HomeContact Us

d e k vitamin

What's New

Info Menu

top rated prenatal vitamins
buy heart health supplement
vitamin e picture
clothing kid vitamin
glucosamine supplement
benefit e unique vitamin
body balance michaels vitamins
diet supplement truth
health insurance supplement
body building rating supplement
muscle fitness supplements
shaklee vitamin prices
vitamins for pimples
b12 loss pill vitamin weight
candida vitamin b12
business industry growth of health vitamins and supplements
compare prenatal vitamins as seen on tv
vitamins baby
testosterone supplements
c chewable vitamin
the vitamin store
cream e skin vitamin
guide healing nutritional prescription supplement z

d e k vitamin

Vitamins A D E K for a sunny week Morning Regimen

Paradigm

Previous discussions: As I said before, I am looking at the "conceptual framework" and "pattern of thought and ideas" version of "paradigm" to express an important descriptive, introductory element about orthomed.

It is important to describe the subject and orthomed is more than some mere aberration of medical practice, it has a large philosophical component that its critics here wish to deprecate, such as the old prejudicial "cult" quote which indirectly acknowledges the philosophical component in a very negative way. Words like "theory" or "hypothesis" certanly are too specific (there are at least many hypotheses in orthomed - in fact, J of Ortho Med's closest cousin in Medline is Medical Hypotheses, with ongoing streams of hypotheses), a "framework of hypotheses and thought pattern" is awkward and still deficient. I think that the average, educated Wiki reader understands from the context that paradigm here *does not* mean: 1. "One that serves as a pattern or model." 2. "an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms" I am searching for succinct wording that conveys this element.

AGF on your comment about POV, I suspect one definition that might fit your concerns if one assumes that your reading of "paradigm" assumes or associates "Medicine" alone rather than "orthomolecular medicine" is: "the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time" which is a little narrow and presumptive in reading for this context. A solution might be to briefly clarify that the orthomolecular paradigm separates or extends from the conventional medicine field in the overlap areas and / or the philosophical / experimental elements. (I might say "alternative paradigm" but that would be confusing since orthomed overlaps conventional med whether conventional medicine likes to recognize this or not)

I recognize that some editors here may not be comfortable with "paradigm" but orthomolecular medicine has Pauling's organizing principle that he identified as an idea (before paradigm's popular use) and guides its philosophic, scientific and medical directions. The current introduction without "paradigm" shortchanges this descriptive element.--TheNautilus 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Preferred vitamin E amd controlling for other vitamin levels

This edit raised the issue that authoritative studies with the preferred vitamin E have not been done. However, it then goes on to comment about controlling for "bile, pancreatic function, certain specific heart problems and risk factors, blood levels and cofactors (vitamins C, D3, K1, K2, selenium, co-enzyme Q10, etc.) in the common orthomolecular range, 600-3200 IU alpha tocopherol plus 25%-50% by weight of other R,R,R tocopherols." Controlling for these vitamin levels seems excessive and not routinely done in clinical trials. Furthermore, it's not clear if controlling for these levels actually has a medical basis. (Of course you need to control for heart disease and other comorbidities). Andrew73 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

POV edits by Nautilus

I find it very disturbing that, after a month where consensus was reached on how to make what was an extraordinarily biased article NPOV, Nautilus waits a few weeks for the controversy to die down, and then reverts everything back to a POV version over the Labor Day weekend. If Nautilus persists in refusing to adhere to NPOV, I will escalate within the appropriate Wikipedia rules. -- Cri du canard 10:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A gentle suggestion

I wonder if you'd mind me making a gentle suggestion here. I can't stay but would prefer to see some harmony here, although maybe I'll upset everyone. I think it is sometimes a fair criticism of "pro science" cases that they (rightly) demand high levels of evidence for non standard views, but do not display clearly the same standards when describing their case. I don't think there's any excuse for that in the end; good V RS peer reviewed sources, available for inspection (ideally online) and rigorous citation of them should be a hallmark of the "mainstream" approach. Now the information in QW may be reliable; I would expect it to be, but it is not clearly a peer reviewed source; if there are better sources they should be used, if there are not better sources, maybe there needs to be some reflection on why not by the editors. On the OM side, some information is referenced to non peer reviewed sources. I can understand why this might be unavoidable. If information is included from sources that are not highest V RS, maybe this can be accomodated by explicitly conceding (coolly rather than provocatively) the weaker nature of the source. The attribution of references to potentially contentious points does need checking carefully in places. For example "because of unsubstantiated claims, lack of proven benefits, and serious toxic effects.", I confess I haven't checked, but do all of these references support all of these points? It is not clear to me that does for example, but your wording implies that all the named organisations endorse all the stated claims; you didn't intend it, but this sentence inadvertently expresses an inference beyond the stated evidence, and from the other side accordingly looks like a blatant POV distortion. Don't you really mean "risks of" serious toxic effects? Are you happy with the quality of these sources - I would prefer sources that are available online for verification, at least in abstract form, and some seem distinctly more authoritative as sources than others. I think that some self-critical reflection might help; the science case can, and I think should, be made much stronger by close and rigorous adherence to the standards that it would wish the altmed case to adhere to. OK it might seem pedantic; but precision and close justification builds the best cases. Where the evidence leads I'm in no position to prejudge; I know where I expect it to go, but it goes where it goes, and in the end it's for us just to display the best evidence and most notable opinions clearly, and allow the reader to judge.Gleng 23:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frequent" use of OM

I see the article has been reverted to read:

Orthomolecular type treatments have frequently been experimentally or empirically introduced by physicians with advanced scientific backgrounds when conventional medical treatments offered neither solution nor hope.

The references provided do not back this up. OM has not been "frequently" employed by physicians; the references are from a handful of physicians outside the medical mainstream. I'm removing the "frequently" unless there is some evidence cited that these treatments are, in fact, frequently used by physicians. Also, I'm removing "with advanced scientific backgrounds". The cited physicians have the typical training and credentials of a physician anywhere; to insist that they have "advanced scientific backgrounds" is redundant and sounds like an appeal to authority. MastCell 23:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A few things...

... first of all, this article is really pretty good considering the controversial nature of its subject and the well-documented difficulties of covering minority/dissident scientific ideas on Wikipedia. Areas where it could use improvement: