Talk:Functional medicine

Does this article rely too heavily on SBM?

I fully understand that the blog Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, though not peer-reviewed. However currently 8 out of the 13 references (62%) (9 if you count External links) are from SBM, as are 14 of 22 inline citations (64%). I realize the FUTON bias makes it easy to immediately view and cite whatever diatribe du jour an esteemed researcher has decided to gripe about. My concerns are whether views of the SBM writers are granted disproportionate weight. SBM blogger David Gorksi is the only named attributed author in this article (named twice), which makes this resemble "Functional medicine from the view of Gorski". Considering WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, out of everything ever written about functional medicine by reliable sources, does SBM and Gorski really comprise the majority views? Or to put it another way: is this article a neutral encyclopedic summary of Functional medicine, or a vehicle selectively broadcasting the views of SBM authors? I think a broader diversity of sources are needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And for those readying to beat me with a WP:PROFRINGE cudgel, let me point out that I would have similar questions with an article about rocks with >60% of citations being from the New York Times or the same geology magazine. I recognize the standing of this topic in broader medical consensus. I'm neither pro- nor anti-functional medicine, but critical examination of how heavily we cite and present a source is healthy. Here are some potential additional sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Luke, Jesse W. (July 2017). "Functional medicine: New name, old ideas". Australasian Science. doi:10.3316/informit.268531139808641.
• Khan, Wajid I. (2020). "The current evidence behind functional medicine" (PDF). University of British Columbia Medical Journal. 12 (1): 35–36.
• Khayal, Inas S.; Farid, Amro M. (January 2017). "The Need for Systems Tools in the Practice of Clinical Medicine". Systems Engineering. 20 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1002/sys.21374.

Agreed, almost this entire post is referenced on David Gorski and Science Based Medicine. This is not a "consensus viewpoint" on the subject. The page says that Functional Medicine doctors treat and diagnose a number of disease entities found not to exist. OK, some of the conditioned purportedly identified and treated do not have mainstream acceptance, but the vast majority of what functional medicine doctors are diagnosing and treating are well known, established conditions like diabetes, obesity, depression, etc, and they are often being treated with healthy lifestyle interventions for which there is good data, but none of this is mentioned because nearly all sources cited having nothing but vitriol for functional medicine. Xitomatl (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yup, physical exercise and a healthy diet are good for health. But we did not need functional medicine to tell us that, that was already known and broadly accepted. Of course, that isn't quackery. Its quackery lies in what distinguishes it from mainstream medicine. Also, while dieting helps patients with diabetes, it can never heal them, so expecting to be healed from diabetes through dieting is vain hope, and even a scam, i.e. a felony. Also, while running or walking helps with depression, it isn't a silver bullet. Dieting helps those suffering from obesity, but according to prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan, one of the most cited scientists in the field of nutrition, long-term weight loss through dieting is less probable than long-term recovery from heroin addiction. So, yes, diet helps those with obesity, but in 80%-90% of the cases weight loss is only temporary, and then the subject comes back to their obesity weight. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Expecting to be healed from diabetes through dieting is...a felony" is a pretty bizarre linguistic construction. 2603:7081:1603:A300:E091:E8CF:A13:50E7 (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that people who pretend that diet heals diabetes are felons. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Animalpartyalmost every source comes from basically one organization. Gorski is an editor/writer at Science Based Medicine and so is Harriet Hall who wrote via skeptic.com, which is also referenced on this Functional Medicine page. Gorski even pops up in The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/06/whats-eating-the-small-loud-band-of-alt-med-critics/240860/

Here are some of the other voices that could be referenced:

Dr. Mark Hyman, the leading proponent of functional medicine field, is covered in the New York Times because he advises the Clintons: Source: ​​https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/fashion/dr-mark-hyman-clintons-health.html

The Cleveland Clinic has a functional medicine practice.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/functional-medicine

The ACCME provides accreditation for functional medicine:

https://www.accme.org/find-cme-provider/institute-for-functional-medicine

This Stanford MD

https://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/expert-voices/2022/09/14/expert-voices-functional-medicine-ms/

You can also do a Google search for functional medicine in any major city and you will probably find dozens of MDs who spent time and money to get additional training in this field. 96.241.32.156 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Animalparty @Xitomatl I agree that the article should be more neutral and represent different perspectives on functional medicine. This can be done in proportion to the mainstream view according to WP:DUE. This article also presents opinions as facts. In addition to the existing references, I would add the following sources.

•Beidelschies, M., Alejandro-Rodriguez, M., Guo, N., Postan, A., Jones, T., Bradley, E., Hyman, M., & Rothberg, M. B. (2021). Patient outcomes and costs associated with functional medicine-based care in a shared versus individual setting for patients with chronic conditions: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 11(4), e048294. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048294

•Beidelschies, M., Alejandro-Rodriguez, M., Ji, X., Lapin, B., Hanaway, P., & Rothberg, M. B. (2019). Association of the Functional Medicine Model of Care With Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes. JAMA network open, 2(10), e1914017. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.14017

•Beidelschies, M., Cella, D., Katzan, I., & D'Adamo, C. R. (2022). Patient-Reported Outcomes and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System of Functional Medicine Care and Research. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, 33(3), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2022.04.008

•Bland J. (2017). Defining Function in the Functional Medicine Model. Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.), 16(1), 22–25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312741/

•Bland J. S. (2022). Functional Medicine Past, Present, and Future. Integrative medicine, 21(2), 22–26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9173848/

•Bland J. S. (2018). The Natural Roots of Functional Medicine. Integrative medicine, 17(1), 12–17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6380987/

•Bland J. S. (2019). What is Evidence-Based Functional Medicine in the 21st Century?. Integrative Medicine, 18(3), 14–18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7217393/

•Droz, N., Hanaway, P., Hyman, M., Jin, Y., Beidelschies, M., & Husni, M. E. (2020). The impact of functional medicine on patient-reported outcomes in inflammatory arthritis: A retrospective study. PloS one, 15(10), e0240416. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240416

•Hanaway P. (2016). Form Follows Function: A Functional Medicine Overview. The Permanente journal, 20(4), 16–109. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/16-109

•Hickner J. (2022). Keeping an open mind about functional medicine. The Journal of Family Practice, 71(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.12788/jfp.0343

•Hyman, M., & Bradley, E. (2022). Food, Medicine, and Function: Food Is Medicine Part 1. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, 33(3), 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2022.04.001

•Hyman, M., & Bradley, E. (2022). Food, Medicine, and Function: Food is Medicine Part 2. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, 33(3), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2022.04.002

•Orlando, F. A., Chang, K. L., & Estores, I. M. (2021). Functional medicine: Focusing on imbalances in core metabolic processes. The Journal of Family Practice, 70(10), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.12788/jfp.0307

•Simkin, D. R., & Arnold, L. E. (2023). Complementary and Integrative Medicine/Functional Medicine in Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Disorders: Should It Be Taken Seriously?. Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America, 32(2), xiii–xxiv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2022.09.001

•Strobel, T. M., Nguyen, C., Riggs, T., Horst, S. N., Motley, A., Upadhyaya, S., Campbell, S., Spring, E., Dalal, R. L., Scoville, E., Pabla, B., Schwartz, D. A., & Beaulieu, D. B. (2022). Functional Medicine Approach to Patient Care Improves Sleep, Fatigue, and Quality of Life in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Crohn's & colitis 360, 4(3), otac032. https://doi.org/10.1093/crocol/otac032 4whirledpeas (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@4whirledpeas: I don't want to give you false hope. In order to learn how the ball is played, please read WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good start but:

• Beidelschie 2019 and 2021, Droz 2020, and Strobel 2022 are primary
• Jeffrey Bland's work should be attributed to Bland
• Hanaway 2016, Hickner 2022, and Simkin 2023 are editorials
• Orlando 2021, Beidelschies 2022, and the Hyman 2022 articles look good I think, though the latter three I think are from that series discussed below at #Sources

Levivich (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid "holistic approach" is empty verbiage, it is described at not even wrong. If you're seeking to define "holistic approach" scientifically (as in medical science): don't bother, it has no meaning at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It does have a specific meaning? Holism, Systems_medicine. In medicine it's a reminder to not just focus on the system of your speciality and fall prone to Law_of_the_instrument. A classic one is a dermatologist treating acne with skin treatments while the cause of a skin issue could be what your eating or a hormonal endocrine issue that would be better treated by a Gastroenterologist or Endocrinologist. 136.24.146.157 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It's meaningless because it's a tautology (logic): all MDs do that, so there is no reason to assume that only alt-med does it.

E.g. "the statement p is either true or false" is a tautology in classical logic. What does it say about p? Nothing in particular: the tautology is true regardless of what p actually says. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That definition would make the advice entirely circular: “make sure to remember the things you tend to forget” Foxmilder (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I also think that this article is too reliant on sources that have a bias against functional medicine. The books by functional medicine doctors that I have read are full of references citing clinical trials for nutritional approaches that they often take in their strategies of preventative medicine. It seems to me that Functional Medicine is evidence-based, unlike the field of "Integrated Medicine". 2600:1009:B11A:1DF0:2987:1DCC:E1DB:7031 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS having anti-quackery bias are not only allowed, but even preferred, according to WP:PARITY.

If you had your own encyclopedia, you could choose your own balance between quackery and sources exposing quackery. Meanwhile you are here, so you have to obey our own WP:RULES, or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. That website is extremely biased and should not be treated as an objective source. Claiming to be scientific does not make it so. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It is "biased" in favor of good science and it is consensus that it is a good source. See WP:SBM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is over 3 years old and it is still very relevant to this day. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Also still misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Just plain wrong

This article calls functional medicine a pseudoscience yet it has been adopted by The Cleveland Clinic. This article should be substantially revised as it stands it is narrative quackery 72.215.0.38 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RGW. NHS hospitals in UK offered a well-paid job to a Reiki therapist. Not because Reiki is effective, but because it is an easy way to soothe nervous patients. See https://www.nature.com/articles/526295a tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a very slanted article. Anyone who even has a passing familiarity with the Pub Med database knows it's not pseudoscience at all. This reads like a very defensive and self-interested article written by the AMA or other self-appointed medical gate keeper. Come on Wikipedia…you can do better. 2601:1C0:5601:2BC0:8E8:C964:7149:FBB3 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Biased?

This article is dramatically biased and appears to have been written by campaigners against alternative medicine. FM may well be hokum (I don't know), but some balance in the article woudld be very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4006:FB00:A18E:7BD:DF4:822A (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you "don't know", not sure how you can say it is "hugely biased". You would need to know to be able to make that judgement. If you have a specific change in the article to suggest, please do so. Don't forget to include reliable sources. --McSly (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Is Skeptic (American magazine) reliable source in the lead? It seems like not MEDRS ? As well as Science-Based Medicine blog? I think it suitable for reception section, but for definition we need something more reliable Zemleroika11 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at the previous discussions here and in the archives (link and search field at the top of the page.) They likely already cover your questions. --McSly (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It is blatantly biased when it lists commentary in place of Functional Medicine's own definition. The subject of that commentary should be addressed on the page, but its current arrangement only serves to look like a scared attack. 2601:881:8100:1900:90BC:6F7B:955C:CCF3 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources need to be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph should still communicate what it is that functional medicine claims to be. Any valid reputable refutation would include that information, so could then be a source of that information. Hence, removal of that information looks like unwarranted censorship rather than an attempt to clarify information or enhance knowledge. 2601:881:8100:1900:234C:8E9E:9DDB:920 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Its self-definition is a sales pitch rather than objectively describing what it is.

Wikipedia relies upon WP:SECONDARY WP:IS. It's a feature, not a bug. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The article should revise its phrasing to be less biased. Even if functional medicine is a pseudoscience, the article is not phrased objectively. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in your naked opinion. Bolster it with concrete wordings and reliable sources and you can start making a difference. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Your reply did not enter any notifications. Anyway I tried doing exactly that and it got taken down for not being neutral enough. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You may have tried doing that, but you failed because your sources were not reliable and your wording was WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

My sources were completely reliable. If I cited the same websites on pages that argued against Functional Medicine, they would be kept up. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I added neutral objective sources and they were taken down. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding NPOV Enforcement

Hi all,

I’d like to open a respectful discussion about what appears to be a recurring issue on the Functional Medicine article: the suppression of neutral or balanced contributions under the justification of enforcing NPOV—while biased, hostile language is consistently allowed to remain.

My recent attempt to improve the article's tone and language (e.g., by replacing inflammatory terms like quackery with more neutral and encyclopedic phrasing) was immediately reverted and flagged as violating NPOV. Ironically, the current version of the article includes multiple statements that appear to violate NPOV themselves—many of which present fringe or critical views without attribution or balance.

This gives the impression that certain editors may be gatekeeping the article, not by protecting neutrality, but by upholding one particular narrative and rejecting good-faith efforts to present a broader range of perspectives supported by reputable sources (e.g., Cleveland Clinic, GWU, peer-reviewed publications).

I am not trying to promote any view or organization. I’m simply asking that we apply Wikipedia’s neutrality standards consistently, and allow space for edits that improve tone and reflect significant published viewpoints that may differ from the current framing.

Would appreciate others’ input on this issue. LeepLeem (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:BIGMISTAKE territory. Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically rejects the idea of 'balanced contributions', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. What you did was the opposite of what WP:NPOV requires. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The idea that functional medicine, one that is backed up by Dr Mark Hyman, is in the same category as flat Earth is simply absurd. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If you'd understand that it lies in the nature of Wikipedia to reject your POV out of hand, you'd give up trying. WP:SNOW. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the right to do that but it's their credibility that is going down. If you read the other topics here, you'll see I am not the only one who finds this article heavily biased and poorly written. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There are differences of degree but not of type. Either way we still don't do false balance here. MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that "flat Earth" is a clearly defined idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I get very fed up with newbies who have no idea what they are talking about. Before rushing in to complain about something you know nothing about, why not try to understand our policies on article writing, particularly WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV, as your recent edit which was corrected straight away, demonstrates that you have no understanding at all. Roxy the dog 18:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a sock - this can be closed. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article is absurdly biased that it reads more like an angry lazy middle school student than a Wikipedia article. The first sentence of a Wikipedia should at least tell what the subject is, then go in to the topic of its validity. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for everybody. If you don't love mainstream science and mainstream medicine, Wikipedia isn't the proper place for you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I love mainstream science and mainstream medicine when it goes right, not when it lies and seeks dominion. There are well-written Wikipedia articles, even when biased, that seek to be informative. This is not one of them. The other critics on this talk page are right. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

When the mainstream is critical of a topic, so will the Wikipedia article. That is what policies such as WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE require of us. You're welcome to think that that is 'biased' (Also see WP:YESBIAS), but this is the encyclopedia functioning as it has been designed to function. MrOllie (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As Guy Chapman put it, "Most quacks hate Wikipedia, and homeopaths hate it with a passion. Homeopathy is the second most contested article on Wikipedia, after Jesus, and this spreads across multiple language versions of Wikipedia." For Wikipedians it is very flattering to be hated by quacks. It is the confirmation that we are doing our volunteer jobs right. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Who is Guy Chapman? You?

I don't care if you think I am a quack. I am someone who simply values truth and understanding. This article is heavily "pro-science" to the point that it has no semblance of objectivity nor even a quality article. Just review the first few paragraphs by themselves. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This article is heavily "pro-science" That's what it is supposed to be. What you're pointing out here isn't actually a problem. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I put "pro-science" in quotes because this is not actual science. If it was, then the article would read like an actual article. Instead, the first paragraph is a rant that does not even tell the reader what functional medicine is. Nowhere in the article does it contain the word "root." It doesn't have a single quote from someone who is in suppport of functional medicine, not even Dr Jeffrey Bland nor Dr Mark Hyman. It only mentions the fact that Cleveland Clinic opened a functional medicine clinic to quote David Gorski's disdain. I have yet to find any objective sentences in the whole article. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

We'll stick with the cited sources over your opinion of what is 'objective'. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Fine, stick with those sources, which are just SBM. But this article is a shameful disaster that is poorly written from any neutral perspective. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You don't understand objectivity and neutrality according to our WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, because we don't understand objectivity to be the middle way between mainstream science and bullshit. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you think articles phrased like angry biased blogs are ok so long as they are "pro-science" which I put in quotes for a reason. Even the article on homeopathy, which is biased, has much more factual basis than this. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, flat Earth and homeopathy are wrong, but at least they are clearly defined. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about functional medicine here which is not defined here at all. I proposed a definition from Cleveland Clinic or National Library of Medicine but it blocked them WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That's an editorial in a low quality altmed journal. It is not written by the 'National Library of Medicine' - that's just a link on PubMed, which is a database they host. And your Cleveland Clinic link is an advertorial for their functional medicine team. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, please point out where you proposed this Cleveland Clinic definition - I'm having trouble finding that. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:SAMPPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, FM is a marketing term meaning MDs are allowed to perform costly medical investigations without a proper reason, and in the end they will tell you, based upon such investigations, that you have to eat lots of fruits and vegetables, and do some sort of sport. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

E.g., Integrative Medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) isn't WP:RS. See WP:FRINGE for an explanation. SBM is WP:RS for fringe topics. WP:RS are sources which the Wikipedia Community deems to be WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the Wikipedia community is heavily biased and this goes against their mission statement. I just visited sciencebasedmedicine.org and it is far from a reliable source. It is the inverse of natural news and another side of the same coin. It is formatted like a blog, is a dot org instead of a dot com or dot gov, and according to the website, is owned by the New England Skeptical Society. Even if it were a credible source, the overreliance is too high. As @Animalparty! writes: "My concerns are whether views of the SBM writers are granted disproportionate weight. SBM blogger David Gorksi is the only named attributed author in this article (named twice), which makes this resemble "Functional medicine from the view of Gorski"." I am glad this talk page kept that brilliant user. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is heavily biased toward the views of mainstream medicine, yes. We don't view that as a problem. Science based medicine is an important WP:FRIND source and is widely regarded as reliable for that purpose on Wikipedia. We don't hold people debunking fringe ideas to a higher standard than what they're debunking. - MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You may not view your bias as a problem, but many other people I know would. Many people have had terrible experiences with mainstream healthcare and will never trust mainstream medicine again, no matter what a few avid Wikipedia users say. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That's OK, fixing that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. All we can do is summarize the appropriate reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia merely mirrors the medical orthodoxy, and has no other choice than to do that. SCAM is definitely not the solution to the faults of the medical orthodoxy.tgeorgescu (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

So long as the Wikipedia Community remains in charge, you cannot prevail. See WP:SBM. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

At least it is in yellow. That means it should not be too heavily relied upon. I still agree with Animal Party. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

will never trust mainstream medicine again—this discloses your real POV.

treating root causes—empty verbiage, since all mainstream medicine treats root causes. It does not treat "mere symptoms". But there is a limit to what mainstream MDs can do, because the patient has human rights, even if this means ignoring wise advice.

And if you mean that the root causes are the etheric body and the astral body: these have never been shown to exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do take issues with mainstream medicine and I know there are others who hate it much more than I do. Your blind support of it is exactly the problem. The fact you immediately blame every mainstream medicine problem on patient human rights discloses your real POV. You believe that health professionals are all perfect and they are held back by petty morality.

I believe in real root causes like deficiencies, unhealthy lifestyles, stress, trauma etc. All of those are scientifically backed. Some mainstream medicine treats them right, but others are absolutely horrible. There's no wonder people then switch to providers like Dr Mark Hyman.

And yes, you are why people are losing trust in mainstream medicine and Wikipedia. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed that mainstream MDs can do no harm. But quacks do that because they're delusional or scammers (i.e. sociopaths).

And, again: Wikipedia isn't for everyone. We do not cater to those who hate mainstream medicine.

If you are here to spread FUD about mainstream medicine, then you are WP:NOTHERE and you'll be shown the door. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

What is FUD? All I attempted to do was correct the terribly phrased article that reads like a blog. I listed the three glaring problems many times and other users posted the same.

Wikipedia has a stated goal of having a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and it is clear that you have well abandoned it. This is why people no longer trust you. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean what you think it means. Please read it several times, top to bottom.

Why should we allow an agenda which is contrary to ours? tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It is clear that you do not understand what Wikipedia means by Neutral point of view. It does not mean false balance or that we treat mainstream science and medicine as one of two competing positions. That we stick to the mainstream is in large part why people do trust this site.

This article is functioning exactly how Wikipedia's policies say it should. If you think neutrality ought to mean something different than what the rest of the Wikipedia community does, you're welcome to try to get the policies changed. But until you do, we're going to keep on following the policy that we have today. MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

And the agenda is that we render mainstream science for what it is.

In other words, we do not aim for literary quality, nor for journalistic quality. We are bound by policies and guidelines to do what we do. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

So you admit that you don't aim for quality. Even encyclopedias are meant to look presentable unlike this disaster of an article. There's a reason why "good articles" exist. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

We judge quality by adherence to the relevant policies. What you want us to do is starkly against those policies, which would mean lowering the quality of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a simple explanation for rejecting your edits: a serious encyclopedia sides with mainstream science (unless it is only about arts or sports).

Once Jimbo decided that Wikipedia should become a real encyclopedia, instead of a PR outlet, the option to embrace alt-med was gone with the wind.

So, Wikipedia does not have the option of allowing your edits to stand. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Lede and POV concerns

After reading the other topics here, it is clear that I am not the only one who takes issue with this article. There are also many people who rehash the same justification: Wikipedia is not neutral on fringe science. Let's pretend that is true. My main problem is that this article is not informative, academic or even well-written. Let me count the ways.

Its introductory paragraph does not even inform the reader what functional medicine is. The first sentence simply tells the reader that it is fake pseudoscience and that's all they need to know. At least in its article on homeopathy, the article touches upon the theories and history. If one reads about functional medicine, they will see that it believes in treating root causes rather than symptoms and relies on lifestyle changes like diet and exercise. Nowhere is any of that in here.

Every quote is from one of the experts who trashes the field, yet there is not one from Dr Jeffrey Bland or Dr Mark Hyman. Remember both are accredited doctors whose advice has improved the lives of many. The only mention of its inclusion in the Cleveland Clinic is Dr David Gorski's disdain. This is not academic. If it was, then it would include the necessary information for readers to simply have an understanding on what the field is.

Back to the points on neutrality, my edits to the article were undone and I received a message with this statement. "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Functional medicine seemed less than neutral and has been removed." As backed up by the statements of other commenters, neither sentence is close to the truth. My edits were neutral and all they did was add more descriptions of functional medicine and quote Dr Jeffrey Bland. If the community refuses to allow editors to add objective information and tiny quotes from the advocates of the practice in question, then this is not an academic community.

As @Animalparty! wrote, this article should be called "Functional medicine from the view of Gorski." The more this community defines science in the perspectives of sciencebasedmedicine.org and ideologues like Dr Jonathan Stea, the less trust people will have in science. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

All this has already been addressed at length above. Please don't open redundant discussions. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not a redundant discussion. I am not merely talking about the bias, but the terrible formatting of this article.

Also I decided to create a topic instead of dwelling in the replies. This should make it easier for you as well. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

See the replies to you in the section above. - Roxy the dog 19:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@WordsAreNotViolence Jeffrey Bland is not an "accredited doctor". His PhD is in chemistry. There's also no reliable source in support of the statement that Hyman and Bland's "advice has improved the lives of many". Functional medicine is a nebulous marketing term, so perhaps that's why there's not much more to say about it. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right about Jeffrey Bland. I didn't realize that he had a PHD in chemistry, but chemistry is a common concentration for people becoming doctors.

Mark Hyman, on the other hand, does have a medical degree. @4whirledpeas listed many sources that can back this up. If the Clintons trust him and he is a best selling author, maybe he's not a total quack.

There is so much more to say about functional medicine than this disgrace of an "article." There is a history and a normalization in accredited institutions like Cleveland Clinic. People have a right to know more information than what SBM.org wants them to. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic offers several blatantly pseudoscientific treatments, here is one example: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/patients-visitors/information/reiki-healing-services.pdf?la=en

That the Cleveland Clinic offers Functional medicine is not the sign of mainstream acceptance that you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I asked you a question above. I'll repeat it here: You stated that I proposed a definition from Cleveland Clinic - where did you do that, exactly? - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That is an old link and it is wrong that they don't include the fact that it is pseudoscientific. This is an updated version that is much more objective. Reiki: How Energy Healing Works

Cleveland Clinic is a reputable source, much moreso than "science based medicine" WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I've asked you a question, twice now. Are you planning to answer it? MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I forgot my exact edits and added what I should have placed in my edit. I won't do that now because I am on thin ice right now. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Is WebMD better? WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

No. You'll need to read, understand, and follow our sourcing guidelines (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS). Throwing in unreliable stuff at random will not work - it is disruptive editing, as is making edits like the one you just did when you know very well that the consensus of this talk page is against you. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WordsAreNotViolence: this edit of yours: , now reverted, was clearly against consensus, and it appears from your edit summary that you knew that when you made the edit. Please cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You've told me that my edits are against "consensus" many times. Well, the "consensus" is wrong. The fact that there are more users who defend the article's lack of proper information and naked bias does not mean that my edits were false. My edits were informative and added important context, citing bona fide sources. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It's like trying to convince Conservapedia to respect Marxism. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

So you acknowledge Wikipedia is a partisan website, not an objective encyclopedia. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:YWAB. - MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The bias of Wikipedia is enshrined in policies and guidelines. You might want to read them. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have read them and I believe that Jimmy Wales would agree with my edits because they are more objective and detailed. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely. Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. MrOllie (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the history lesson. I had no idea.

Anyway here is why I believe Jimmy Wales would believe in me. He said "Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

That's why I included the study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The consequences of WP:PAGs are that Wikipedia mirrors the medical orthodoxy. So, alt-med will always get short shrift around here. That's the way things are. That's what Wikipedia is. That's who we are. You may call it being biased. But we're biased for the medical orthodoxy, and proud of it. It's not something we would secretly espouse. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I love your honesty. This quote should be saved and posted on Wikipedia's homepage on any and all medical issues. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It's much broader than that. See WP:MAINSTREAM, which needs to be revised to a guideline or at least WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia. This is by design. See WP:CHARLATANS. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Reality is not determined by "the medical orthodoxy", that's an ideological statement. And I read that article and I believe Jimmy Wales would agree with my edits. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That might very well be your belief, but it isn't the belief of the Wikipedia Community. In other words, the community has decided that certain stuff does not belong within Wikipedia, and that gets enforced.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/rule-ambiguity-institutional-clashes-and-population-loss-how-wikipedia-became-the-last-good-place-on-the-internet/FC3F7B9CBF951DD30C2648E7DEFB65EE tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

So under what grounds does the community get to remove peer reviewed high quality sources and quotes that tell the full story? Many others here agree with me because this article is a disaster. I understand that Wikipedia follows the medical orthodoxy and does not allow 50 50 balance but this article has no statements nor quotes from people who support FM, even when there is credible science behind it. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

peer reviewed high quality sources—you didn't mention any. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2753520

I apologize for the typos. I will never edit Wikipedia from my phone again.

Honestly I think I'll give up. Google Gemini AI has more objective understanding of FM. I'm gonna go to bed, wake up, take my Mark Hyman supplements and go about my day tomorrow. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a primary medical study (meaning not recommended according to WP:MEDRS, especially in light of WP:ECREE), which does not even claim that the found correlation would be statistically significant.

Even when comparing two means, there is a way of computing if the difference is statistically significant. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)