This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Chickpecking (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
So what? All the medical systems in the world are in a large part based on myths and unfounded beliefs passed through generations. That's why we see this ongoing effort to promote the use of Evidence-based medicine, something that isn't at all obvious for healthcare professionals nor so widely practiced as lay people might imagine. So-called anthroposophic medicine is no different: it has its uses, it has its supporters, and it has very little evidence in support. — kashmīrīTALK11:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what "uses" Anthroposophic medicine has been shown to have. We shouldn't give it Undue legitimacy when our best sources don't. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)13:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anthroposophical MDs learn mainstream medicine, but AFAIK they learn it in order to dodge it as far as it is allowable. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. However, I do not get your point. I was adding the fact, that benchmarks of the WHO have been published about training in Anthroposophic Medicine. Werthp (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]