Talk:Orthomolecular medicine

Opinion : Article seems biased.

I respect Linus Pauling's work and think there is related work of value that stands fairly as evidence-based. I think this article is biased in casting all orthomolecular work as unworthy of serious attention.

Here.it.comes.again (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Here.it.comes.again (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Here.it.comes.again, if you have a specific change in mind, please propose it here and don't forget to provide sources. If not, please keep in mind that a talk page is not a forum. --McSly (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

OP is obviously correct. The current article is amateurish at best, probably 20 years old, and plainly factually incorrect. To act as if mainstream doctors never prescribe specific nutrients is ludicrous. Since there is no principled distinction between natural compounds and prescription drugs, it would be astonishing if no “nutrients” were effective for treating any disease. Read the linked articles, and you will notice that many are a routine part of medical care… 2600:4041:5CD4:9E00:5DB4:5038:9962:5ED8 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

See response above. Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Our article makes clear that Mainstream medicine does prescribe nutrients in certain circumstances. Did you read it? - Roxy the dog 15:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed revision to lead wording

I would like to discuss the recent reversion of my edit. The intent of the revision was not to promote orthomolecular medicine, but to improve neutrality by distinguishing between:

• the unsupported broader claims of orthomolecular medicine (for example, prevention or treatment of chronic disease through high-dose supplementation beyond nutritional requirements), and

• evidence-supported uses of nutrients, such as correction of deficiencies and folic acid supplementation for prevention of neural tube defects.

The previous wording could be interpreted as implying that evidence-based medicine rejects nutrition as a preventive approach, which is not consistent with current medical evidence.

The proposed wording keeps the criticism of orthomolecular medicine while acknowledging established nutritional interventions. I would appreciate feedback on whether the wording or citations need adjustment. ~2026-39680-86 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. A couple of things regarding your changes:

1. You changed the introduction first. As a reminder, the lead is the summary of the body of the article. So unless the body is not properly summarized (and that's not a problem that you mentioned here), you should not change it. The steps would be to update the body of the article first, then if those changes warrant an update to the lead, the second would be to do it.
2. From what I can see, the sources that you used are not from the "Orthomolecular medicine" field, they are from science based medecine and cannot be used to justify the position of the Orthomolecular medicine. To be blunt, they just show that even a broken clock is right twice a day, not that Orthomolecular medicine is in any way correct.

Hope that helps. --McSly (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)