Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

AIDS, CANCER views

Chopra has described the AIDS virus as emitting "a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction". The condition can be treated, according to Chopra, with "Ayurveda's primordial sound".[34] Taking issue with this view, medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman has said that ethical issues are raised when alternative medicine is not based on empirical evidence and that, "to put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data".[34]

AIDS and Cancer are not topics central to Dr Chopra's main thesis, that integrating western medicine with meditation is beneficial towards health so focusing on them in the lead section puts to much weight on ideas that are not core to his thesis. There are some highly selective quotes in the section on Quantum Healing regarding Dr Chopra's description of AIDS and cancer that heavily imply he rejects basic medical understanding of how these diseases operate. This is factually incorrect. Dr Chopra writes about integrating Western medicine, not rejecting it, with meditation practices.

In order to help foster some more accurate representation, below are additional quotes from the book that reflect a more balanced position. I hope any discussion of the book in the article will reflect the actual contents of the book.

Source: Chopra, Deepak. Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine. (Bantam, 1990) ISBN: 0553348698

p. 237: “One AIDS patient in Germany has been treated with Ayurveda for two years as part of a pilot program conducted in Europe. Diagnosed in 1984, he is still alive at the time of this writing in August 1988 (80 percent of AIDS patients die within two years of diagnosis); he leads a normal life and is without overt symptoms. …the subjects know that Ayurveda is not promising a cure, but the supervising physicians feel that they are seeing improvements, particularly in the patients’ ability to withstand the debilitating fatigue that saps the strength and will of AIDS patients.”

p. 238: “The diagnosis had been made four years earlier after he came down with pneumonia. Rather than the typical pneumonia caused by pneumococcus bacteria, his came from a protozoa known as Pneumocystis carinii; this disease is one of the most common that strike AIDS patients when their immune systems collapse. He recovered from the attack and decided to change his life. He learned to meditate, and for the first time in his adult life he gave up the habitual routine of long nights, heavy drinking, pills, smoking, and promiscuity that had been attached to his career. (Interestingly, a survey of long-term AIDS survivors shows that all of them have made this kind of “take charge” decision over their disease. Standard medicine cannot explain why this should be such a lifesaver, but it is.)”

Dr Chopra specifically states what causes AIDS and nowhere does he say he it caused by sound mutations. That Dr Chopra may describe ‘how’ Ayurveda would view an illness is not the same thing as Dr Chopra viewing that illness in the same way.

p. 237: I kept one foot firmly planted in my private endocrinology practice - although I felt in tune with Ayurveda theory, I was nervous about the results."

p. 237: This is not yet a cure, but a huge step towards recovering one."

p. 239: "AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, plus its related mutations, which are a researcher's nightmare." “A cold or flu virus is content to let DNA build proteins for it, but a retrovirus like HIV goes one better by blending into the DNA’s own chemical strands, masking itself as the host’s genetic material.”

p. 243: “The pneumonia that an AIDS patient typically catches is caused by a variety of Penumocystis that is present in everybody’s lungs all the time. The AIDS virus activates such diseases from the inside by demolishing one part of the immune system (the helper T-cells), thus breaking apart the network of information that holds us together.”

p. 251: “…Ayurveda therefore pays much less attention to surface emotions than does current mind-body medicine. The whole rationale for treating cancer (or AIDS) with primordial sound and bliss techniques is that they reach the deep levels of consciousness common to everyone, the weak as much as the strong.”

“…Eleanor was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer that had metastasized to the lymph nodes under her arm. She underwent one radical mastectomy, followed by a second; her reaction to chemotherapy afterward was extremely poor. Finding the side effects intolerable, she abandoned conventional treatment altogether, even though her doctors made her well aware that the cancer had now spread to her bones. Patients in this category of metastasis have about a 1 percent chance of survival. As it happens, Eleanor was advised by her family doctor to start meditating in 1986, in the middle of her disease. Through her meditation practice, she heard about Ayurveda. She came to Lancaster for inpatient treatment, where I met her and instructed her in the primordial sound for treating cancer. The results were remarkable. Her severe bone pain disappeared (this incident was mentioned earlier, in chapter 9), and whenever she returned home to be X-rayed, her radiologist found fewer and fewer pockets of bone cancer.

It was far too late for these regressions to have been caused by her earlier treatment. Generally, if a tumor is being treated with radiation or chemotherapy, it shrinks very quickly. If Eleanor survives for two more years, she will enter the privileged ranks of patients who beat all the odds.”

SAS81 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

if there is one thing you do not lack, it is verboseness. are you by chance getting paid by the word? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

AIDS and cancer may not be central to Chopra's "thesis", but certain of his pronouncements on these topics are extraordinary enough to have attracted analysis from serious people published in high-quality sources—the kind of analysis, in other words, that Wikipedia uses as a basis for its articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@TPROD, I get paid to do this because no volunteer would put up with this much abuse as a hobby and volunteers tend to get harassed away from the article. My own text is hardly that long I don't appreciate how you engage with me. @Alex - you can use that analysis and sources, but the weight should be in accordance to the facts. I hardly doubt that Dr Chopra has all the critics he does because of 7 comments he made in a book written in 1989. Please do not use 'AIDS and CANCER' and all the suffering caused therein as a way to weasel in a perception about Dr Chopra does not represent his actual viewpoint. SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were being paid as an archivist. How would you know how much abuse you'd have to put up with, exactly? Are you sure you're an actual archivist? I mean, you didn't know what Pubmed was, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"but the weight should be in accordance to the facts" No, and that's the long-running problem with your contributions to Wikipedia. You feel you know the facts, and you are working to have the article rewritten accordingly.

What you feel are the "facts" should be irrelevant, if you understood our policies.

Your insistence that these "facts" should drive the article is simply wrong.

You've been told these things long ago. What's the problem? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is something I had an issue with myself awhile back. The issue seems to be the attention that Chopra's comments on AIDS and cancer caused, and here's a bigger list of times he's commented on them. Why is this a bad thing?

I do think it's unreasonable to have a section about Quantum Healing but then only include the criticisms of it while dismissing all but the most parsed of quotes. While primary sources should not drive the article's narrative, the very book that is the subject of a section can and should be referenced. We can leave in the stuff that's critical but also give an accurate accounting of Chopra actually said. I thought my version did that, but anyone's welcome to do one better. The Cap'n (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia. We are meant to be a tertiary source, digesting what secondary sources say. We are not meant to become a weird secondary source by relaying primary details from Chopra's books that no quality secondary source on the planet has found worthy of mention. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If we are describing Quantum Healing or any of Chopra's theories /Philosophies the first place to go is the primary source. It is acceptable and even necessary to set as a base for whatever else we include from tertiary sources on Chopra's words on the subject. Primary sources must only be used with care, but this is one of the places a primary source is useful, necessary and definitive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

We should be including material from secondary, not "tertiary" sources (unless unavoidable). We have no need to try and interpret what "Quantum Healing" is more widely than has drawn attention from quality commentators. If we were to include our own summary Chopra's fringe notions, we would be obliged to label them as pseudoscientific/fringe/nonsense/whatever, which would be difficult without secondary sources in any case. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite - FOC, please. Not only is it wise policy, but it will save you lots of your time volunteering on this article towards something productive. SAS81 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel like being lectured on policy by you, paid editor. Where's my check? Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

well I'm going to focus on content and just leave it at that. SAS81 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

i would recommend focusing on policies first (like WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV) and how they apply to content and presenting content, since its been obvious from the start that you are not really focusing on content so much as focusing on getting promotional content into the article - which is not really helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's entirely justified and normal WP policy to rely on primaries for quotes and factual statements about a work being discussed. We are merely discouraged from using primaries as the sole sourcing for an article, but there's not some sort of ban on referencing material directly for quotes to illustrate content (ie. primaries are not good for discussing Chopra's perception, but are appropriate for explaining the content of a book). Using primary sources does not make us a secondary source unless we write in our own analysis. Read the WP procedures:

Primary sources are appropriate when the purpose of using them is purely illustrative, such as providing a photograph of a historic event in an article about that event or providing a quote of an author's prose in an article about the author. When using primary sources it is necessary to avoid attempts at interpreting the sources: the purpose is to give readers representative and neutral examples.

Therefore it is not OR to write Deepak Chopra said "Blah blah blah..." which is contradicted by Dr. Whatsit, who says "blah blah blah...", while it would be OR to write Deepak Chopra believes in the completely discredited blah blah blah, and all doctors, including Dr. Whatsit, think he's a lunatic. We are intended to cite primary sources when we discussing that source's factual content, then we use secondaries to present analysis and interpretation of that content. This is not controversial stuff. The Cap'n (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It's not as much a OR problem as WP:NPOV and WP:BLPPRIMARY. That's been the problem the whole time, trying to counter well-sourced information with primary sources and personal opinions. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not violating NPOV nor BLPPRIMARY to include representative quotes from a book in a section about that same book, and there's nothing in those policies that says so, merely that primaries should be used with caution. I have tried to be very cautious with my use of them. I wasn't trying to counter anything with my edit, I included a quote from the source being discussed that dealt with the topic the secondary referenced. It was a straightforward, descriptive statement.

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

I think there's been some misconceptions on all sides about the role of primaries v. secondaries. I'm certainly not arguing that this article should be based off of primaries, but when we read Primary 1 and see A, then Secondary 1 is referenced saying that Primary 1 says B, we can include a quote of A from Primary 1 without inserting our own POV or refuting Secondary 1 ourselves. That's reporting descriptive, factual quotes, not opinions. There's nothing making this an insurmountable issue. The Cap'n (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources, even when self-published, are allowed where the BLP subject is the author. They shouldn't be over-used, but it's fine to use them to describe the subject's views instead of "X wrote that Y said." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here on this topic. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

Thanks, yes, I would agree with that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Using primary sources to counter better ones is a POV (and in this case a BLPPRIMARY) violation. The problem is that it is used to "balance" information from far better sources. Primary sources should be used to complement and provide pertinent details, not to provide "balance". --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't see anyone adding primary sources to counter better sources. Did I miss something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

I'm not arguing that point, Ronz, but in the specific instance being discussed there's no countering going on. Schniederman wrote that Chopra described AIDS as some sort of sound like siren or something (not looking at the source right now), then went on to say that rejecting scientific understandings of AIDS was unethical. I read the Quantum Healing source this was based off of and saw that prior to the discussed section on ayurvedic perspectives, Chopra had clearly described the scientific understanding of AIDS and directly endorsed it, so I included a reference to this context without refuting Schniederman. I've never argued Schniederman should be dismissed or tried to counter his source with a primary, but it's unreasonable to say that if a secondary source critiques a book, no quotes can be provided from that book that do not support the critique. The Cap'n (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 seems to think otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but we're different people and I'm not here to represent SAS81. You're free to think what you will about what they're arguing for, but I'm interested in getting feedback on the edits I've proposed. Leaving SAS81 aside, does the scenario I described above seem reasonable and within WP policy? I certainly think so, but if you don't I'd be interested to hear why not. The Cap'n (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we use a primary or secondary source to describe Chopra's views, I hope we all agree that we have to get those views right. So we have to use high-quality secondary sources who are familiar with Chopra's work and describe it properly. It's completely appropriate at that point to use Chopra himself, even if only as an adjunct. There is no point in saying "Smith wrote that Chopra wrote ..." (description), though of course we can say "Smith wrote that, in adopting position X, Chopra implied that ..." (analysis). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin Agreed. I also agree with Ronz and Alexbrn that the Schneiderman analysis is appropriate and should be the only nonquoted analysis in the section (given that I haven't seen any other secondaries on the matter). No countering, just context. So we have a section on a book with the book's quoted context and then secondary analysis. That seems like a good, NPOV breakdown. The Cap'n (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You've inserted irrelevant content into the article again (I reverted it). Schneiderman is competent enough to include the material from Chopra which is related to his argument. We don't want Wikipedia adding extraneous stuff which has no bearing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant or extraneous, that's what we've all been discussing, and therefore I think your revert was unwarranted. Schneiderman included the material that was relevant to his argument, but WP isn't just about presenting arguments, but facts. If we have material from a secondary source critiquing Chopra's book's mention of AIDS, how is it irrelevant to include quotes from the section of that book where Chopra mentions AIDS? Only including Schneiderman's critique without the contextual material that is directly related gives a false impression of the material cited. Schneiderman's analysis, out of context, gives the impression that Quantum Healing denies the medical definition of AIDS, when in fact the source says the exact opposite. That's inserting POV by omission. The Cap'n (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"That's inserting POV by omission" What part of NPOV supports that interpretation? --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance states that when there are two perspectives from equally reputable sources, both should be represented. I don't think it can be argued that Quantum Healing is not a reputable source for the section on Quantum Healing. Impartiality discourages the arrangement of sources or facts that do not accurately represent the relevant positions.

You're arguing that the only quotes from the book that can be cited are those from a critic of the book, and have repeatedly reverted any quotes from the book that contain material that does not support the implication in the Schneiderman quote that Chopra rejects the scientific conception of AIDS (something Chopra directly addresses). That's both misrepresenting the author's position and arranging the facts to only support Schneiderman's position. That's how it violates NPOV.

Given the fact that two other editors have supported the use of QH in the section about QH, and that your only objection at this point is that it's "irrelevant or extraneous" (both of which have been addressed at length), I respectfully ask you to undo your revert or justify why it is necessary. The Cap'n (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few more primary sources from QH that can help determine secondary sources clarifications around Chopra's views. These clarify Dr Chopra's message on integrating, not rejecting western medicine, what his approach is, and how he treats cancer by adding meditation practice and not discontinuing productive treatments in western medicine. Hope these help

p. 2 “The physical basis of science is very solid, and in the eyes of every medical doctor, extremely convincing. On the other hand, the healing power of the mind is considered dubious. Yet I was determined to show that this healing power was a science in it’s own right.”

p. 11 “The word holistic, which tends to offend orthodox doctors, simply means an approach that includes the mind and body together.”

p. 12-13 “She also continued the course of chemotherapy set up by her doctor at home in New York. When we talked about that I said, “If I could confidently put you on nothing but Ayurveda, I would- the deterioration in your physical state would then be much less. But you came to me a very sick woman, and we know that chemotherapy works as an outside approach. Let’s combine the outer and the inner and hope that they add up to a real cure.”

p. 14 “The chemotherapy had caused almost constant nausea, and her hair fallen out in frightening amounts, adding to the shame she felt following her breast surgery. All this compromised the Ayurvedic treatments we were trying. If even higher doses of chemotherapy were given, she would become more depressed, more prone to infections, and weaker in every way.

Yet, at the same time, I did not have a strong enough reason to tell her not to proceed. What if she suffered a relapse in six months and died?

“Go ahead with your chemotherapy,” I advised, “but stick with our program, too, okay?”

SAS81 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"equally reputable sources" How exactly are they equal? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Whatever we may think of Chopra's scientific standing, he's a reliable, reputable source for reporting what he himself said. Accurately representing what's in a book is not endorsing it, for crying out loud, it's being an encyclopedia. The Cap'n (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. They are not equal. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. We simply don't treat primary sources equally with independent, secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion." This is a bizarre statement that typifies the circles we've been talking in. If you're writing a section about a book, citing that book's content is not promoting it, it's referencing it. There's no analysis, promotion or apologetics in the proposed change, just contextual quotes relevant to the topic being discussed.

Mein kampf is directly cited in its own article, are we really arguing that Deepak Chopra is less reliable or reputable than a genocidal despot, or alternatively that WP is promoting Hitler by citing his book? Our job is to present information, not censor it, and the primacy of secondary analysis (which is not being challenged) does not mean and has never meant that primary sources (especially the primary source being discussed) cannot be cited. The Cap'n (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Mein kampf is a published work which does not change over time, and does not engage in self-promotion. Chopra cannot be compared to a book. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The comparisons to Hitler and Mein Kampf have confirmed my initial instinct that it was a mistake to take this discussion, or these editors, seriously in the first place. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell, It's an example, not a comparison. I'm not comparing Chopra or his works to Mein Kampf or Hitler in terms of any resemblance, obviously. I've tried just about every other form of explanation that a source is relevant to its own section, and they keep going unheeded, so I presented the most extreme, obviously vile and heavily discussed text I could think of, and pointed out that even that source is directly cited in its own section/article. My point is that the argument that Quantum Healing is not a reputable or relevant source for the article on Quantum Healing is completely illogical and out of line with WP policy.

@Binksternet Precisely, I'm not comparing Chopra to a book, I'm talking about a book. The edit in question is the addition of a quote from the published book "Quantum Healing" in the section of Chopra's page discussing the book "Quantum Healing." It's referencing what Chopra wrote in the book, not Chopra here and now. As an irrelevant side note, I think it could be argued pretty solidly that Mein Kampf was a promotional work. The Cap'n (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote Confusion

@Ronz I was not putting my opinion in the quote, but placing the actual quote from the source. Someone had added "where he spouts a few platitudes and gives", but that's not what's in the quoted book. I simply removed the vandalized content and restored the quote. Please check the book and find the reference, then I respectfully request you undo your revert. The Cap'n (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Best keep edit summaries specific to explanations of the edit. I saw all the commentary and assumed that it was part of your explanation. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the undo and feedback, I appreciate it. The Cap'n (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not vandalism. The quote is simply from the Skeptic's Dictionary website[1] which differs slightly from the book form. The quote presumably appears in the article because Baer uses it in his paper. It seems further from original research if we use an expert like Baer to identify a relevant passage, but either version of the quote seems fine.

Though unnamed, User:Alexbrn was implicitly accused of vandalizing the article. That's not helpful. vzaak 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't research who had made the edit to the version that was different from the original text, and if that was a good faith error I of course do not wish to use the word "vandalized". I naturally assumed based on the departure from the text that someone had added their own input. In the future, if people are citing quotes they should clearly cite them from the source they find them in, to prevent this kind of telephone-game error. The Cap'n (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody made an edit that changed the original text. The "platitudes" quote comes from the Baer paper, which (by looking at its initial insertion) is almost certainly where Alexbrn got it. Following your directive to cite quotes "from the source they find them in" would mean restoring the "platitudes" quote while sourcing it to skepdic.com or the Baer paper. Is that what you want to do? vzaak 23:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

False hope

Re: the claim in the lead "that he provides patients with false hope that may lead them away from effective medical treatment." I've been unable to find anything in Chopra's work that might do either of these things, though admittedly I haven't looked at everything. Does anyone know what it refers to? It's sourced to Time magazine (which apparently just says "some have argued that ...") [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine. It seems a good summary when offering treatments that don't work. I believe we've similar language in related articles. It shouldn't be hard to find. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

take your pick -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I too have been unable to find anything that shows Dr Chopra's work leads people away from medical treatment, since his entire message is adding to western medical treatment with things like Yoga or meditation. SAS81 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Some edits to the lede

Hi all.

This shows some of the changes I made to the lede.

The first change was to reorder the descriptors of Chopra. I think he is most famous for being an advocate of alternative medicine. This is enhanced by the fact that he is ha licensed physician. His guru status is one that he himself contests and is perhaps dominating but not as self-identified and so we should be WP:BLP sensitive to that.

The second change I made was to the lede claiming that he uses ideas from quantum physics. I see him using ideas from quantum mysticism, but that's a very different thing. Chopra does not, to my knowledge, use solutions to the Schrodinger equation when he offers solace to the suffering. He doesn't seem to know how to do basic physics calculations and he certainly isn't an experimental quantum physicist. His ideas are all properly "quantum mysticism". We could take reference to "quantum" stuff out of the lede completely, but if we are going to reference it properly we have to send the readers to the correct article.

jps (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi JPS, it was better before. He is primarily a physician, and that doesn't have to be what he's most notable for (see e.g. "Rudolf "Rudi" Vrba ... was a professor of pharmacology at the University of British Columbia. Originally from Slovakia, he is known for his escape, at the age of 19, from the Auschwitz concentration camp ..."), though as a matter of fact it is what he's known for. I've also added to the lead that scientists have criticized his use of quantum-physics terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"He is primarily a physician" ← don't think so, after his early career this has been but a minor aspect, and is not what he's known for. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We've been over this, and the sources say he is not "primarily a physician". Ironically, some of the sources we've considered have Chopra himself has repeatedly backed away from presenting himself as a physician, and sometimes he's done so out of legal issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's standard to begin biographies with a person's professional status, and there's no consensus to begin this one any differently. It's already odd-looking that we call him a New Age guru. To remove (or move) physician would be to carry on further down that odd path. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Then we've a conflict between what the sources say and MOS for biographies. Given this is a BLP, we should be extremely wary of not following the sources, but I suspect that there are FA and GA biographies we can follow for a solution. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that a "professional status" usually indicates the primary means by which paid occupational time is spent. Chopra does not spend most of his time practicing medicine in the normal fashion whereas "Rudolf "Rudi" Vrba did spend most of his professional life as a pharmacologist. No one disputes that Chopra is licensed as a physician, but, professionally, he is an advocate, speaker, and author mostly. jps (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Slim Virgin. far from a 'minor aspect'. a physician is a fundamental fact to who Dr Chopra is, both 30 years ago and today. He still runs a clinic and medical group to this day, partners with UCSD Medical and his clinic even teaches courses for CME credits for the AMA. The majority of all of his best selling books speak of his medical experience extensively, and he still publishes with other medical doctors in the field. What makes physician peculiar to many is because most confuse his celebrity or his books on consciousness or spirituality with his medical experience and they are different things. SAS81 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

and still unclear on why 'new age guru' is still there. it's used as a pejorative by critics, is a subjective label, and primary sources deny it. I dont mind if the article says "Deepak Chopra is to some a new age guru" but putting that in Wikipedia's voice is really jarring and does not even match many of the sources in the article. SAS81 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You agree with whatever puts Chopra in the best possible light - that's your job and reason for being here. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So should we look at other articles, or have the round of changes resolved the problems? --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear he is most notable for being an alternative medicine proponent. It's also clear he is a licensed (if not necessarily practicing) physician. I don't think the lede as I constructed it makes his licensure a "minor aspect". I think that we should be able to describe this in the lede. jps (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that he's notable for being a proponent for integrative/alternative/complementary/whatever medicine, but the phrase "New Age Guru" is pretty specific. How many prominent sources do we have that call him that? Also, using objective language is not being promotional. The Cap'n (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors *(four I think) have mentioned concerns with New Age guru. Licensed physician rather than physician seems somewhat redundant, but wouldn't argue its inclusion at this point. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

"How many prominent sources do we have that call him that?" ← quite a few. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt JPS, but we can clean this up better. Slim Virgin also has an admirable flair for writing a good sentence and article that reads well in addition to be neutral, so I will trust Slim VIrgin's judgement here too. I would like to recommend something a bit closer to this:

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American physician, author and lecturer known for his view that healing is primarily an integration of physical and mental processes. The author of several dozen books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement,[2] making him a promoter of alternative medicine to some and a new age guru to others.

I'm not sure the utility of adding 'licensed' to physician. it seems redundant if he was not licensed he would not be a physician and makes for an awkward sentence as a read. If there is a point there that you would like to see the article reflect, it's lost and perhaps could be made at another location in the article. SAS81 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz - I'm working my hardest to stay neutral as possible given the circumstance - and it's possible to achieve in a collaborative environment its not rocket science. I agree wikipedia is not a place for promotion, but it's also not an OP/ED either designed to criticize subjects or individuals, it's meant to be an encylopedia, right? a place to discover who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas and contributions have been, and what reception he has received. Some of the problem seems to be that when Dr Chopra's factuals are translated into objective 'just the facts ma'am' phrases, critics and skeptics are so used to consuming Dr Chopra in pejoratives that even neutrality appears promotional to that perspective. Wikipedia should not be responsible for satisifying the skeptic point of view, just the neutral point of view. They should not be confused as the same thing. SAS81 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but at this point it seems unlikely that you can see beyond your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Exactly - "call him that:. New Age Guru is a label, not what he is. Its cleaner and clearer (and frankly more sophisticated IMO in terms of writing style) to delineate what he is from what the labels are. We can say something like,

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American, licensed physician, who practices and advocates integrative-medicine. He is best known for his view that healing is primarily a mental rather than physical process.[1], and as a speaker, and author of several dozen books and videos. Chopra has been labelled a New Age guru...( include other labels here), and has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement.[2]

(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Labels that describe of how Chopra is viewed can be added.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Maybe Alexbrn could detail his objections? (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

I must have missed some breakthrough in philosophy if we can now distinguish cleanly between things as described, and things in themselves. Meanwhile your proposed edit just ignores the many discussions above about using loaded language, about DC not being a practitioner, about undue weight to his physician activities and his mind/body stuff ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, try to keep up! :O) You are fast on the revert key.

Let's look at the changes I made.

• added "practices" So Chopra does not practice integrative medicine, or if we say that we are giving him some kind of credit that weights his position? Is that right? Why is that?
• added Integrative medicine instead of alternative medicine. See our own articles on Integrative medicine and alternative medicine.
• Loaded language. Jps added famous ... I added "best known". How does that support a loaded- language claim. Where else does my edit show loaded language?
• I added speaker? Is he a notable speaker? True or not? In most sources? True or not? Loaded language?
• I did add label... that is a noteworthy change. I opened the door for an examination of how Chopra is viewed both negative and positive in a neutral way. You closed that door.

Sorry Alexbrn, but I suspect that nothing I added would have satisfied. And your edit summary doesn't paint a picture of the changes I made. No worries. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

"I suspect that nothing I added would have satisfied" ← pardon, what does that mean? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not balanced, in that it excludes all negative information and whitewashes what he does as "Integrative medicine." Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

He practices integrative medicine. How is it that integrative medicine is a whitewash, but alternative medicine isn't. Per the sources Chopra, a physician, combines allopathic and alternative medicine described in our articles as integrative medicine. If you leave out the information supported by the sources, and someone adds it, that is not a whitewash. What Alex has made and you are supporting is an edit towards a POV position, which deliberately obscures the accurate information on the subject of this article.

• Chopra is a physician
• Chopra supports, I guess, but per sources practices a form of "medicine" that includes allopathic medicine and alternative medicine.

I 've discussed delineating labels from other information multiple times. Information is not removed or whitewashed when I do that. It provides context. Is Chopra a New Age guru. We don't even define what that is, and we most certainly don't note who describes him this way. Context is, is that this is a label. No one responded when I brought this up several times. I made a change. With out removing the content I added context. Alexbrn reverted. That's the story.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

I see no evidence that Chopra currently practices medicine, rather just alternative medicine. Do you have any reliable third party sources that detail his practice of traditional medicine? Are you saying he practices "integrative" medicine, which means both medicine that doctors practice and medicine that is unregulated out of the Chopra center in California? Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hipocrite: "The medicine that doctor's practice..:" :O)....

You might want to look at the sources. Here are a couple to get you started: biomedical, [3]

Are you alleging he practices medicine, in the traditional sense, at the Chopra Clinic? Yes or no would do fine. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We know that when he was sued for malpractice, and the issue that he may have been practicing medicine without a license came up, he claimed he was not practicing medicine at all. Do we have sources showing this changed at some point? --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I got curious about this too. I did some poking around and US News and World Report claims that Deepak Chopra is "affiliated with" Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla as an endocrinologist, who currently receives patients. However, it says that his actual office is in Carlsbad, CA which is where the Chopra Center For Well Being is located. And according to that clinic's web site, Deepak Chopra does not actually receive patients and has a medical staff to handle personal consultations. Unless someone can find something that I can't, it looks like he employs medical practitioners, but doesn't actually practice himself. I don't see anything stating that he has actually seen patients as an endocrinologist since the 80s when he ran a private clinic in Boston. -- Atama頭 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice footwork. That was my assumption based upon all his statements about preferring not being considered a physician. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources I have seen, and the two I'm presenting are of different time periods, both indicate he is considered to be someone who practice both biomedical or allopathic and alternative medicine. I haven't seen sources on the Chopra clinic specifically so I can't say what he does there. I will look further. I have seen the source which discusses the lawsuit. Chopra was not sued for practicing with out a license, as far as the sources I have seen. This allegation should not be on the article talk page. I've already discussed this with Ronz as has Montanabw and Rexx. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Source says: [4], "holistic biomedical physician" dated 2003

I'm done here for now, but there may be and quite likely are other sources that describe Chopra's "medicine style".(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

We've discussed and we disagree. It's sourced. Sorry you don't like it. About those sources:

We've sources that says that when he came to California and for at least the next few years he wasn't licensed to practice medicine there and said he wasn't doing so. Deepak_Chopra#cite_ref-17. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This question should be easy to answer, since User:SAS81 states that he talks with Chopra daily. Perhaps SAS81 could ask Chopra what percentage of his time is spent in direct patient care? How many days per week (or per month) does he see patients in clinic? How many patients, on average, does he see per week? What are the most common diagnoses that he treats? These are very basic questions which any practicing physician can answer to provide a snapshot of the scope of his or her clinical practice. (When I talk about "seeing patients", I'm referring to the standard definition, where a documented physician-patient relationship exists and professional fees are billed, etc). Can you help with this, SAS81? MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In all the back and forth, did we ever have a proper source for "Chopra is famous for his view that healing is primarily a mental rather than physical process"? Now that I look further, where in the article this discussed further, showing that it deserves such prominence? Did we loose sources and content along the way? --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MastCell - Yes I thought I answered this weeks back. Both Dr. Chopra and Dr. Sheila Patel have both told me directly that Dr. Chopra does see special patients in his office when he is in town - in addition Dr Chopra actually runs the medical team and the office as an administrator, while his main focus is research and education. I'm confused why some are having a very narrow definition of what it means to be a 'practicing' physician, many doctors are solely focused on research or education, and some are just administrators. SAS81 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of research, what were his last few peer-reviewed research articles? I see "research" mentioned here and there, but was wondering what research is actually being done. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This all strikes me with a vague sense of deja vu... Hasn't this already been covered? I just spent 5 minutes and saw that his license is in good standing with AMA, and the California state registry not only confirms his license as current but also lists 40+ hours of research and education. And before I see the slew of "yeah, but AMA and government websites are tertiary and could be self-reported, etc..." the real question to ask is who has the burden of proof? The burden rests with those challenging the commonly held facts about a BLP entity. Virtually every source I've seen refers to Chopra as a physician, federal and state licensing records say he's a current and practicing physician, and that's how Chopra apparently defines himself. So rather than asking people to do original research on when his last research paper was published to decide on our own whether we think it counts as "practicing", offer strong, reliable sources that he doesn't have a current license or is not conducting either patient care, research or running a medical facility. The scattered secondary references I've seen questioning his status do not fulfill that standard, but I'll keep my eyes open if any come along. The Cap'n (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a deja vu. Chopra's self identification clearly falls under the "unduly self serving" content that must not be given excessive prominence or value. and WP:BURDEN the burden is on the people who want to enter the content to provide reliable sources for content they wish to enter. if there is a desire to enter content about "research" it is up to the editor wanting to include to, at a minimum, provide reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: I'm sorry, but saying that Chopra "sees special patients in his office when he is in town" is so vague as to be entirely meaningless in terms of defining his practice. I asked a few specific questions above, which are pretty typical. In particular, how many patients does Chopra see in an average week (or month)? What diagnoses does he treat? (And I guess I'm curious why these patients qualify as "special", but that's just me). Finally, research, educational, and administrative activities do not constitute practicing medicine, at least not by any definition I've ever heard of. Practicing medicine is defined by diagnosing and treating patients. Let's not invent new meanings for commonly understood concepts in our rush to "fix" this article. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra is under no obligation answer questions as to his practice and SAS is under no obligation to ask. Further, is there some standard on Wikipedia that defines just what constitutes a practicing physician. How many hours, patients? I'd add that once that information is posted here, its on the internet for a very long time. Given the tendency to trash integrative/alternative medicine by some skeptics, no one here of course, I'd be careful, about posting anything on a talk page which is public.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Chopra is not under any burden to disclose anything. but SAS most certainly is under burden to disclose/provide reliable sources if they want something covered in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, no one is under any obligation to answer anything I ask. It's bizarre to imply otherwise. SAS81 volunteered an answer, and I found it vague and meaningless so asked for clarification, which he (and Chopra) are free to provide or not provide as they see fit. It is a bit odd to insist, on the one hand, that Chopra be described as a "practicing" physician and then to bristle at the very notion of being asked to provide any actual details of his practice. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mastcell. I deliberately did not include any editor's name, yours or RPOD in my comment. This was simple comment directed to SAS who at different points has been unclear about Wikipedia and its processes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Your comment was obviously a response to mine, and it's tiresome to pretend otherwise. Your concern about publicly posted material is probably misdirected. Chopra himself is sometimes viewed as highly litigious, to the point that "some journalists are afraid to write about (him), for fear of being sued". So insofar as anyone has anything to worry about here, it's not the Chopra employees. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No Mastcell. I was not addressing you. I was making a comment in general to all who posted on this including you, SAS, and TRPOD, and my comments stand. SAS was the editor I was concerned with and making suggestions to per not revealing personal information. Take that as you will.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC))

Established fact he is medical doctor, Dr Chopra responds directly to Mastcell + invitation

We've already established as a matter of fact that he is a medical doctor. It's not a controversial statement. Its a fundamental fact of his biography. Look how a credible tertiary source such as Wolfram Alpha lists Deepak when asked 'Who is Deepak Chopra?"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=who+is+deepak+chopra

MastCell I sent Dr Chopra your questions directly, and he wanted to address directly to you, in addition to offering you an personal invitation (link to YT video). He specifically addresses his current medical practice. He also said that he is willing to address any other questions anyone has. He is really fascinated by this process and would probably participate directly here if he had time. SAS81 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: Thanks! That's a pretty detailed answer. I guess I'm still curious how many patients he sees—in the video he implies that the number is very small but doesn't specify. Regardless, I do sincerely appreciate the time taken to answer my questions. I haven't decided if I'm going to cash in his offer of a free personal consultation, though it's quite generous given what I understand of the cost structure at the Chopra Center. :) MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

i wonder what the media will make of the fact that chopra is so desperate to influence his wikipedia page that he is giving out free treatments?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Chopra's desperate attempts to influence the page through both his directly hired media "archivist" and now though bribes of free gift offers to editors should make everyone especially careful about POV issues and COI. (revised per TimidGuy advice below)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen, note that the Talk page is for discussing changes to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this a problem if editors have questions and Dr Chopra responds directly to those questions via video? TPROD, I think the phrase 'good faith' should apply here SAS81 (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: It's unconventional, but I don't see why that would be a big problem. It's actually helpful in some ways, because often times when someone edits Wikipedia claiming to be an article subject we need to go through some sort of identity verification first. With videos we wouldn't need to worry about that. The only problem I see is that it would be difficult (well, impossible really) to have an actual conversation. But a Q&A sort of thing might still be helpful. -- Atama頭 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, and it might help editors to get a better feel for the subject. As long as it is remembered that self-made videos are the most primary of primary sources. I would definitely reject the offer of free anythings. A major faux pas, in my opinion. Rumiton (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a problem, especially with it just being addressed on the Talk page. Though it still must be weighed as a primary source, we shouldn't criticize subjects of BLP's for trying to answer the questions of those writing their pages. As for the offer for a medical consultation, I agree it's a bad idea to offer services to editors, but given that the question was whether he ever gives personal consultations the contextual justification seems reasonable. The Cap'n (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the offer for a consultation was given in good faith by someone who is not a Wikipedia editor and was not aware of the ramifications, and I don't think we have to worry about Mastcell editing in a POV way because he was offered a consultation. AGF and move on seems logical. I'd add that I appreciate the quality and tone of Mastcell's response to Dr. Chopra (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

thank you Rumiton and Atama. I think it could help too and thank you for clarifying the boundaries. For the record - Dr Chopra invited Mastcell an invitation to his clinic and the process so he could see for himself, and was intended as an open gesture of good will (which Dr Chopra is known for doing, bringing his critics and his supporters together). It certainly was not meant as a bribe! However point taken, I will advise him not to extend invitations to WP editors who are his critics in a manner he is accustomed to normally. Just a heads up, Dr Chopra is unusually engaging and spends time almost every day answering questions from anyone in his network on video about his work. He is unusually accessible and him responding this way is not out of the ordinary for him. SAS81 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most of this is an over-reaction. For the record, I took Chopra's invitation as good-humored and tongue-in-cheek, certainly not as an attempt to bribe or influence me. Not a big deal. For the record, I'm not really a "critic" of Chopra's, although I am critical of attempts by him, or by anyone, to employ people to spruce up their Wikipedia articles. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell - that makes the two of us :) SAS81 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Chopra defines where his medical practice and 'mind body' practice meet

Dr Chopra wanted to address specifically where his 'western endocrinology' and 'eastern mind body' practices meet and form an 'integrative' (NOT ALTERNATIVE!) medicine practice. He actually put this up a few days ago to post here but I didn't want to overwhelm everyone. Nothing here mentioned is 'fringe' material and everything mentioned are facts. This is a complete summary of his integrative practice and this has been his consistent message. Also, the video is about 20 minutes, so I've broken it down into little 'clips' cued up for you that give his POV on specific issues so you can easily scroll through and find specific points.

1. Where do endocrinology and 'meditation' practice meet in integrative medicine? 00:00 - 02:33
2. What effects the endocrine system? 02:33 - 04:19
3. Yoga breathing exercises (pranayama) and asanas and how it affects the endocrine and parasympathetic nervous system and health 04:33 - 07:39
4. Neurotransmitters/hormones role in immune system reaching homeostasis (self correcting health) 07:39 - 9:30
5. How Dr Chopra advises patients 09:33 - 12:10
6. Dr. Chopra defines what he means by 'quantum health' and how 'quantum healing' therefore works as an integrative practice 12:12 - 13:13
7. Mind body healing is just allowing 'homeostasis' healing 13:13 - 15:58
8. The role of the 'micro biome' in Dr Chopra's practice and research and other frontiers in the 'mind body' connection 15:58 - 19:46

SAS81 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Integrative Medicine

user:SAS81 has repeatedly stated on this talk page that "Integrative Medicine" is mainstream, which is of course a load of baloney. Integrative medicine is a cynical attempt by charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and true (woo) believers to get onto the gravy train that is the American health system. If Sassy insists on continuing this risible claim, I might ask for some sources to back up his assertion, and for evidence of effectiveness of this non evidence based nonsense. To probably misquote the late Jon Diamond "If it works, it is medicine ..." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Integrative medicine has entered the mainstream as evidenced by multiple, and prestigious medical schools which have integrative medicine departments/colleges. Physicians and actually veterinarians are being trained in health care methods that are not traditional. I believe Diamond's comment is more a rejection of the term alternative [to] medicine than integrative medicine. (Littleolive oil (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

I don't really have a dog in the fight of whether it's mainstream or not, but the claim that anyone who uses the term is a variety of 19th century insults piqued my interest. A quick perusal (I'm not spending much time on this at midnight, sorry) showed over a thousand peer reviewed studies on complementary medicine (another term for integrative medicine), hundreds of which apparently claim effectiveness in studies. Given his proclivity with sources in the past, do we really want SAS81 dumping all the sources he can find on Integrative Medicine onto this talk page? The Cap'n (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We'd just hat the ones that show no evidence of efficacy, and the page would be cleaned up, with nothing left but some placebo effect. No problems. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive Roxy the Dog. Dr. Chopra himself also wanted to address your query which you can watch here.

SAS81 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time (strange, the ref list was pulling my list from yesterday and had to reformat.)

The first article is a good summary of the prevalence of Integrative Medicine in hospitals. The statistics here showed that out of 714 hospitals examined 299 (42%) offered integrative medicine treatments. If you'd like case more case examples of hospitals that offer complementary therapies, I can do that too, but that seems like a lot of space to spend on it.

"Hospitals Offering Complementary Medical Therapies". Nov 15, 2011. Retrieved May 27, 2014.

"Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine". New York Presbyterian Hospital. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

"Osher Center for Integrative Medicine Home". Harvard Medical School. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

"Integrative Medicine". Cedars Sinai Hospital. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

Comarow, Avery (Jan. 9, 2008). "Top Hospitals Embrace Alternative Medicine". US News Health. Retrieved 29 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

"Stanford Center for Integrative Medicine: Clinical Services for Mind and Body". Stanford Hospital and Clinics. Retrieved 29 May 2014. SAS81 (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)