Talk:Orthopathy/Archive 1

Terms

This is a note after User:Verbal changed a historical point in the article. If you want to push some point about 'evidence based medicine,' a term which was not in Shelton's explanation, then I will put more points about what natural hygienists' evidence for their method is, and state that allopaths generally do not even consider trying it. At least one allopath today, however, sends patients he cannot 'cure' to a natural hygienist. Allopathy has a separate article than evidence based medicine, so please do not misstate the statement about what Shelton said. Allopathy is used as a name for a medical school of thought, and it is the term he used. Whether it is fully evidence-based or ignores nature cure's evidence is another matter. NPOV requires that historical statements are not misstated and that one keeps an open mind until finding out whether there is evidence or not for a topic (such as orthopathy).--Dchmelik (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "allopath" is being misused. We can note that Shelton used the term, but wikipedia can not use it to describe modern medicine. Verbal chat 08:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think heroic medicine was basically extinct by 1939, but it is clear from his writing that by allopathy Shelton means the medicine taught in medical schools and practised by MDs. See how the new list sits with you. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia also uses allopathy to mean what Shelton meant, though I now see the term has a slight negative connotation so should be completely avoided for that general use at least in the article.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you this edit makes it look like allopathy was ever a term in common use. It seems perfectly reasonable to notify readers that a term is being used in an idiosyncratic or obsolete fashion, but ... well, looking at it now I am not happy with my version either. What if we let the wikilink provide immediate context, and add a sentence after that one detailing a few of these difference in practice and philosophy (Shelton devotes a surfeit of verbiage to precisely this, so we might want more than a sentence eventually) in the spirit of showing rather than telling? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was the opposite of my intention. Having the qualifier outside of the brackets was the problem I think, and I got my 1800s and 1900s mixed up. Apologies and thanks, Verbal chat 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I kinda figured something like that was the case; new wording looks fine to me. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

In order to be balanced this article needs a discussion of effectiveness, specially any peer reviewed, double blind, trials in mainstream medical journals, if any. The evidence needs to be addressed. Verbal chat 08:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not found anything dealing specifically with efficacy, but as long as all claims are properly framed as such we should be ok. I left the tags up as I do not like evaluating my own work, but I think I addressed them all. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to be more than a stub the article needs a discussion of effectiveness by the scientific method you mentioned, but there is absolutely no reason it needs to be mainstream: because science throughout history is usually rejected, then just considered pseudoscience, then just ignored or focused little on along with many other nonsensical theories that seem not as good or that should be unified (just look at the state of physics theories for example.) Shelton successfully fasted hundreds of thousands of people with a higher success rate of healing than that of hospitals. That is not a fact that should be dismissed lightly just because mainstream journals do not have the interest or open-mindedness or lack of bias (for a special interest such as pharmaceutical business) to not publish anything about fasting. Today many mainstream MDs still literally get angry when they hear/read about the success of lifestyle as prevention and fasting as healing over no lifestyle but drugs/herbs as an attempt at curing that NHs explain have side effects and mainly temporarily help one problem at the expense of another--which holistically is also called an imbalance that generally achieves nothing in the long run, because if overall (holistic) health of the body's sytems together is still not high then any problem can recur. Indeed now, many medical or scientific journals report on the healthiness (verified slightly more effective illness prevention) of a healthy vegetarian diet or very careful vegan one, but they do not maintain enough interest to get to the many details of what exactly must be done for it to be healthy and what must be done in the case that prevention does not work (due to either lapses in NH principles or certainly outside influences.) NH explains these details and gives the info on the method of healing in the case prevention does not work.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"That is not a fact that should be dismissed lightly just because mainstream journals do not have the interest or open-mindedness or lack of bias (for a special interest such as pharmaceutical business) to not publish anything about fasting." This is original research on your part, as is the remainder of your statement appears which appears to be trying to set up a basis for the article using your own original synthesis. It is not up to you to try and persuade us whether a topic should be included or not, as User:Verbal is right to say that to establish its notability and to prove its neutrality in its scientific fields, it needs proper referencing from medical journals. SynergyBlades (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed any such scientific studies would add value, but they are not required in order to describe NH. I think it would be appropriate to simply describe NH as 'unscientific', or based on principles which have not been experimentally confirmed. Sheldon and others claimed high rates of success afaik, but their populations of patients were probably self-selected, certainly not randomised, blinded etc. -- Bongruntlefarcket (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

note on some updates to the article

Note that I began this article with British English. I have added a few elaborations/clarifications and now the article may need a bit of rewriting for space and clear structure. Also I am not sure whether my change of the founder from 'Jennings' to 'Shelton' is correct. IIRC, or as the article stated, Jennings said 'Hygeine,' but I thought Shelton was the first to use the whole term NH (maybe I am wrong, I just think that is what I have been taught.) One of my elaborations, namely on herbs clarifies why thy article is notable and is different than naturopathic medicine. Can we remove the 'notable' tag now or is there some other reason this is suspected as being non-notable? If it is still suspected non-notable, note that the article is now distinguished from naturopathy. For that reason it seems notable enough. Note Dr. Shelton had about 15 - 20 other medical degrees, including several Phds so the articles on naturopathy do not give a complete enough viewpoint on this topic: Shelton was qualified to write about a new school of medical thought.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been many scientific theories from the early to mid 20th century that have since been refuted and refined, such is the nature of science. Is there any current, up-to-date, reliable third-party material for this topic? If not, the article should make clear the age of the scientific basis being discussed, as currently with the "societies" being mentioned it makes it seem like there is academic support behind its ideas when there are no references in the article to back this up. SynergyBlades (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there is any reference material from the conventional medical community, but besides the hundreds of thousands of people that Shelton fasted, several other doctors fasted or still fast people, and some of them do not completely use all the guidelines Shelton recommended. Yet they were still successful using only part of the guidelines. I could eventually look up what is published of Shelton's records or those of some similar doctors. Some of them probably started as more conventional doctors. There is one community college in LA that has a NH degree. I do not really know what you mean by clearing up the age of the scientific basis... I think the article says 1800s... of course that is not exact enough. My timeline of great thinkers says that Sylvester Graham was the founder of either Nature Cure (NC) or NH. I once traced it back as far as I could, and I guess Graham founded the NC movement but Shelton probably changed the name to NH.

Also, it is probably not that a recent idea: I suspect it is tracable to the earliest recorded students of the body and health, namely some of the thinkers of India. They know much more about the body than many people think, and at least one school of thought a few people argue India influenced did therapeutic fasting. That is, the Therapeutae themselves. Maybe they were not influenced by India, but if therapeutic fasting is done a bit in that culture it is one of the less strange things about it. If this is relevant I will continue researching Ayurveda, Yoga (etc.,) and the Therapeutae, but perhaps the note on Graham is enough. Let me know if anyone finds anything about him. I think I read about him at the INHS web site, but then I read much else about him. Shelton's ideas can also be traced back to him (and maybe farther.)--Dchmelik (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to associations - is that better in the connotation department?

So far as I can tell, this was never really science-based or part of the scientific discourse to any significant extent. The "no drugs" part is pretty self-explanatory, but it should perhaps be made more clear that most dieticians have nothing to say on the subject of "food combining". - Eldereft (cont.) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thinkers/doctors to research for the requested date clarification

The following thinkers/doctors are mentioned at Natural Hygiene (NH) society or knowledgeable writer/doctor sites. This list may help to find the original date for the terms NH and 'Nature Cure:' John Kellogg, Russell Trall. I have already added Sylvester Graham. The TrueNorth Health Center and an LA community college ('City College of LA?') would be modern more educated sources on the topic.

There may be others after Shelton, but some rejected his ideas so if he originated 'NH,' they cannot properly be considered NHs but adherents of philosophy somewhat closer to 'conventional' medicine. If it is on-topic/requested I will mention students of Shelton, but I do not want to put too much focus on them unless they really want articles on themselves here; I am just skeptical about the statement that interest was 'renewed' in the 80s. The Diamond's books mentioned some compromises between conventional and Shelton's thought, and lately they may not be quite NHs, but maybe they really did cause renewed interest. Somehow I suspect those that had the interest already had it and further interest in NH and membership in NHS (former ANHS) just grew slowly, but it would be worth asking NHS ([http://www.anhs.org/)--Dchmelik (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

criticism of the criticism

It is unclear who the critics are except their viewpoint is clearly from a first world industrialized nation, i.e. Caucasian point of view--except not that of the American Dietetic Association (as cited) and not taking into account most peoples.

Question : are you racist against caucasian and their POV ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.81.235.66 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, fasting is a 'proven medical intervention.' However, the practice of NH has to do with preventing the need for interventions: conventional medicine does not do that! At least it does not as much of it should, and it ignores certain facts. Most doctors have only 1/2 - 1 hour of nutrition training. Yet the ADA (as cited) does say that nutrition affects health. One cannot know proper nutrition with only 1/2 - 1 hr of training! Similarly, one also cannot know whether fasting (related to nutrition but also other process) is useful or not if one has absolutely no training in it!--Dchmelik (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all rubbish. "Conventional" medicine includes preventative medicine, training for doctors over 7 years includes nutrition, and dieticians are specialists in what you call nutrition - whereas anyone can call themselves a nutritionalist (even without going to a 30 minute quack course). I have reverted your changes per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:MEDMOS. Verbal chat 10:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You did not check the records. Nevertheless I removed that part, but the rest is cited from a conventional source. You do not seem to understand the difference between veganism and NH. A vegan diet can be anything vegan, but a NH vegan diet has to be properly planned. As cited in the veganism article, the ADA says that a properly planned vegan diet is healthy.

I was not talking about nutritionists: I was talking about most general medical doctors. Cite what nutrition training they have and what they recommend as a preventative diet then. The answer might be very interesting.

I noticed the criticism was basically copied verbatim from this page: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/natural_hygiene.html . I will investigate how much of it you are allowed to copy. Even if it is 1 & 1/2 sentences it would seem required to cite. I would like to see their response to the criticism--they are not doing a very good job of watching some of the topics in-depth.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that still almost two complete sentences are copied and the author is cited, but the sentences are not quoted. Also it is giving the idea that there is more than one critic (Barrett) without saying who the critics are, nor whether any of them are dietary professionals. OTOH, the American Dietetic Association statement I cited contradicting this was unfairly removed several times. I think each criticism should have its own section that presents all viewpoints.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No. The article is meant to describe NH, not to provide a forum for debate about its merit. A range of salient and sound criticisms should be described briefly, but not if they are undefendable -- unless particularly prominent. If notable, unsound criticisms need to be mentioned, they should also be 'de-fused', not to do so would be irresponsible and anti-knowledge. This can typically be done without problems, by locating an externally published critic of the critic. But, if that cannot be done, then it should be possible to phrase the wording so as to include both the notable-and-faulty criticism, and some indication that it is faulty. Wikipedia's non-POV policy exists only to defend its usefulness as a repository of knowledge. Where the policy can intrude on that mission, it should be overridden. So too the policies of keeping the page 'on topic', and avoidance of original work.

The quote about dairy, while incontroversial, in the sense of being accepted wisdom of a large number of people, is in fact undefendable with scientific papers that I was able to locate through google. I am sure there are good criticisms of NH and would like to see them. The one provided is not at all a good criticism to use for this page.

The critic (Barrett) seems to be conjecturing a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist, and also inferring a cause without evidence of a relationship between that cause and the supposed problem. This is not to say that his guess may not be correct, but I argue that with the available evidence, it is not a valid criticism to include in a *pedia article.

For the record, firstly there are virtually no studies of rate of incidence of osteoporosis in vegans.[1] Note also that many of the older studies of diet vs osteoporosis are unreliable considered against modern methodology,[2] so conclusions based on those should perhaps be given little weight.

If anything, vegetarians can be said to have better bones than meat eaters, according to a study of >1600 people.[3] Yet vegetarians probably imbibe no more calcium than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a comparison-study of >300 people.[4]

Secondly, the correlation between amount of dairy in the diet, and bone density, varies greatly -- and according to a wide-ranging literature review, most significant findings of a positive relationship have been within the same, small segment of the population: young women. Studies on men are sorely lacking altogether, and among older women, any positive effect blurs into the background.[5] It doesn't rule out a positive role, but also doesn't blanket-mandate dairy as an essential requirement for healthy bones.

Important factors other than degree of calcium intake are clearly involved.[6][7][8] While there is a scientific consensus on the calcium RDI[9], this consensus is an opinion (albeit one approved by a large body of highly qualified, topical experts), and is not necessarily one which reflects the dietary needs of vegans, or which is backed up directly by research findings.[10]

Since calcium absorption varies between foods, a reading of the US RDI recommendation must be informed also by an understanding of the advising National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development panel's expectations of how it is to be used. "Recommended calcium intake levels are based on the total calcium content of the food." But, "[t]o maximize calcium absorption, food selection decisions should include information on their bioavailability."[11] They are having a bet each way.

Is it worth noting that the panel expects that the figure is useful and obtainable within vegan diets? Reading of discussion of how the figures are obtained gives a feeling that they are adjusted based on a number of factors, and are not exactly calculated. More cannot be expected. Feedback is apparently gauged on effectiveness of the current recommendation in terms of health outcomes, not based exclusively on compliance figures or measured-resulting absorption rates. A single figure for a broad category of people is a hard ask, and we should not expect the RDI to be our only guide in choosing what to eat.

Remember, "[r]ecommended calcium intake levels are based on the total calcium content of the food," as much as "food selection decisions should include information on their bioavailability." The RDI is obviously not meant to be taken literally, once bioavailability has been taken into account, and neither is one meant to compensate completely for the bioavailability of each food.

This could mean vegans who take no supplemented source of calcium should aim for calcium intake "a bit" above RDI, but not necessarily as high as a direct comparison between dairy and vegetable bioavailability might indicate -- since a typical meat-eating diet does not get all of its calcium from dairy and therefore the overall bioavailability of the "total calcium content" is expected to average substantially below the fairly-high bioavailability that is seen in the calcium of milk.[12]

Thirdly, it is frequently put forward that it is harder to obtain calcium in a vegan diet than in one containing dairy,[13] but I've yet to see this substantiated in any convincing way. One authority makes this statement, yet in the same report lists a number of effective vegan-sources of calcium, and numerous common vegetables with useful amounts![14] Examining a wider sample of nutrition data indicates that most fruit, vegetables and nuts contain useful amounts of calcium.

The NIH panel recommended "some green vegetables (e.g., broccoli, kale, turnip greens, Chinese cabbage), calcium-set tofu, some legumes, canned fish, seeds, nuts, and certain fortified food products. Breads and cereals, while relatively low in calcium, contribute significantly to calcium intake because of their frequency of consumption."

Fourthly, and finally, meat eaters and lactovegetarians are generally deficient in calcium according to the US RDI.[15] If there are sources who state simply that 'vegans do not get enough calcium', they are saying nothing precise, and nothing that is not equally true of non-vegans. And given the current lack of hard scientific data about vegan health and diet, they would also be talking through their hat. -- Bongruntlefarcket (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is good to see some more reasonable viewpoints here. I admit I may have been using the article as a forum for debate, but I think some editors who are against the article even being here are consistently doing the same. I am getting frustrated because they delete mainstream citations and cite all sorts of abbreviated rules with no explanation, but I guess I do not edit enough to know Wikimedia in detail. I do not intend to seem rude when I 'be bold' in editing or debate on talk pages. It seems you know a lot about the controversy in the article, such as that Barrett's viewpoint is unsupported/non-NPOV. I was citing The China Study that osteoporosis occurs more in those that eat more animal protein (which all of milk's protein is) and The American Dietetic Association that a well-planned vegan diet is healthy, which is precisely what this type of NH has to be to be considered NH. There are still some NH doctors that stick to Shelton's older ideas and recommend dairy or even eggs or meat, so there is also debate in NH.

If people want Barrett's criticism there, it still is not on-topic for the 'practice' section, and if it is in that section the opposing views must be presented for the article to be non-NPOV. It does not matter that, like in a process Gandhi described, NH is/was going through the stage of being violently (in debate and historical crackdowns) resisted and is now being ridiculed. Even if NH does not get widely accepted the NH thinkers accept the scientific method: NH just may not been very 'double blind' studied or at least mainstream published on after that yet. Just because NH uses different topics/lines of reasoning does not mean the majority part of the cult of scientism is right calling NH non-scientific. The diet part is not really controversial but some topics that might be are: whether vaccines prevented pandemics and whether it is possible to avoid/cure some of the most dangerous infections with lifestyle, and whether lifestyle and fasting prevent or treat mental illnesses (actually a Soviet doctor fasted about 10000 mental patients that recovered unless they went against his lifestyle recommendations.)--Dchmelik (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

what is not notable?

What is not notable about this school of medical thought? It is unique among them for not recommending anything external to the body that is not normally used for it. There are thousands (hundreds of thousands, IIRC) of natural hygienists. It is as notable as any philosophical, scientific, or religious idea that may even have less adherents.

I hope the article and discussion explained how it is different. Now I just ask that whoever said it is non-notable check to see that this has as many adherents. I could get that info later if you want.--Dchmelik (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GNG and provide WP:RS that establish notability per the criteria there. Verbal chat 10:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a lot to read. Wikipedia has so many articles about entertainment & non-didactic fiction that it seems unreasonable that non-fiction is 'non-notable.' However, if this article is considered non-notable before I finish figuring out why, I would like to get a copy: I am committed to eventually making it notable if possible.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The page hasn't been nominated for deletion. The above two policies tell you what is required. Verbal chat 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted several times under the name natural hygiene when that was not a redirect and the disambiguation, and it is easy to see with the mass, mainstream, popular culture bias of Wikipedia and percentage of editors that have those viewpoints who have not taken a course in philosophical logic and are afraid of investigating controversial viewpoints with a philosophical scientific method and perhaps reaching unpopular conclusions just because they might be called original research instead of cited research. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to be a bit clearer there.

I used to edit a lot but do not as much now because of discrepancy between Wikipedia's goals and reality--and because of probable vagueness or illogic in what is considered original or cited. If it is like a standard encyclopedia that is okay; OTOH another part of Wikipedias bias is despite that it should save space it could focus more on serious subjects and less on entertainment. Perhaps this is why, despite that Wikipedia is said to be as or more reliable than Britannica, academia still does not take it seriously. That is also why I do not take it as seriously and do not edit as much. If I had made a mistake other than doing three undos in 24 hours, then just ignore me and make any article say whatever mainstream likely rather uneducated thing you want. I am just trying to get this article to a point where it will not be considered non-notable, and I think few other editors of it have been reasonable. Now I recall last time something I wrote was deleted I made a formally allowed request to have it returned to my userspace, so if that is the goal of the biased or perhaps purely strict editors, go ahead. Maybe I will move on to something else, though the only other thing I have in mind was deleted in the Philosophy section so I will have to put a lot more thought and logic into it than something in an arguable empirical science section where almost anything goes just because 'most people believe or many people said and thought they proved it, so it is "emprical."' I am not trying to have a rude edit war, but since I may not be familiar in depth with over 60% to 70% of the strict rules, maybe I will do that a little sometimes for now if I feel it is justified. Again if I reverted over thrice in 24 hrs it is something I lost track of, but if I did not I do not see why it was even brought up in a long message. Usually I try to be very polite. Maybe the message was a standard message, and in the mass popular culture percentage of editors I suppose it makes sense to say, but OTOH I think it could be much more concise and say everything that is necessary by the rules.

In summary, I request specific, scientific reasons why the response to criticism is problematic before you remove the NPOV tag and my mainstream citatiions that refute it. It was within the rules for me to add the tag and against the rules or at least very impolite to remove it, and you just decided to remove the whole thing instead of the mainstream ADA citation which was extremely impolite to remove because it was on-topic. Perhaps the database citations could be called OR, but what do you think the ADA would cite? Did they make their citation up or use their own database that disagrees with the USDA one? Finally, many other articles, such as in the Philosophy articles, have many different viewpoints about a topic and at least a few that go back and forth more than once trying to say why people thing something is right, and it was not off-topic to re-state what NH is and why a lifestyle that prevents osteoporosis is NH but one that does not is not and why the ADA says that such a vegan lifestyle is possible--the critic is just one of many popular culture reactionaries that in his statement did not take into account what the ADA said and how they agree with NH Philosophy rather than non-NH vegans: the citations about why that is what is considered NH are still in the article, and it is a ridiculous popular culture view to have such reactionary statements considered NPOV. In closing, phillosophical logic of the scientific method still applies to empirical science articles no matter whether empicisim is generally accepted in that science and what type of viewpoints or cultural bias that acceptance causes to be common in its scientific community.--Dchmelik (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Was _The China Study_ being called 'fringe,' or what was?

I added a citation from The China Study. which is not called fringe in its article, though my guess is that is what was called 'fringe' earlier. Am I correct, or was something else called fringe, and if so, could you say what? I changed my comment here to be shorter because I was asked to by one of the frequent editors, so it would be nice if there is a reply. I have not come across an article being called fringe yet, and NH does require the scientific method--it just reaches some different conclusions. There is also various debate and somewhat new topics to be considered in NH, a couple of which I have mentioned in my reply today in 'criticism of the criticism' section.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

archive this talk page?

Do you think it is time to archive this page?--Dchmelik (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)?

No, it's still quite short and people are adding to old discussions still. Verbal chat 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I have proposed a merge to Herbert Shelton; please discuss on the talk page of that article. Verbal chat 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WP:RS and new editor

A new editor has recently removed a WP:RS from the article (one of the few) which was supporting a statement that is still in the article, and they also removed a quote directly criticising Orthopathy from the same RS. I have asked them to restore this mainstream evaluation following WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. (Their edits have also broken the formatting of the page, and they have added a quote which I've asked them to justify here). Verbal chat 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I had added several reliable sources that you or others removed, besides some non-NH sources that are not fringe. It is still not clear what you brought up WP:FRINGE for. The old evaluation may be mainstream but that does not mean it is educated.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim about calcium and osteoperosis

Regarding:

"Critics of Natural Hygiene have stated that NH is dangerous because it encourages prolonged fasting and discourages proven medical interventions; Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch stated that "its recommended avoidance of dairy products is an invitation to osteoporosis."[1]"

The fact that a critic has claimed that avoiding dairy products invites osteoporosis, does not mean the claim is true. There is no reference for the claim actually being made, therefore the quote presented on its own, is misleading, especially given dairy products are widely documented as being shown to cause osteoporosis, and that minerals can be transmutated, in writings on biological transmutation. Zanze123 (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you could not reference forums on wikipedia like quackwatch? It's the opinion of Stephen Barrett and he does not provide any references for this opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.94.157 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

dates for Isaac Jennings

Why is User:Verbal removing the dates for Isaac Jennings? This is the section about history, and dates are important. Dyuku (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely part of how we think and write and talk about past history. MaynardClark (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Add the relevant dates, ie when he worked on orthopathy, rather than birth and death (not very informative. And please work them into prose, rather than just in brackets. Verbal chat 18:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote originally is standard writing (when the founder of the movement lived). Please provide justification for your changes that are not helpful. Dyuku (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't standard wikipedia style, see WP:MOS. If they are notable and you have good WP:RS, then start an article about them, put the dates in there, and wikilink. Verbal chat 18:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Where in WP:MOS does it say that

"The movement originated with Isaac Jennings (1788-1874) …"

is incorrect style? Methinks you're just making it up as you go along... Dyuku (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

Having trouble finding much. There's QuackWatch (which is good of course) - anybody know of anything else? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? Why not look for what was strongly evidence-based at the time it was presented as 'information' or best practices, and go with that? It seems strangely anti-historical to judge prior best practices by the standards of today's contemporaneity, even if they were defensibly viable 'best practices' in yesterday's contemporaneity. Practices such as rest, sunshine, fresh air, eating lots of vegetables and some fruit in conditions as nearly natural as possible, minimizing the use of synthetics, being comfortable with oneself and with others, personal hygiene, daily exercise and fitness, getting along with others, tooth brushing, drinking pure filtered water after fruit consumption to reduce risk of decay, etc. were all teachings of 'natural hygiene' as taught by Herbert M. Shelton in Texas. The point is not to defend all the teachings but to identify what might have been useful advice - and 'advice giving' - in the context of encouraging ordinary persons toward 'self care as healthcare' (prioritizing individual responsibility for one's individual health outcomes). MaynardClark (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Source request

Hi Maynard, could you provide a source that this has anything to do with veganism or vegetarianism? I ask because I recently saw one of their websites strongly attack veganism. Sarah ^(talk) 23:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean 'their'? The natural hygiene movement is old and diverse, not the intellectual property of one organization. Publications such as 'Natural Hygiene' strongly advocated veganism and, as mentioned in the article, the 'intellectual thought leaders' of the vegan and vegetarian movements have been imported to lecture at NHA conferences (although many of those they import or invite are not using the word 'vegan' because they want to mainstream their message as 'evidence based'). Examples are Joel Fuhrman and T. Colin Campbell and John McDougall. Surely, Joel Fuhrman, who repeatedly plays on PBS fundraisers, has been recycled from the natural hygiene movement, but it would be professional suicide for him to say so. Even in 1995, when I was Program Coordinator for the 8th International Vegan Festival in San Diego CA, Dr. Fuhrman (who flew from California to the East Coast with me) told me that they are 'now more vegan than raw' because they see that some cooking can bhe beneficial for some very useful, worthwhile foods. MaynardClark (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which website it was, sorry, but it advocated natural hygiene/orthopathy and was strongly opposed to veganism.

The point is that you need a reliable, published source if you want to associate it with strict vegetarianism or veganism, particularly for this sentence: "In North America and Europe, the form of orthopathy called 'natural hygiene' has advocated a strictly vegetarian diet, and many of the vegetarian and vegan movements' intellectual leaders have been imported to lecture at the natural hygiene and natural health conferences." Sarah ^(talk) 23:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed section

I propose the following text on the basis of decades of historical and research involvement with the broader vegetarian movement and eye-witness observations, which can be documented by the publications (periodicals and meeting notices and publicity) of the several organizations which have promoted 'natural hygiene' and 'natural health' both within and outside the organizations formed to advance such teachers. The 'debate' seems to be whether 'natural hygiene' has 'pointed to' vegetarianism, when it surely practiced and taught the abstention from animal products (though deviations may have been tolerated).

In North America and Europe, the form of orthopathy called 'natural hygiene' has advocated a strictly vegetarian diet, and many of the vegetarian and vegan movements' intellectual leaders have been imported to lecture at the natural hygiene and natural health conferences. While earlier 'orthopathic' teachings, which proscribed smoking, drugs, and drinking, have grown and developed with emerging bodies of evidence, followed by mindful reflection upon knowledge and practice, the resulting discussion has engaged the mainstream of public discourse about health and nutrition.

Note that leading light Herbert Shelton was a practicing vegetarian - even dietary vegan.

I would oppose adding this unless you find source that says these things explicitly. There's a difference betwee vegetarian, strict vegetarian/vegan and semi-vegetarian. The website you link to above (the first ref) talks about a "plant-based diet," a phrase that has unfortunately become meaningless, so we would need to know what they're referring to. Sarah ^(talk) 20:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I'd like to see strong independent secondary sources for any of this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, whiele naturopathy is still alive, it doesn't define the variously advocated 'plant-based' eating programs, nor vegetarian or vegan practice. Far more conventionally-trained MDs are working to speak and write on behalf of plant-based, vegetarian, and/or vegan eating programs. But IMO we ought to at least list the string of ideas that natural hygiene taught, despite the merging of a once robust article into this article on orthopathy. Many of Herbert Shelton's writings have been digitized and made available electronically, even if they are not mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but they did promote vegetarian diets. I think that our debate is more on how a good article should be written about orthopathy, and the multilinear legacy that has been seen as 'natural hygiene' is hardly the agenda of those who watch over this article. MaynardClark (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)