Talk:National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

First remarks

I don't think that section headings like "Who we are" and "What we do" are good to include in an encyclopedia article. I generally think of an article as needing to be written from the 3rd person rather than the 1st person. I've been looking a little for recommendations around this in the Wikipedia Help section but haven't come across something specific yet. Courtland 23:52, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I agree. I assume it was cut and pasted from somewhere else. How about paraphrasing it so it is encyclopedic and not a copyvio? alteripse 01:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio (since the source is a public domain document) but neither is it encyclopaedic, so for that I put a {{cleanup-tone}}. -- Paddu 18:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I created a section for Criticism and moved a paragraph from the opening to there. The paragraph's placement veered a wee bit close to the WP:NPOV cliff and seems better contextualized as criticism. Gobonobo 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This page seems to be mostly plagiarized, and it consequently reads like a brochure. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that a page can be largely unattributed copy and pasting, even if it is not a direct copyright violation. It seems this issue was raised two years ago; is anyone working on this page? 938 MeV (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Budget and charter

Seems to me that information about the budget and charter belong under organization, not criticism. Fyslee seems to have a problem with this, not sure why. hgilbert (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood or are misrepresenting. He had inserted a quote from an AAAS policy review paper published in Science. It outlined the problems with NCCAM and belonged in the criticism section. I am assuming you didnt bother to read or understand that, because when you revised the article you destroyed the sense and continuity and separated part of the account of this paper from the rest. I assume this was accidental, but please be more careful. alteripse (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Those were indeed my concerns. Unfortunately a duplicate ended up being created (mention of budget and charter). Another duplicate (Atwood's quote) wasn't ever touched and I have just fixed that one. This is a sensitive section and we just need to discuss changes to it here first. BTW, I don't think I inserted that quote. I just noticed that Hgilbert was significantly changing the section, and based on his track record as an editor on "the other side of the fringe fence", I just jumped to the conclusion that he was vandalizing the section. "Vandalizing" was too strong a word to use and I have apologized on my talk page. Parts of his edits did destroy some of the thought flow, as expressed by Alteripse, so let's be careful and discuss any changes here first. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The section is still badly written:

• It's still not clear to me why a bare statement of the organization's budget is a criticism; if it's simply because it's cited to the same reference, there can be multiple citations to the source.
• The quote indeed criticizes the charter - and I had missed this - but it's not clear that what it refers to is related to the representation of AM practitioners on the board. Can someone look at the original source and either clarify that this is indeed what is critiqued there or, if it is not, move this passage out (linking two things by implication that are not linked in the source would qualify as OR otherwise). hgilbert (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a pdf of the original source, as well as the rebuttal by the nccam director published shortly afterward. Unfortunately you need to be a member to get it from the AAAS site. The principal criticisms are that quite different and scientifically poorer standards are used for nccam research projects than for other NIH research, and that there are massive conflicts of interest in that most of the oversight scientists are among the principal beneficiaries of nccam money. The authors argue that the resulting poor scientific quality of the research, combined with the general attitude of the public and alternative practitioners that negative nccam results will not change practices, makes the nccam as it currently operates a largely wasteful and useless enterprise. The response from the director is that congressional restrictions mandate the composition of the organization and its research, and that more of the focus of the nccam is being directed toward establishing standards for dietary and herbal medicines, since so many are fraudulent and adulterated and the DSHEA regulations provide little consumer protection. Incidentally, the rebuttal from the nccam director includes the public admission that a large proportion of "alternative" remedies are toxic garbage dangerous to the consumer. As you are no doubt aware, this is not a fact freely admitted by most defenders of quackery. alteripse (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Both the framework of the congressional mandate and the director's admission belong in this article, I would think. hgilbert (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I included the complete quote from the NCCAM charter concerning council membership because the previous abbreviated quote suggested a far greater level of 'CAM' representation than actually exists. The previous quote suggested 9 members must be experts in the field of C and A medicine. This is quite wrong, as an examination of the board will show. The board is heavily loaded with representatives from the conventional medicine fields. DHawker (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Better reference of the criticism section

The role of rigorous scientific evaluation in the use and practice of complementary and alternative medicine.[1]

I don't have time to work on it right now, maybe later if someone doesn't do it first. Ward20 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am thinking about Skeptical Inquirer used on this page. I think this is an RS, but clearly a journalistic type source and not peer reviewed. For claims about medicine-related studies on this page I think one should follow WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh.

[2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So is this: http://geomag.gfdi.fsu.edu/tss-copa/nccam_critique.html MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I moved the article from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the new name for the organization National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The organization hasn't changed everything yet, so we'll just have to update some things a bit at a time as they do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

New URL

Probably should update the URL to https://nccih.nih.gov at some point. The center's web pages have been updated. 96.241.31.30 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505211246/http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm to http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Examples of NCCAM research projects funded

I added an additional study result to this table. I may add more, unless there is a legitimate objection. The only examples in this table appeared to be cherry-picked mostly from a Skeptical Inquirer article seeking to debunk alternative medicine funding. Gives the false impression that 100% of the studies produce no positive results. It makes sense to include some positive results, too. Happy to discuss. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am skeptical. This is a primary reference so not that great in WP. 30 participants and no controls. The conclusion of the article is "might improve MMT outcomes." I think I will revert the edit unless you have better.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss this further. Are you applying the same standards to the other studies mentioned in the examples? Surely, you can agree that these examples are cherry-picked, coming from a Skeptical Inquirer article written with the purpose of showing results of a certain type? If we can agree on what examples should be provided, it makes sense to include/exclude certain ones, but until then, it makes no sense to eliminate one because it doesn't follow your particular narrative. I'd love some additional input.Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to imply that they have produced a significant number of positive results, you need a secondary source saying this, rather than indulging in WP:OR by cherry-picking a few primary studies. You need to find studies that secondary sources have felt worth mentioning in the context of whether the funding is worthwhile. The studies listed in the article are significant in terms of the article because they are listed in a secondary source. And the criticism that they have failed to fund research with positive results does not just come from the Skeptical Inquirer. The same criticism is there in the article sourced to Science, the Journal of the AMA, NBC news, and even Tom Harkin. That’s an overwhelming consensus. Brunton (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Remember that the purpose of the examples of research is not to editorialize, as in the articles about funding. That would belong in a "Criticism" section. What you are suggesting is that the "Examples" box be used to make a point. right now it's making the point that the Skeptical Inquirer and a Doctor who has written books against alternative medicine wants to make. There are plenty of secondary sources for positive results, and I will be adding. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to WP. As a new editor you might also find the following articles important.

WP:FLAT WP:FRINGE WP:ORIGINAL WP:BITE

and finally, WP:YWAB

--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. Those are not relevant to this. I would be happy to discuss the actual issue with you, though. I'm interested in hearing your response to my specific statements. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes they are. Another relevant article is WP:CRITS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The article has multiple independent sources (not just “the Skeptical Inquirer and a Doctor who has written books against alternative medicine”) saying that the results have been overwhelmingly negative. If you want the article to imply that this isn’t the case we’ll need sources for that point of view. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

We're not discussing the article as a whole, we're discussing the examples section. Read the discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you found reliable secondary sources in the meantime which name examples for studies with positive results? If no, there is no point about continuing this discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of positive findings of NCCIH funded studies, unfortunately none of them are listed on the page. Most of them would be primary sources however, if we sited the research directly. I think including these would make the page much more accurate and comprehensive. WikiUser777618 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Given that 90% of this article is listing criticisms, having a Criticism section seems redundant. Jimmy Wales said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Improving the article and adding current sources and focus

The NCCIH was not formed until 2014 so the 2009 reference was not criticizing the current Center. Many of the sources in this article are old. I would think the article would be more useful if the historical order went from current to older. What NCCIH is today should be the focus.

About the deleted paragraph with with the addition

“As described in the NCCIH Timeline the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) was formed in 1991 and became the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) in 1998 which Congress renamed in 2014 to reflect its evolving mission. In 2022 the NCCIH budget is $159M with 87 staff."

I don't understand Hipal's objection “rv SOAP, LINKSPAM, change in POV based upon ABOUTSELF refs/links" Bbachrac (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Improperly embedding external links to the center's website and copy and pasting their mission statement aren't improvements to the article - the article is supposed to follow what independent reliable sources say about the center, not what the center says about itself. Your quote from the Merck Manual appears to be a non sequitur, a definition of complementary medicine in general isn't about this center in specific. Also, if you look at the totality of the article and not just the lead, it should be clear that criticism is ongoing, not a one time event in the past. MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LINKSPAM: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. If you intended them to be references, follow WP:CITE and the format being used in this article.

WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing

WP:SOAP: Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts

See WP:ABOUTSELF for a definition and how such refs can be used.

What NCCIH is today should be the focus That would be soapboxing and WP:RECENTISM. The focus should be on what the best independent references have to say, ideally references that provide broad historical context. --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hipal Bbachrac (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia with a Purpose and not just a vehicle for out of context criticism. I think editors should be first presenting clear current information and create the context for discussion. Bbachrac (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The clear and current information is that this is a controversial government department due to its ongoing use of taxpayer money to fund pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the reliable source 2021 article by Denise Millstine, MD, Mayo Clinic doesn't agree with you.

Selection for inclusion as a Merck Manual article “Overview of Integrative, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine” provides validation of its reliability.

"Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine are terms often used interchangeably, but their meanings are different.

• Complementary medicine refers to non-mainstream practices used together with conventional medicine.
• Alternative medicine refers to non-mainstream practices used instead of conventional medicine.
• Integrative medicine is health care that uses all appropriate therapeutic approaches—conventional and non-mainstream—within a framework that focuses on health, the therapeutic relationship, and the whole person."
  

The Merck Manuals are available Online.

Also see for example

Harvard The Osher Center for Integrative Medicine

UCSF Integrative Women’s Health

Please clarify why Complementary and Integrative Health is pseudo science and how you know what is pseudo science?

Thank you Bbachrac (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the general status of the whole field with you, this talk page is for discussion of this specific article and its specific topic, not alternative medicine in general. And this specific topic has a well sourced section on the ongoing problems, under the heading 'Criticism'. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated 2014 name change details with NIH sources.

Proposal for SEO‑style improvements to NCCIH intro and history

Hi all, I've noticed the current article lead lacks updated mission statements and does not reflect the positive shift toward integrative science. I'd like to propose a minor revision to:

1. Clarify the 2014 name change rationale, reflecting the center's emphasis on integration with conventional research.

In December 2014, Congress officially renamed the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), to reflect its broadened research focus and increasing integration with conventional medical approaches.

Proposed additions:

"In 2014, the center changed its name from NCCAM to NCCIH to better reflect its mission of integrating scientific research on complementary therapies with conventional healthcare." Agni108 (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia lacks 'updated mission statements' and does not 'reflect the positive shift' because this is an encyclopedia, not a PR-outlet for the NCCIH. We're interested in what independent reliable sources have to say about this organization, not what it has to say about itself. MrOllie (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Updated Page

I uploaded a new version of the page that revised the overview, to be more concise and comprehensive. I made a separate history section that included a timeline of the NCCIH. I updated the organizational section to include the different labs and programs within the center. I also included a section on funding trajectory. Lastly, I tried to give the controversy section a more neutral point of view. However, the edits were taken down for giving all views equal priority, which isn't an accurate description of the work. I simply described the controversy and disagreement between multiple prevalant viewpoints. WikiUser777618 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

What you did was move the article to WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a concept specifically rejected by Wikipedia policies. On this site 'neutral' means that we follow the independent reliable sources. In cases where the independent sources tend to describe the topic in one way (like this one), that means the article will take that position as well.

You'll note that most articles on altmed (for example Homeopathy) or fringe topics (for example Modern flat Earth beliefs) do not give 'multiple prevalant viewpoints' equal validity, for obvious reasons. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

What information included moved it into false balance? I think included information about the therapies that the NCCIH researches is important for a holistic view of the institute. The writing did not endorse any of the therapies, however I did cite many large clinical trials a research articles which I think are useful for understanding the research objectives of the NCCIH WikiUser777618 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The entire article re-write, from top to bottom. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm, parts of it were almost identical to the current page. In the introduction I proposed below, do you think there is a false balance? WikiUser777618 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, the lead proposal uncritically repeats their mention statement and adds various other promotional statements. It doesn't even pretend to be balanced. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I propose updating the overview page to be more concise and focused on the institute.

Overview

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the lead federal agency for scientific research on medical practices that are not considered in traditional treatment plans. NCCIH's mission is "to determine, through rigorous scientific investigation, the fundamental science, usefulness, and safety of complementary and integrative health approaches and their roles in improving health and health care."[1]

The center funds and conducts research on a broad range of practices including dietary supplements, acupuncture, yoga, meditation, and other mind-body therapies. NCCIH funds research, coordinates with other federal agencies, and provides educational resources for the public and health professionals. The center also emphasizes understanding the science and offers information on integrative medicine research and how to find a provider. Under the leadership of Helene Langevin, M.D., the center has increasingly focused on the concept of Whole Person Health—considering the interconnection of biological, behavioral, social, and environmental factors. The center received $170.3 million in funding for fiscal year 2024.

[1] https://www.nccih.nih.gov/about WikiUser777618 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Replacing the mention of criticism with a copy of their mission statement and assorted other cheerleading is the opposite of neutrality. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I totally understand that. What if we included the same sentence that is there already about criticism? I also think we could add an entire section about controversy. WikiUser777618 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The promotional version plus a sentence about criticism is still a promotional version, I would consider that to be a downgrade compared with what is already in the article. There's been a lot of back and forth in a short time, at this point I'm going to step back for a bit to see if anyone else has a comment. Do not construe any silence from me as support for your changes. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Input from others would be great! I'm not quite sure what makes this version promotional — I'm open to suggestions from anyone on how to make it less promotional. WikiUser777618 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another way to improve the page is to make the funding trajectory more explicit. Right now it is a bit confusing, and I think it would help to be specific about how much funding they got every year. WikiUser777618 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Including Recent Publications

Revised the page to include what type of issues NCCIH funding is going towards. The revision was reverted, reason cited being "expansion not based upon independent sourcing". However, it is based completely on peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals. All the research was collected without any conflict of interest, and none of the research is mine. It’s all simply sourced from the NIH RePORTER, which allows you to see what NIH institutes are funding. These are independent sources, and provide a more comprehensive view of what the institute is currently funding.

On my user talk page we discussed  WP:WEIGHT, WP:SOAP, and WP:SYN, all three of which do not apply to this edit (and I'm happy to post my explanation of why). Would love another opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser777618 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Dismissals of policy won't create consensus.

Let's start with WP:V and SYN. Which sources specifically verify the content, NCCIH-funded mind and body studies have focused on a range of physical and mental health conditions including opioid addiction, acute pain, chronic pain, hypertension, and low back pain.?

Please identify the "NIH RePORTER" sources you're referring to as well. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Here are links to the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that outline how CAM interventions are used to treat various health issues. They should each have a funding section that identifies the NCCIH as funding the research.

Opioid addiction: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789279

Acute pain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35899379/

Chronic pain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082248/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37985872/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27183035/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22965186/

Hypertension: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3277798/#R9

Low back pain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22025101/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28631003/

Here is a link to the NIH RePORTER: https://reporter.nih.gov/search/jkTBBptho02cDrNuSeNRvw/publications?agencies=NCCIH

You can use this tool to search publications and filter by funding agency. WikiUser777618 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

So no single source verifies the information, correct? Do any of them verify that the studies overall focus in these areas? --Hipal (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)