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)
- 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)