if you want more input? AfD seems wrong as the article and the information contained isn't up for deletion - setting up an AfD would seem to using a loaded forum. You could always start an RfC and announce it. You could suggest a wording here to ensure it is neutral. Verbal chat 13:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FTN isn't a loaded forum? Artw (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho. Artw (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problematic behavior has been referred to arbitration enforcement. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

KCaCo did a good job on the merge. Based on my review of the sources, we should be able to present everything about Orthomolecular medicine in one long-ish article. The present article really is too long to admit a good merge at this point in time, though. Can we cut the cruft and redundancy over there and then ~~fight over~~ engage in productive discussion over here? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favor on not merging these articles. This child subject seems distinct enough from its parent and notable enough on its own to warrant an article. I believe that we've already determined that it is not a POV fork, so are there any other policy-specific grounds which would merit a merge? I really thing that WP:N is what we should be focusing on here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: the "merge" has already happened. The only remaining question is why should we keep duplicate information. The issue is not one of WP:N, WP:POVFORK, or WP:CON. It is solely a question of whether this subject can be adequately covered at Orthomolecular medicine. Since it is being adequately covered at orthomolecular medicine, it is up to the alternative medicine promoters to explain what aspects need to be included here that cannot/are not being included there. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would behoove this conversation (and Wikipedia in general), if we stopped looking at it a the "promotion of alternative medicine", and rather as the "promotion of knowledge". If an editor is trying to use an article such as this only to promote a pro-alt med POV, than that's one thing. But as far as I can tell, this article is being used to further the core goal of Wikipedia - the sum total of all human knowledge. This subject seems notable, so there really is no reason to delete it (at least none has been presented). If the information can be summarized at the parent article - great! But that doesn't mean that the child article - which can go into more detail - should be deleted. I am not saying that the current article here is perfect (what article is?), but I think with some TLC it is on its way to becoming a very decent article. Instead of quibbling over deleting a perfectly fine article, we should rather be discussing how to improve it. That's my two-cents, anyhow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We must figure out how to clarify the difference between keeping an article for the sake of having a lot of articles and keeping an article because it helps the reader. The problem? Right now this article sloughs off a lot of nonsense (not "knowledge") as being related when it is clearly just an amalgamation of ideas that could be abused easily. Orthomolecular "psychiatry" is no more a knowledge-base than "Orthomolecular oncology" or "Orthomolecular rheumetology". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing we should consider is the current article size of the parent article: 80,703 bytes!. I think if anything, we should be slimming down that article by providing more summaries and off-shoots to more specific child articles such as this one. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper forking is good, but I'm not convinced that this is the article which would actually be spun off. In particular, this subject is not only moribund, it's a stretch to disambiguate it at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Artw (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a real rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a sufficiently distinct subject that a seperate article is desirable. Also if the rationale for deletion is "POV fork" then, frankly, that's ludicrous. Also a general objection to allowing editors to railroad through changes through wikilawyering and canvasing, for whatever that's worth. Artw (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be that my interpretation of the POV fork concept was faulty. I thought that a POV fork was an article added to Wikipedia to promote a point of view. For example, I could write an article on "opposition to water fluoridation", then another on "opposition to water fluoridation by medical professionals", with the second being a POV fork. If that's not what a fork is, I apologise.

My intent was not to "railroad" anything. I also don't know of any cases where I canvassed other editors. As for WP:SIZE, the size of the article post-merge remains under the size recommended in the general guideline. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a POV-fork is one that is usually nebulous at best. The point here, methinks, is that the WP:CFORK guidance says write the main article first rather than the daughter articles. I'm not convinced that this would have ever been a daughter article if people had actually focused on properly writing the orthomolecular medicine article in the first place. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines - seems pretty un-nebulous to me. Also does not match this case. Artw (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the merge seems to now be primarily here. It was not my intention to start a new discussion in a separate place, and I did provide a link to here in my message, but now that the discussion seems to have shifted there, I'm just posting this message so that anyone joining the discussion will be aware of where the main discussion is. I believe everyone who commented in this discussion has also commented there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary page

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)

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)

Reverting to article form

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)

So you recreated a highly POV article. Good job there Coppertwig. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Lead of new version biased

The new lead reverted to by Coppertwig [16] ~~developed by Coppertwig in the sandbox [17] and now in the article~~ is very biased in favor of fringe proponents compared to the old version.

I propose a revert to the old version. WP:FRINGE is very clear and Orthmolecular Psychiatry is clearly fringe or pseudoscience. Sentences such as However, the conclusions of this APA report were strongly criticized by proponents of orthomolecular psychiatry for being politically motivated and scientifically unfounded and other phrases give far too much weight to the fringe voice. Phil153 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a POV fork article, and should be deleted. I've added a POV tag, because it is a terribly unbalanced article. The lead made it appear that the orthomolecular crap actually worked. I've now got to waste my good evening cleaning up the shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It only gets 30 views a day, and some of those are editors, others would be quack proponents. Nothing worth wasting a good evening on! Phil153 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I performed the merge and I have no clue why there should be separate articles. The most cogent argument "against" the merger was that the final version was too long, when it was actually less than half the size (in readable text) recommended by WP:SIZE. The merge was discussed and performed, then the fringe advocates came out of the woodwork to oppose it. Finally, Coppertwig not only reverted the merge without clear consensus, but changed it to an even more slanted POV. I will revert back. If Coppertwig wants mediation to defend the POV changes, Coppertwig can ask for it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching my alma mater in a 4OT game and editing. I'm wasting my time, but it should be reverted to the redirect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathize with Phil153's comments, there is a bigger backstory here than there appears. LEAD states that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist". Current peer-reviewed articles, and a recent clinical trial which was removed from the article [18], do note that Hoffer made the plausible point that replications of his work always used niacin/amide on "chronic schizophrenics" who had the condition over a year, while Hoffer said only people who had had it under a year respond to B3. The above clinical trial apparently tested this, and it's completed, but the results haven't been published. II | (t - c) 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I support most of the material added in OrangeMarlin's recent edits. In particular I support this paragraph added to the lead: [19] It sounds reasonable and adds balance. (I reserve the right to change my mind if I later happen to notice anything I disagree with.)

Phil153 said, "The new lead developed by Coppertwig in the sandbox..." but gives a link to a version which is not the version I developed. The material I added to the lead in the sandbox was "who stated that "the results and claims of the advocates of megavitamin therapy have not been confirmed by several groups of psychiatrists and psychologists experienced in psychopharmacological research."^[1]". Phil153, are you saying that this sentence I added is biassed in favour of fringe proponents, and if so, would you please explain how? I also added a section on Schizophrenia; however, it may be redundant given that the version from October had a section on that illness. Here's where I change to the sandbox version: [20] (27,289 bytes) and here's where I revert to the October 28 version: [21] (44,943 bytes). I still plan to go through the edits between the end of October/beginning of November version and now and restore edits that seem worthwhile to me (and hope that other editors will do so as well).

Phil153, I think you've given two links to the same version, so it's not clear whether that's the version you want to revert to or not. I don't think any of the material in the link you gave was written by me. We may need to examine more than one version to find the best version of each part of the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)My apologies. That wasn't done in the sanbox, after restoring the sandbox version you reverted to an October 2008 version [22] (why?) that was very bisaed in favor of Ortho. I've corrected the link, sorry for the confusion. Phil153 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate something I said at AE: that I wish to thank and commend OrangeMarlin for collaboratively accepting the result of the RfC and discussion and beginning the difficult work of actually editing the article. Also, in case anyone missed it, I'd like to reiterate that given the current situation I consider it disruptive for anyone to revert to a redirect; if you want more details on that see my post at AE and my comment (1A) at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine which I link to there. I've reverted to article form again per the RfC, per Ruslik's clarification of the RfC close and per the AN/I thread which I summarize here. Let's solve this according to due process, discussion and appropriate fora, not by editwarring; please follow the consensus Ruslik perceived and mentioned in the RfC close and the consensus at AN/I. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil. No problem; we all make mistakes, or at least I do. I still haven't finished reading through and comparing the two versions so I really don't know whether the October version is better. I figured that the October version was essentially the status quo ante before the attempts to merge or drastically shorten the article began. I'm not necessarily supporting any particular part or parts of that version. I don't feel strongly about starting with any particular version if someone would like to revert to a different version; if I then find things in the longer version I want to add back in they can be discussed or boldly added back in later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It may have been a mistake for me to revert to the October version. I thought I was going to find time to study both versions much sooner than this; I still don't know which I prefer. OrangeMarlin (or anyone else), if it's a lot more work for you to start with the longer version, please just revert to the shorter article version (not the redirect) at least if no one else opposes doing that. I think I'd prefer starting with a longer version and deleting things, but it's only a mild preference. If you do revert to the shorter version I may find things I want to add back in later; also in that case I apologize, OrangeMarlin, for the time you had to spend already working on the longer version. I don't plan to re-revert wholesale to the longer version. I hope others won't editwar between majorly different versions especially not without discussing the merits of each individual passage that differs between the versions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think I agree with the non-consensus. In fact, I will continue to revert to the previous consensus of redirect, until you show us a consensus. You keep adding POV edits too. I am spending too much time cleaning up after you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil153 and OrangeMarlin, I'm sorry that I was slow to understand what you were saying. I was thrown off by Phil's accidentally providing two links to the same version, and I had accidentally misread something OrangeMarlin had written. It now seems clear to me that both of you are asserting a clear preference for the shorter version of (for example) 02:23 12 March over the longer October version. After I realized that one of you was saying this, (and no one else opposing), I decided to self-revert away from the October version back to a more recent version. I'm sorry, OrangeMarlin, for having inadvertently caused you to spend time on extra work unnecessarily editing the longer version.

I considered that going back to the October version was a bold move which could be reverted. After so many reverts to the redirect, I didn't realize that there would be so much hesitation reverting that edit. I had considered saying in the edit summary something like "feel free to revert to a different article version", but I figured my talk page comment stating that I hadn't reviewed it yet would get the message across that I didn't feel strongly about it; apparently I was wrong about that. I now realize that perhaps it was ScienceApologist's shortening of the article that was seen as the original bold edit and that therefore to follow WP:BRD, after my revert there would have to be discussion and consensus before going back to the shorter version. I didn't realize it would be seen that way. Note that I have a "self-revert" userbox as well as a 1RR userbox and a Harmonious Editing Club userbox. This doesn't mean I will always self-revert when asked; (I explain here); but it can't hurt to ask.

Re this edit by OrangeMarlin: the earlier discussion of Feb. 27 to March 1 of 6 editors (4 supporting merge and 2 opposing) does not in any way trump the later discussion Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry#Merge from Orthomolecular psychiatry of 18 editors of whom 12 opposed the merge and 6 supported, a discussion about which uninvolved admin Ruslik stated "the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge.". As I've stated earlier, I consider converting to a redirect under these conditions to be disruptive. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lead was the only thing I was concerned about and the concerns were addressed by the editing of OrangeMarlin (who appears to be fine with that version since he did multiple edits to it). I've put the latest version back in, it has more sources and more in depth coverage. I hope that's ok. If anyone wants to put any other version that's fine with me; I'm reverting Coppertwig because his revert to the old version was based on a misunderstanding (miscommunication on my part) of preferences of other editors.

BTW, this edit warring to force a redirect is not helpful. Completely uninvolved admins both at OM talk and ANI consider redirecting to be a pretty clear case of acting against consensus. Phil153 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Phil. I mildly support your revert back to the longer version, although I still haven't had time to review the entire article. I think it's easier to start with a longer article and delete anything that's inappropriate than to start with a shorter version and search around (even in the page history) for things to add. I hope this won't lead to editwarring; I also don't oppose anyone putting in any other article^{(18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC))} version at this time, although it's good to settle as soon as possible on a stable version to work from. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to the last consensus version, which was redirect. Thank you. BTW, each time all of you edit the non-redirected article, you add more POV, and it becomes more useless of an article. It is nothing more than a POV fork since the anti-science folks had their asses handed to them on the OMM article. We're sticking with the redirect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify my above comment: I meant any other article version, not a redirect. And that no longer applies: that was at that time. At this time, I oppose starting from any version other than either the version Ruslik put in (for which I think there is a sort of consensus to use it as a starting version) [23] or the version based on the October version (version of 1:34 14 March which includes edits by OrangeMarlin and myself; edits which had been made can be reverted based on reasons based on specific content as opposed to selecting a different starting version).

OrangeMarlin, now that I've clarified that my comment above was not intended as approval of reverting to a redirect (which I continue to believe is disruptive and against the consensus Ruslik perceived), will you please state that you will stop reverting to a redirect, so that we can request page unprotection? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Reverting four and one half months changed the organizational structure from one focused on nutrient deficiencies to one which gives standard diagnoses. OMM proponents consider that subclinical nutrient deficiencies and quirks of metabolism are misdiagnosed as a variety of standard disorders. From the standpoint of clearly explaining what this article is about, it makes more sense to organize by nutrient. This does have the disadvantage that the best sources per WP:MEDRS do not adopt this organizational scheme, so I am loathe to apply it without some discussion.

As a side note, the intervening edits included my merge from pyroluria; this added sources not in the article as of a few weeks ago, though I confess that I have not checked against the unearthed version. Could we use the version Ruslik0 restored after the RfC as a starting point? The prose in that version is much less of a headache to read, and a reference comparison to check for well-sourced but omitted information is not so difficult. In many cases, I would agree that paring is easier than building, but this article has seen such rampant abuse of sources that the effort of sorting and correcting actually seems greater. Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Taking the Ruslik version is a good idea as Ruslik's restoration of that version can be seen as giving it legitimacy therefore avoiding contention. From there, changes can be made towards other versions based on reasons as opposed to wholesale reverting. (although at this point I still mildly prefer starting from the longer version). I have no objection at this time to re-addition of the material from pyroluria although I haven't looked at it since that merge. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, done, this seems to be the preference. For other editors, old version with heaps more references/text is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil153 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-14T15:03:26

Thank you. Here is to strictly differentiating between the historical and the medical aspects of the article(s?) henceforth. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Keepcalmandcarryon. Good catch about the BLP. I'll try to find time to work on it too in the next few days. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With the pyroluria/histadelia/histapenia gone from the main article, I am leaning towards not nominating for deletion, as this information is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for that, though I realize you may still be undecided as yet. As I think I pointed out already (but can't find my comment), editors were roughly evening divided in a discussion about whether to merge Pyroluria into Orthomolecular medicine, so having Pyroluria a redirect (as it is now) and this page an article seems to me a reasonable overall compromise. Or in other words, there may not have been consensus to merge Pyroluria into Orthomolecular medicine, but there seems to be consensus to merge it into this page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article versus redirect

On the question of whether to merge this article (Orthomolecular psychiatry) with Orthomolecular medicine, there were three discussions:

	dates	Notes	Total	Support merge	Oppose merge	Neutral	Percent support	Result
Discussion 1	Nov. 24–26, 2008 and Feb. 27 – March 2, 2009	Editors of Orthomolecular medicine were not informed of the discussion.	9	5	4	0	56%	Merge supporters have stated that this discussion showed consensus for a merge.
Discussion 2	March 2–5, 2009	Considered to be part of the RfC by the RfC closer. Editors of both articles were aware, and some editors may have been alerted to the discussion by an AN/I thread. All editors in Discussion 1 also participated in Discussion 2.	19	6	12	1	33%	RfC closer, referring to this discussion, stated "the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge."
Discussion 3	March 4, 2009	Section of RfC reserved for previously uninvolved editors.	2	1	1	0	50%	RfC closer stated "The discussion stalled and no consensus for the merge has developed."

Uninvolved admin Ruslik, who closed the RfC, indicated Ruslik's interpretation of the appropriate response to discussions 2 and 3 by converting the redirect back to an article against Ruslik's stated preference, and further clarified the meaning of the RfC close here.

In the above table, I was somewhat unsure about Eldereft's position, and counted the editor as supporting the merge in Discussion 1 and as neutral in Discussion 2. All other editors' positions seem clear.

~~I have three questions for OrangeMarlin, Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon~~ I would appreciate it if OrangeMarlin and Verbal would answer these questions:^{(22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC))}:

What are the policy-based arguments for a merge? (Diff links to previous comments which you feel answer this question will be OK, though I may respond with requests for further elaboration.)^{(22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC))}
Given that Discussion 2 was later than Discussion 1 and had more participants, why are you still basing your actions on Discussion 1? (I hope you don't mind me asking this in an attempt to understand your position as a step towards arriving at consensus.)^{(22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC))}
Would you be willing to participate in mediation to explore these questions?

I call on all editors to respect the outcome of the RfC as expressed by the closer and to leave the page in article form so that we can get on with the work of editing it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For those still contesting this, I would urge you to drop all silliness with redirects, put aside the previous merge attempt, and start a new merge discussion untainted by the previous one, taking care to use all the appropriate tags and notifications. Artw (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig has parsed my expressed opinions correctly. My opinion now is that the encyclopedia would be better served by replacing poor sources, original synthesis, and undue weight with strict adherence to reliable sources in due proportion. But, you know, that is what we all want. Hopefully the merge question will be obvious one way or the other in a few months. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything less than what Artw suggests would not justify claiming consensus for a merge at this point, but it's not clear to me that even that would justify it. I'm not sure that there is or isn't any good reason for carrying out yet another discussion at this time, and if it has fewer participants than discussion 2 (or than discussions 2 and 3 combined, which Ruslik considered together to comprise the RfC) then it wouldn't clearly supersede that discussion and would in that case only create more uncertainty. Starting another merge discussion at this time could perhaps be considered forum-shopping and disruptive; redirecting without such discussion is definitely in my opinion disruptive. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)^{(22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC))}

Re Artw's suggestion: I expressed my views on that in the last paragraph of this comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There was also an ANI thread here (Third thread from the bottom, "Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine"; I can't get the section link to work) about this which in my opinion shows strong support for respecting the RfC close by keeping both articles: I summarized there "7 or 8 editors ... supporting the idea that the uninvolved admin's close of the RfC should be respected, i.e. both articles kept; 2 ... apparently taking the opposite position". Two more editors commented after I posted that summary but did not express support for reverting to a redirect after the RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The vehemence of Coppertwig and others directed at me for performing a merger suggested by the first two reasons under WP:MERGE has been somewhat surprising and disappointing. I was relatively new to the article and viewed it as a duplication, or at least an overlap, of Orthomolecular medicine. WP:MERGE clearly states that merging is a "normal editing action" and can be done even without discussion. Nevertheless, I asked first. And I felt the discussion after my proposal confirmed my reasons and was more than enough to justify my actions. I was unaware of the previous discussion and certainly didn't anticipate the indignant marshaling of opposition, complete with painstaking tabular representations of the various votes, by Coppertwig, who after unceremoniously demanding answers to several questions from me pre-emptively declares my predicted future actions to be "disruptive". I assure Coppertwig that I have no intention of reverting to the redirect. If coming edits to the article can differentiate it clearly from Orthomolecular medicine, well and good. If not, I will nominate it for deletion as suggested above. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for appearing vehement. I'm sorry I didn't add clarifications to some of my comments to make it clear that I was not criticizing you for your action here, redirecting the page after some discussion. You're right that normally anyone can redirect a page even without discussion. WP:Merge says "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge". WP:Merge also says, "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided." This is part of the WP:BRD cycle: someone does a bold edit, and perhaps it's accepted by others and stays, or perhaps it gets reverted. In expressing opposition to a redirect, I was not in any way intending to imply that you had done anything wrong by redirecting the page at that time. I respect that different editors have different opinions about whether Wikipedia is better off with a separate page on this topic. WP:BOLD says "It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further."

Once it's clear that there is opposition to an edit, then it's time for discussion. We had that discussion; I asked for broader input from the community, and many more editors participated in the second discussion than in the first. Once that was done, the situation was different. At this time, after the discussion, the close of the RfC and the further clarification by Ruslik, it is no longer time for the "be bold" part of WP:BOLD but time for the "but be careful" part.

My asking you questions above was not in any way prompted by your March 1 redirect. It was in response to your March 13 redirect. However, I'm striking out your name and no longer asking you to answer those questions (although if you would like to discuss e.g. the policy reasons for the merge that would be welcome) because you've now stated that you have no intention of reverting to the redirect; thank you very much for that, I really appreciate it. Thank you also for (if I understand your comment correctly) intending to allow some time for us to try to improve the article before you might nominate it for deletion; I think such nomination will be a reasonable action to take if you believe there are good reasons at that time for deleting it. I hope that although we may take opposite positions in a deletion discussion that we will be able to get along with each other while doing so.

I'm sorry that I sounded unceremonious. I'm editing my words in an attempt to improve the tone.

Just to be clear to others (I'm sure I don't need to say this to you, Keepcalmandcarryon): nothing in this comment is to be construed as an invitation to convert the page to a redirect. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoffer-Osmond diagnostic test

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)

^ Levy, Joseph Victor (1976). Vitamins. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 52. ISBN 0871406160, 9780871406163. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1] Levy, Joseph Victor (1976). Vitamins. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 52. ISBN 0871406160, 9780871406163. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]