Hello, Aanp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! MrX 14:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user name you have selected appears to be in violation of wp:CORPNAME. Please consider changing it. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that you appear to be editing Naturopathy from a position of conflict of interest. That guideline explains how to do so without running into problems. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an employee of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians you could say I have a conflict of interest in editing the naturopathy page. However, the information on the page is sorely outdated and was obviously written by someone very anti-naturopathy. I've been attempting to update the evidence-basis page with recent studies found on the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health page, but it keeps being removed from a conflict of interest. I do not believe that using 3rd party scientific studies of Naturopathic treatment modalities is in any way a promotion of my current employers. I would like I to be known that I am aware that my position at the AANP could compromise my objectivity, which is why i tried to stick to articles from the US National Library of medicine, and not from any of our journals or affiliates.

Thank you for engaging in discussion, that is a helpful step. Perhaps something in wp:CORPNAME needs clarification? Essentially a user name should be for a single person, and with rare exceptions a single person should have just one username. I recommend you read both those pages very carefully. 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I already applied to change my username to Stephanieaanp. Unless you can do that for me right now, I'm not sure what more I can do at this point in time.

Very good! It shouldn't take too long to process. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this edit, but it needs some explanation. Some of the sources you used were primary studies, which we avoid for medical assertions per wp:MEDRS. Others that you used were indeed reviews or systematic reviews, but the assertions you used them for were not supported by the sources you cited. When the key finding of the review is one of insufficient evidence for clinical use, that should be what you state. Please be more careful. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones were good and what assertions did I make that were wrong? Stephanieaanp (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a huffington post review of a study or group of studies a secondary source? Stephanieaanp (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave the wrong link above (now corrected) to your edit. Let's look at what you had:

1. Naturopathy has been found effective in treating menopausal symptoms, ^[1]
2. and hypertension ^[2].
3. Licensed NDs have also contributed to research on environmental toxicants and their contribution to allergies and asthma ^[3],
4. Sauna Therapy ^[4],
5. for lung cancer prevention ^[5],
6. and green tea and lung cancer ^[6]. These studies have found mixed degrees of efficacy.(Numbering is my addition.)

Refs 1, 2 are primary. Ref 3 and 4 are reviews, but make no mention of licensed NDs. Ref 5 is fine as a source, but concluded "Selenium may be effective for lung cancer prevention among individuals with lower selenium status, but at present should not be used as a general strategy for lung cancer prevention. Although promising, more evidence on the ability of selenium to reduce cisplatin and radiation therapy toxicity is required to ensure that therapeutic efficacy is maintained before any broad clinical recommendations can be made in this context." That conclusion is a very long way from your "These studies have found mixed degrees of efficacy." Ref 6 may also be a fine source (I've only seen the abstract), but that concludes "Although some evidence suggests that chemopreventative benefits can be accrued from green tea, there is currently insufficient evidence to support green tea as a treatment or preventative agent for lung cancer. Green tea should not be used by patients on bortezomib therapy. Further research is warranted to explore this natural agent for lung cancer treatment and prevention." This too is far from "These studies have found mixed degrees of efficacy." Better would have been "These studies could not recommend their use", but even that suggests an wp:UNDUE importance to what is essentially a non-finding.

Please be careful that you do not inject your own enthusiasm for the prospect that something might work, overstating that while under-representing the prospect that it might not.

So far as using the Huffington Post goes, it has been discussed many times at wp:RSN (see the archive search box). To summarize, it has usually not been considered to provide the level of editorial oversight and fact-checking necessary to be a reliable publisher. As it is a more or less automatic news aggregator and self-published blog site, the best approach is to simply use it to locate the original publisher and examine the source there, rather than on HuffPost. Specific items by highly-regarded expert authors may, however, still be acceptable on the merits of those authors' reputations. Such cases usually need to be treated as wp:SPS, which requires in-text attribution. For medical assertions, we try to avoid SPS because they lead us to the Argument from authority ("the guru says") rather than from objective evidence. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mixed efficacy was meant to encompass the efficacy of the sauna and environmental toxins studies and the inefficacy of the other two. Walter Crinnion (3&4) is a licensed ND (http://www.npbomex.az.gov/directorySearchDetail.asp?holderID=657), and the other two studies were done by The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, one of the accredited schools that licensed NDs attend, that was why they were referenced. It's been made abundantly clear to me in editing that most naturopaths are 'quacks" and I need to differentiate the work of licensed NDs so as not to imply that traditional naturopaths hold the same regard towards EBM. I don't know how I'm expected to differentiate the two and not mention that the researcher/reviewer is a licensed ND. If I don't mention it I'm promoting all naturopaths and naturopathic treatments as legit, but if I do I'm attributing research unduly.

I'm not enthusiastic about any of this. I think it's stupid to assume drinking green tea could somehow shield you from cancer. If that was the case most of Asia wouldn't have any incidences of cancer and we'd all be chugging tea while we puffed away. The topical application is interesting though. And more so I included the article as an example of NDs understanding, accepting, and being involved in EBM. I mean up until last week the article began with "naturopaths show a critical or rejecting view of EBM". Clearly not if their universities not only promote it but contribute to the field. My only goal is only to provide a balanced section. One that allows for the display of Naturopathic medicine's shortcomings in the realm of EBM and also shows NDs contributions to EBM. Quite frankly I hear from people looking for NDs all day, every change i make to this article is rejected, and I'm sick and tired of putting forth all of this effort for nothing. But it was my initiative to clear up this section and I want to see it through. Because completely ignoring the efforts of NDs to in the realm of EBM is just as bad as the "tradition sensitive naturopaths" who ignore EBM entirely.

Thank you for your clear explanation and helpful advice, as always. Stephanieaanp (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, would the Natural Medicine Journal be an acceptable source for peer reviewed articles? http://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/article_section.asp?edition=1&section=2 Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem was running the different statements together in one sentence, even though they were based on different sources. We call this synthesis, a form of original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. I don't doubt that you can find sources to clearly show certain individual authors are licensed NDs, but the sources you cited didn't do that, leaving the reader to guess which were and which were not. Just because some ND students attend CCNM obviously does not mean everyone affiliated with CCNM at a the time of a publication is a licensed ND. Some are students, and even faculty members may have other backgrounds. If you want to say that NDs contribute to EBM, just find a published reliable source that says that, and cite it.

In regards the Natural Medicine Journal there are at least two publications by that name, plus Nat Med J Chin, Nat Med J Ind and of course Nat Med, which are rather too easily confused. The old Fairfax Publishing journal here seems not to be the same as the online one you give. It was only published for two volumes 1998-1999. I don't see any obvious problem with the online journal except its novelty: it takes some time for a journal to establish a reputation. Usually this happens within about five years if the journal is well run. That said, part of what established a reputation and is a high frequency of citation, and that one doesn't seem to have many other journals citing it after four years publishing. It may take them some time to build up a good impact factor at this rate.

Must go. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]