Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Should it be mentioned?

Should it be mentioned that Homeopathic remedies can be shown to be helpful for treating dehydration? --Puellanivis (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume your point is that they're (nearly) pure water? It seems a bit silly, even by the standards of homeopathy, but if you have a reliable source that makes the case go ahead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they would supply enough water to be useful at standard doses. Plus this would be prohibitively expensive (unless of course you diluted the remedies in water). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In most cases of dehydration severe enough to require treatment, water would be a poor choice of therapy, and electrolytes are needed. So even in this case, homeopathic remedies are too dilute to be effective. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points over all... Thinking about it now seriously, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even do that. Although, the homeopathic remedy for dehydration would have to be something that "causes dehydration", like perhaps... salt. If it's reasonably concentrated then it would be a reasonable homoepathic remedy... although they'd probably go overboard with the dilution. Plus, again, the cost of doing all that dilution, etc, would likely make it much more expensive than buying a Gatorade. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking that they would take water and dilute it serially with water until there was no water left, and only the karmic life-energy waves of the water were left in the water. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Here are my suggestions to improve the article:

(1) The second introductory paragraph of this article has a sentence that gives an incorrect description of why homeopathic remedies are prepared in the way that they are.

The sentence states:

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.

It should say:

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe transfers into the dilutant characteristics from the original substance that act as a catalyst to evoke a healing response in the patient - even where no molecules of the original substance remain.

(2) The third introductory paragraph should be placed in the section "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism"

(3) The language of that third introductory paragraph needs to be corrected to Wikipedia standards of NPOV. Here is my suggestion for slightly modifying the wording so that it does not appear that it is the article or Wikipedia that is making the criticism:

Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. They conclude that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies. Lack of evidence supporting its efficacy has caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. A recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of a placebo. Medical critics also accuse homeopaths of giving "false hope" to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs and prefer to use homeopathic remedies in their place.

(4) The placing of the Category:Fraud on this article needs to be removed.

(5) The wording in the "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism" section could be modified in this way in order to convey the same information from a neutral POV:

Critics state that homeopathy has not been supported by modern scientific research. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient (no atoms, ions or molecules) in the final product. The idea that any biological effects could be produced by these preparations is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. The proposed rationale for these extreme dilutions - that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient - is also counter to the currently accepted laws of chemistry and physics. Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect, where the patients subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the power of suggestion, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. Critics cite the lack of viable scientific studies for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies as evidence that they are not effective and that any positive effects are due to the placebo effect. Critics also contend that homeopathy is inherently dangerous because it deters patients from getting conventional medical treatment.

"High dilutions"

The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy have been a major point of criticism. Homeopaths believe that the methodical dilution of a substance, beginning with a 10% or lower solution and working downwards, with shaking after each dilution, produces a therapeutically active "remedy", in contrast to therapeutically inert water. However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy. Since even the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds, critics have concluded that any effect that might have been present from the original substance can no longer exist.

Homeopathy contends that higher dilutions (fewer potential molecules in each dose), combined with forceful shaking, result in stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body. This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in thousands of experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats and humans.

I would request the comments of the other editors so that we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Arion (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point #2, the purpose of the intro is to summarize, so that's not going to fly. We've discussed this and point #3 already. With regards to #4, categorization is not the same as labeling for the label's sake. #5 requires a more thorough reading so I'll take time before commenting on that. Antelan ^talk 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

#5 has a strong bias towards presuming that science is about to be overturned by homeopathy, and #1 doesn't seem to match the sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The correction in the wording for #1 as to what reason is given for serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, is the correct one. After studying homeopathy since the 1960s, I clearly understand homeopathic principles and practice. Arion (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first is a paraphrase og Hahnemann. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but POV suggestions. BTW, critics suggest nothing, Scientists state that homeopathy is nothing but junk science. The rest of it, just POV. Let's move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arion in general. It is more neutral. --Orion4 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The critics are those so-called scientists who have one opinion against homeopathy. There are numerous research studies by other scientists that validate various aspects of homeopathy. Arion (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these already cited in the article? If not do you have the citations? With regard to the critics, are they criticising homeopathy or are they criticising the fact that "extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient". I thnk it is safe to say scientists if the latter, homeopathy itself is incidental to such criticism. David D. (Talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

pov

Summarizing: Parts of the article are seriously biased intentionally or unintentionally. All meta analyses state that the results in homeopathy are promising or positive but not convincing and/ or sufficient. Only the last meta analysis states that homeopathy effects are placebo effects which has been criticized in debates (natural history museum, articles in major or notable publications, BBC.)

All the above and basic Homeopathies principles and objections on evaluation methods (even external links with debates on homeopathy organized by organizations like the natural history museum) have been REMOVED or excluded using facetious excuses. Including the basic homeopathic ideas, which really need just one paragraph to be presented in the lead and in the body in an article ABOUT homeopathy, is an obvious obligation of a sensitive and objective editor. There is not excuse for not doing that.

None of the above as I said is included in the article or the lead. Some of the editors (more or less) intend to include only information that “shows” that homeopathy is just a pseudoscience. Since the sources don’t support exactly that, they have changed its conclusions when they sources phrasing don’t comply with their ideas. Again look at the studies

There are studies showing positive results which are not even reported (and of course properly criticized ).

I intend to put the under dispute flag.

If there is any objective administrator ( I have noticed that they do exist ) watching he/she will recognize that there 2 opinions in this forum. Therefore he will protect the article AND the under dispute flag until a consensus can be reached.

This is the only fair and effective way to discuss.

The discussion does not lead anywhere that way - I assure you. --Orion4 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV disputes must be over whether the article adequately presents authoritative viewpoints with appropriate emphasis, not over whether the article reflects opinions in this forum. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not exist here. Please read above why.--74.66.227.35 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to login. Not doing so gives the impression that there is more support for your viewpoint than there really is. If you are actually an anonymous editor, disregard this. Antelan ^talk 02:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

Regarding the often controversial clinical studies homeopaths argue that "Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect." They believe that "the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology." has been reverted twice. First by Orangemarlin who used the wrong reasons for reverting it, secondly by Antelan, whose reasons hold more water. But how, I ask you, is the wording misleading? Where is it factually wrong? Is this not a standard understanding amongst homeopaths? Does it not deserve a place in the article? You might argue that the wording is poorly constructed, uses style to less effect, but that is an issue of copyediting. Comments? docboat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the phrasing is misleading. It suggests that orthodox medicine is somehow incapable of giving remedies for the totalities of a patient's symptoms. It is untrue, and overly sympathetic to a fringe viewpoint. Hence, misleading. Antelan ^talk 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That homeopathy "is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology" is quite simply irrelevant to the issue of whether double blind studies can assess its effectiveness. It's handwaving, not a logical objection.- Nunh-huh 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see your point, but the issue has been addressed earlier. Take 1000 cases of sore throat to be a randomised double blind etc etc trial. That is a valid trial of - say - a pastille to treat sore throats. But a homeopath would see 1000 sore throats as 1000 different illnesses, not one. There may be 100 different remedies for these patients. The trial is not valid. docboat (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That trial is not valid, but a double-blind study in which homeopaths prescribe their different remedies for each patient is valid. Individualized remedies are, quite simply, subject to valid scientific testing, and to suggest otherwise is deceptive. - Nunh-huh 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see where you are coming from, Antelan. But you are actually wrong. Let me explain. As a medical doctor, I am trained to elicit symptoms - these fit into a pattern (diagnosis, more like a list of differential diagnoses) which are then treated. Say "common cold" with sore throat, cough and runny nose. Then you get medication to contain the symptoms (or suppress them, as a homeopath would say) such as NSAID, pseudoephedrine and cough mixture. A classical homeopath would look to the very explicit symptoms of the totality of this illness experience, and search out that ONE remedy. Now, the differential diagnosis list for a sore throat and cold might include leukaemia. (Not an exaggeration, just very uncommon for people presenting with a sore throat) A medical doctor would notice something was wrong later on, say after a blood film. So then we get to the (the one and only) diagnosis, and treatment can begin again. A homeopath has gne down that road much earlier, because of the need to "individualise" the case. Of course, I am not saying you should treat leukaemia with hoeopathy, BUT the statement reverted above is quite accurate. It makes no reference to allopathic medicine, and is completely NPOV. Comments? docboat (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes explicit reference to "conventional medicine," it is written from a homeopathic POV, I think your comments regarding leukemia are very telling, and I disagree with your view of what you claim is your profession. When you prescribe antibiotics, you are treating the underlying condition, which then resolves all symptoms. Antelan ^talk 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, you really need to get things in perspective on this. BTW I am an allopathic doctor and not a homeopath, and have been a medical doctor for 28 years. So, while I can understand your difficulty in understanding things from my perspective, you need to take a step back from claiming to understand medicine more than I do. My comments regarding leukaemia - and your inability to understand what I wrote about it - is also very revealing. As a matter of fact, I have come across leukaemia masquerading as a sore throat, so again, take a step back. I - unlike yourself, I suspect - am at the coalface in medicine, and deal with these issues in a practical manner with living people - not in theory, as many of the contributors here. Now as for your statement about using antibiotics to treat the underlying condition. Beep. False. Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria, or stop them growing. The underlying condition for an infection is NOT the bacteria, but the condition which allowed the bacteria to proliferate in the first place. It is, in fact, a question of immune competence, including social factors, financial status, housing conditions, presence of intercurrent illness or other conditions - but why I am teaching you microbiology 101? Back to the issue. Re-read what I wrote, and think about it a while. docboat (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

you have to include homeopathys point of view in an article about homeopathy. Thats basic. YOu could add crtitism. but you cannot exclude it otherwhise the article is POV biased and incomplete. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)thats was orion4 Iforgot to log in--Orion4 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The homeopathic view of epidemiology & statistics, which is a multidisciplinary field used and accepted by most walks of science, may be notable. But I've already asked for a source that demonstrates homeopathy's view of clinical trials. Someone provided us with a source that demonstrated that homeopaths indeed do accept and even reference favorable trials. This is a spurious request. Antelan ^talk 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully. I provided everyithing several times yesterday. --Orion4 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and those sources support my statement above. None of the sources you provided suggest that major homeopathic organizations believe that homeopathy cannot be studied with clinical trials, and indeed one of the sources discusses homeopathic trials. Antelan ^talk 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself: here are the citations http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm, - - BBC is good enough as I said. Vithoulkas is a valid source thats why it is included in the article. --Orion4 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These senteces are taken from the above sources. Read , please --Orion4 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These principles are documented and they are basic. The first info an objective editor learns about homeooathy is this. Basic. Really. Any administrator to modarete?--Orion4 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the objective administrators are not here today. Point made.--Orion4 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's, perhaps, a little hard for me to be neutral about Vitholkas, given he organised a campaign of meatpuppets to attack Wikipedia and me early on in my involvement with this subject. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate my point, the BBC article quotes someone from a homeopathic organiziation claiming that studies show homeopathy is more effective than placebo. In other words, homeopaths accept the notion that their field can be studied with scientific trials. The same person went on to say that they don't think double blind studies work for homeopathy. Again, if the field really doesn't believe that the most highly valued aspects of evidence-based research apply to their field, that's probably notable. Wording it appropriately is, of course, important. Antelan ^talk 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's change to lead

His edit summary was "...Trim this sentence to the parts that don't read like an advertisements. everthing "advancing" and "popular""

He then removed the following text:

"His early work was advanced by later homeopaths such as James Tyler Kent, but Hahnemann's most famous textbook" [1]

I want a better explanation for this than the edit summary above, which I disagree with. Where is popular even mentioned and why is it not possible to mention other pioneers in the art of homeopathy? Of course they were advancing homoeopathy whether you disagree with homeopathy or not. Let's not let this lead slip back into the anit-hoemopathy mess it was before. David D. (Talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when he said "popular" he meant "most famous", which is not an unreasonable mistake to make. "Advanced" is a slanted term, and alternative rewordings could have been chosen. Antelan ^talk 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's no justification for removing the whole sentence. David D. (Talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to think of why talk about Kent and such is relevant in the lead, which is, after all, a summary. It seemed a diverson from the main point, that Hahnemann was the founder, and his work is still considered important. Given how much Hahnemann is quoted and cited, that's the key fact. (and, yes, famous, not popular). Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, both are clear. I think you need to readjust your POV meter. David D. (Talk) 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, well. I do trust your judgement, so do what you think best. Just seemed a bit WP:PEACOCKy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rewrite it to be less peacocky rather than deleting the info. See what you think when I've done it. I don't have time righ now. David D. (Talk) 13:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph

The "system of similars" emphasized in homeopathy was first described by doctors of the vitalist school of medicine, including the controversial Renaissance physician Paracelsus. Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced medicine based on beliefs resembling those of Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

This is, simply, an unreadable mess, and the article's better without it until we can fix it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fewer clauses would be good, but this, if true, would be useful in the history section. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying the information shouldn't be there, just that it was the first paragraph after the lead, and it is a mess of clauses. It's probably more useful to the reader to let him know that most of the article is readable, than to have this information in, but lose 95% of our readers immediately after the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence is readable, but not perfect. If you wish to remove items of importance because of style and grammar, you might as well remove the whole article. It also assumes you feel that readers of Wikipedia are incapable of reading at an adult level. I would be careful about these assumptions, and feel you should re-insert the material. Unless, of course, you have even better reasons for removing them? docboat (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The vitalist school of medicine, cites the "system of similars". Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced medicine based on beliefs resembling those of Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Would this work better? docboat (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced based on the vitalist school of medicine. Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, practiced based on similar beliefs. Antelan ^talk 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit like trivia when phrased like that. Can we get an introductory sentence of some sort, or suggest where it would go? Also "credited with the creation of modern homeopathy" seems a very strange way of describing someone almost universally referred to as the founder of homeopathy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All good points. I'll try once more, keeping the trivia but rearranging so that it flows more naturally (Introduce homeopathy, and then mention that it does have a precursor). How about:

Samuel Hahnemann is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. His practice was based on beliefs similar to those of the vitalist school of medicine, as practiced by Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown. Antelan ^talk 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we should mention Paracelsus? I don't know, I'll have a look after tomorrow's exam. It certainly reads better now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference bunching in introduction

So this keeps getting reverted, apparently because Orangemarlin thinks I'm pro-homeopathy. This isn't the case; introductions are summaries of the article, and we should be actively working to remove unique references in the intro and push them into the article body. There's no real requirement for <ref> tags in the intro at all. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To be completely fair to OM, I think you're actually accusing the wrong guy. It was wikidudeman wayback who insisted on having refs in the lead. Peter morrell 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe OM previously agreed with me that there shouldn't be refs there; the problem here is that somewhere down the line it's been assumed that I'm removing the duplicate tags for the sake of hiding the information, which isn't the case. Anyway, the point is that if we're going to discuss the issue it needs to be clear to everyone that there's no ideological conflict here. The series of reverts indicates a bit of a siege mentality at the moment. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying. Am not sure precisely what you mean by 'siege mentality' but there do seem to have recently been many small edits and then big reverts every single night. This becomes a bit defeating after a time and must, I would guess, deter a lot of people from making any edits at all, or even contributing to talk. How can this be resolved into a more desirably, friendly and good faith atmosphere? do you think? thanks Peter morrell 11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By "siege mentality" I mean that there's a very defensive attitude about the article at the moment, and too much reverting based on the perception of POV on behalf of contributors. A large part of the problem is that the talk page:

1. is incredibly fast-moving;
2. is huge (for that reason); and
3. constantly returns to large-scale ideology wars.

I'm trying to correct this myself by rapidly archiving spats of unproductive conversation when it runs out of steam (to prevent new editors from reawakening unproductive threads). I hope to archive another chunk soon, which will hopefully bring this down to a rational length for the first time in a while. The onus is on individual contributors to try to keep the scope of individual comment threads manageable. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for stating your view of this problem. There is a defensive attitude but the article is no nearer to NPOV, and there is no consensus, and there is a hostile atmosphere: what you call ideology wars. I disagree however FWIW that this has much to do with the length of the talk page or that it is fast moving. I do not see cause and effect in what you say. My perception of the problem is that there is nothing happening for a time then sudden big changes (usually deletions) and then edit war until a sort of stability resumes. This has been the dominant pattern since about September. Most what you might call 'pro-homeopathy folks' have abandoned the article long ago as they have been scared off (?) by all the reverting going on. This reverting gives the strong impression that the 'anti-homeopathy folks' own and control this article. How you reach a more neutral and less hostile ground I just don't know, but there is my ten penn'orth FWIW Peter morrell 12:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually raised the exact same issue three weeks ago and it generated only a single response from another editor prior to archival yesterday (which is part of the reason I've had to raise it again) while being buried under other threads. That's why I think the nature of current discussion is partially to blame. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you researched the issue a little, you would realize the reason the talk page moves very fast is because of 2 or 3 pro-homeopathy "trolls" who are extremely angry and combative. I suspect they might even be socks of previously banned editors who did the same thing and were banned for it. The real authors and contributors do not bother to do much to the article or to contribute much to the talk page since the POV warriors are on the talk page raving and ranting and attacking the article. They basically "OWN" the article and its talk page and they engage in ideological warfare and writing angry senseless tracts ignoring all the principles and rules of WP, although so far we have managed to keep the article from changing too drastically. If you read the text of these POV warriors, you will see they do not want ANY material against homeopathy in the article. Period. They do not want the medical opinion or the scientific view. But this is against WP guidelines. So their efforts get reverted, as we try to keep the article which was a careful compromise from being destroyed and turned into advertising.

In contentious and controversial articles, almost every word has to be referenced. Sometimes multiple times. Even in the LEAD. Take a look at intelligent design if you want another example. It might look ugly, but this is reality on controversial articles on Wikipedia, and homeopathy is certainly a controversial subject. If you do not overcite and over reference the article, the article will not survive. Without these sorts of references, we might as well put the article up for AfD right now and be done with this nonsense. I do not think you have any experience dealing with controversial issues here on Wikipedia. If you did, you would understand why these reference cites in the LEAD are necessary and even vital.--Filll (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the comments on my character, WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section says that cites in the lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure whether your comment about "almost every word" having to be referenced was hyperbole or not (honestly, I'm having a difficult time telling where hyperbole stops when it comes to this article), but that would seem to be a pretty extreme interpretation of said rule and I only wanted to discuss it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The citations are necessary to attribute and support the statements, this is one of the few ways of bringing at least some stability to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But all of them? A three-paragraph lead with sixteen or seventeen <ref> tags? We're not meant to be writing exclusively for the sake of people who don't read past the intro. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is on such a controversial subject it probably needs to have 50 references cited in the LEAD. This is not the place to fight this battle. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. (for that matter, I disagree that homeopathy is any more "controversial" than astrology at this point in time, but that's another matter.) It's certainly worth further discussion, as opposed to simple repetition of the supposed fact that the article will suffer a Terrible Unspecified Fate if it doesn't[1][2][3][4][5] have[6][7] this kind[7][8][9] of referencing spamming[10][11][12] the lead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fraud" category is inappropriate for this article

I removed the inappropriate "Fraud" category at the bottom of the Homeopathy article. This was reverted by OrangeMarlin. Placing this article into such a category not justified by any standards of fairness or neutrality. Arion (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on this when you made a note about it above. You didn't reply to my comment above. Antelan ^talk 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate "Fraud" category at the bottom of the Homeopathy article. Placing this article into such a category is contrary to all standards of fairness or neutrality. The mind set that placed this category here is symptomatic of the anti-homeopathy bias that is being forced on this article by those who think they have ownership of this article. (see WP:OWN) Arion (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Consumer fraud might be better, since this already contains things like water-to-gasoline pills. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but to be a fraud, do the people perpetrating it have to know it is fake?--Filll (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. However, I don't think this category does apply, since the OED defines fraud as "Criminal deception; the using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage or to injure the rights or interests of another." Since homeopathy isn't criminal, I don't think it can be classified as a simple fraud. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is hard to prove homeopathy is a fraud. What about the conmen ministers? For example, Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, does their existence mean that the article Christianity should be labelled fraud? David D. (Talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With regards to categories, I was initially in support of keeping the "fraud" tag because WP:Categorization tells us that Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. On the other hand, the guideline also tells us "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article." At this point, I don't think that the Category:Fraud tag is best for this article. Antelan ^talk 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecxe^(pi*i))Arion's incessant soapboxing aside, Category:Fraud may not be a good choice for this article. Who was it that said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity"? I'm willing to assume a modicum of good faith with respect to the founding fathers of homeopathy, due to the horrific state of conventional medicine at the time, but the modern practitioners do verge into fraud territory IMO. Maybe something more nuanced is called for. I bet we can, however, find some good sources that will allow us to use Category:Consumer fraud instead. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also often rely on Hanlon's razor.--Filll (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Steps to restore NPOV to the Homeopathy article

1. The article should not make unsourced biased statements against homeopathy within the main text of the article. Criticisms can be cited, with proper references, within a section titled "Medical and scientific criticism"
2. The article should have a section titled "Medical and scientific support", where support for homeopathy can be cited, with proper references.

If you read the text of those who want this to be a biased anti-homeopathy article, you will see they do not want ANY material supporting homeopathy in the article. They only want the medical opinion or the scientific view that supports their bias. They do not want the medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy. This is clearly against WP:NPOV guidelines. Arion (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that people who believe it works will give strong testimonials. But cause and effect of the actual remedies are not well established, at least in the objective literature i have read (by objective i mean throw out the outliers from both extremes). This explains why the weight of the argument is against homeopathy in the medical/science sections. What do you consider the most convincing evidence that the diluted remedies are the direct cause of homepathies success? David D. (Talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first thing that needs to be understood is that homeopathic remedies are not simply diluted substances. They are produced through a series of steps, along with the dilution, involving "succusion" or a forceful shaking / agitation process. Simply diluting a substance does not produce a homeopathic remedy.

• No one is advocating placing "testimonials" as a counter to medical opinions or the scientific views. The medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy needs to be be represented in this article in a separate section, just as the views opposing homeopathy need to be in their separate section. That is how an article is written according to NPOV. This is not a website for promoting a biased view for or against any particular therapeutic method. Arion (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good articles are not written as "he-said-she-said" points and counterpoints. Nor are good arguments based on vague rhetoric. Any inclusion of such "views" must be accompanied, nay, preceeded by acceptable, reliable sources. So go find some sources rather than arguing based on some vague sense of "fairness" which isn't supported by policy. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does deal with the "succusion" that is done. However, you will note that in the scientific sections, it states that 1) because of the dilution, regardless of how much it is aggitated, it would be an extremely rare chance that even one molecule of the original material would remain, and 2) that any structures created by water dissappate in picoseconds, thus water cannot hold any properties caused by or from the original material from a scientific standpoint. From a bottom up approach, there's nothing that homeopathy could be, but simply diluted water. If you find studies that support that homeopathy does work statistically better than a known placebo, then you will still be faced with explaining how those results are consistent with reality. It would require definitely something entirely outside of science to make it work. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho, hum. Another person mistaking Neutral Point of View for Sympathetic Point Of View. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral Point of View" means exactly what the words mean. It is neither "Sympathetic Point Of View" nor "Biased Point of View". It is that simple. It appears WP:NPOV needs to be read by some of the people writing comments on this page. Arion (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely unconvincing and uncompelling. WP is not about fairness. It follows its principles. If you want something different, change the principles.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you may want to reread the Wikipedia:NPOV policy specifically WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Because there's a part right here:

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.

NPOV doesn't mean that we have to ignore reality, and present viewpoints based on a science that is not credible or verifiable. NPOV is there to ensure that contraversial topics get treated fairly, not as a club with which to beat people to promote your viewpoint. On the other hand, there's always the WP:IAR argument. I apologize for this comment, I never intended it to be public, because I realized that it is inflammatory. Quirks of technology, and unintended events do now absolve me of my words. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) Wikipedia policy is not a vague sense of "fairness" (as someone commented above) - it is very clear and precise neutrality. Anyone who has worked on general reference works, such as encyclopedias other than Wikipedia, knows that the article has to be written from a point of view that does not reveal the personal bias or belief of the writer.

The repeated arguing against neutrality in this article is revealing. We should be working on reaching a consensus, as I attempted to do a few days ago, instead of arguing to maintain this article as an anti-homeopathy article. Arion (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confused. It is neutral. It is not an anti-homeopathy article. Last I checked, it was 60% pro-homeopathy. That is more than half. And by the rules of WP, it can even be 90% or even 99% antihomeopathy since homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE part of medicine and science. So try to learn a bit about Wikipedia and its principles. There are many other wikis which have other rules. Try Conservapedia or Wikinfo. If you want more suggestions, I will be glad to give them to you. You can write the positive article possible about homeopathy and put it on those wikis. But Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of article. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the issue is one of reliable sources. One side has them in such an abundance that the references section, even in three columns, is over a page long. The other is dependent on talk page rhetoric. The latter is of little value on WP without the former. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. Demeaning comments from Filll like "You are confused." and "So try to learn a bit about Wikipedia and its principles." have no place in discussions among editors. You only expose your apparent lack of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules. Also, labeling homeopathy "fringe" or a "pseudoscience" will not exempt you from the requirement to follow the WP:NPOV rules. Sorry.

The comment by Chris Cunningham that those advocating neutrality in the article are "dependent on talk page rhetoric" is not helpful, since I have spent a large amount of time reviewing what has been going on with this article in the past. I have seen changes that were meant to improve the quality of the article immediately reverted. A few days ago, I suggested very specific changes to the non-neutral language used in the third leading paragraph, and to the non-neutral language in other parts of the article.

As for scientific studies, Chris Cunningham wrote that "One side has them in such an abundance . . . " - and that is my very point. There is no balanced presentation of the scientific studies supporting homeopathy. The medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy needs to be be represented in this article in a separate section, just as the views opposing homeopathy need to be in their separate section. Arion (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The post starts with an admonition to stop with the personal attacks, but then it transitions to making some against Filll... You may want to reword that for credibility's sake. Now regarding some other points: the reason that people reference homeopathy's fringe status is not that they think this exempts them from NPOV; it's quit the opposite. NPOV has specific guidelines for dealing with fringe subjects. Let me also offer you this advice: if you want to make changes that are met with resistance, provide not only a reasoning that the changes should be made, but also a reliable source that says what you want to say. This puts you in the best position for negotiating edits that you prefer. Antelan ^talk 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I made no personal attack against Filll. I pointed out his personal attacks against me "have no place in discussions among editors." Continuing to use these attacks - and attacks against homeopathy as "fringe" & "pseudoscience" - is an unacceptable way of trying to avoid the very clear Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV.

Again, best to just quote your own words: "You only expose your apparent lack of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules." --Puellanivis (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now let's get on with improving this article from the current anti-homeopathy tone to a neutral un-biased article according to Wikipedia and generally agreed upon academic standards for a reference encyclopedia.

And after we do that, we get on with improving the flat earth article from its current anti-flat earth tone to a neutral un-biased article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparing "fringe" nonsense with the science of homeopathy is not helpful in our effort to improve the quality of this article. Arion (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to gently suggest that implying that

my statements

"You are confused." and "So try to learn a bit about Wikipedia and its principles."

are evidence of personal attacks against someone here on this page are a violation of WP:AGF. Please, I mean no offense. I just want you to educate yourself so you can function here effectively on this talk page and not run afoul of the rules.--Filll (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Insulting another editor by calling him "confused" and less aware of Wikipedia principles that you are is offensive, and would be offensive to any other editor posting on this page. Arion (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to just quote your exact words. "It appears WP:NPOV needs to be read by some of the people writing comments on this page. Arion (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)" --Puellanivis (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

For starters, as I pointed out several days ago, the second paragraph gives an incorrect explanation as to why homeopathic remedies are prepared in the way that they are - from the homeopathic profession's perspective. Any homeopathic textbook will explain this, yet I was immediately resisted in making my suggested correction. Arion (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, I believe it's a paraphrase of Hahnemann. Provide a reference, don't expect others to do it for you. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what is 'wrong' with the second para? It was written carefully sometime back and seems adequate to me. It can be tweaked slightly like most things, but in broad terms it seems correct. Part of it is indeed a paraphrase of Hahnemann as Adam says. Please specify how you want it improved? thanks Peter morrell 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised second paragraph: Homeopathic remedies are derived from substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat.[5] Remedies are prepared by taking substances through a series of dilutions with shaking after each.[6] Homeopaths believe that the combination of dilution and shaking removes side-effects while activating therapeutic powers, even past the point where, mathematically, no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain. According to Hahnemann, homeopathy "develops for its use, to a hitherto unheard-of degree, the spirit-like medicinal powers of the crude substances... whereby they all become penetratingly efficacious and remedial, even those that in the crude state give no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body."[7] The therapeutic applications of the remedies used in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, and practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores both the physical and psychological state of the patient. is that better or acceptable? any comments? Peter morrell 09:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes can be seen in this diff. This looks like an improved version look to me. David D. (Talk) 10:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A few minor quibbles - I think it's easier to understand if we say something like "the substances then undergo a series of dilutions, with shaking after eah, which homeopaths believe removes side-effects while retaining their therapeutic powers, even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. I think the word 'succussion' should appear in it somewhere. I have revised the para above accordingly. see if you think it is now any better. Peter morrell 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I tweeked a bit more. David D. (Talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also tweaked. I think it's probably best to save succussion for later - parenthetical comments are frowned upon.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem is it is not the 'shaking' that reduces the side-effects, it is the diluting. When it settles into a good shape, please feel free to implement it. thanks Peter morrell 18:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that makes perfect sense, so, in brief, what is the role of the shaking? Should that be mentioned? I tweeked a bit more above referring to combination since I'm assuming they are both important for the whole. David D. (Talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK here is what Dudgeon says: "By trituration and succussion, he says, the medicinal power of medicines may be increased almost to an infinite degree. Hence we are warned against succussing our succussive dilutions over-much." [Robert E Dudgeon, 1853, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, London, p.346]

"Whilst in the earlier periods of the growth of his system he merely tells us to shake the bottle, to shake it strongly - to shake it for a minute or longer - he afterwards tells us that much shaking increases the power of the medicine to a dangerous extent, and therefore only two shakes must be used for each dilution. Latterly, however, he again loses his dread of shaking, and after once more appointing ten shakes for each dilution as the standard, he becomes more liberal and allows twenty, fifty, or more shakes, and half a dozen shakes to the bottle before each dose of the medicinal solution. Again, whereas in one place he says that the shaking is the only agent in the dynamization...in another he alleges that dilution is essential to the dynamizing effect of succussion, and that all the rubbing and shaking in the world will not dynamize an undiluted substance." [Dudgeon, pp.349-50] As I said, implement the revised version when agreement has been reached. Peter morrell 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, speaking as a skeptic of homeopathy (ok, outright disbeliever) the sentence providing the quote could be taken to be a "so-called" quote instead of an actual quote. Particularly because we move from talking about the realm of reality, and switch to the spirit world at the same time as the quote begins. We could lengthen the quote, or something... but the reality -> spirit world split shouldn't be marked by quotes... again, as a disbeliever I feel that it speaks directly the same way that I feel, and I can honestly say that it doesn't appear to be a quote to me, but rather a "so-called" quote. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the "so called quote" term you use. Surely, if it's in quotation marks and cites his book it is a quote. Can you give an example of a so-called quote. Sorry for being dumb here. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not bad to be confused, it's perfectly normal. :) You just ask for clarification just like you did. I mean "so-called" quotes, in the way that they're used in this sentence: Then I looked at his "car", it didn't even have any wheels! Um.. you know on second thought, I think wikipedia can explain it better: Quotation mark#Irony and Quotation mark#Signaling_unusual_usage are probably way better discriptions than I could provide. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand, that thought had not even passed my mind due to the context. Isn't that usage more reserved for conversational type passages. This is encyclopedic and I agree with Tim below, misinterpretation seems unlikely in this context. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a real quote. Here is the full quote: "The homoeopathic system of medicine develops for its use, to a hitherto unheard-of degree, the spirit-like medicinal powers of the crude substances by means of a process peculiar to it and which has hitherto never been tried, whereby only they all become penetratingly efficacious and remedial, even those that in the crude state give no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body." Hahnemann Organon 5th edition, section 269 Peter morrell 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't doubt that it's a real quote. I was just saying that the presentation of the quote could be perceived as biased by viewing the quotes as ironic, rather than used for quotation. I think giving the full quote allows one to more effectively see Hahnemann's position without potentially presenting a colored version of the quote out of context. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't find ironic "quotation marks" in the introductions of encyclopaedia articles. Your concern that this might be misinterpreted seems a bit far-fetched. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You might just be surprised, Jakob Maria Mierscheid a Bundestag member is quoted as: "The Bundestag official web site carries an ostensibly serious 'biography'." In this case biography is ironic, because there is no such person, and the biography is a humorous fabrication. Yes, this example is being taken from a hoax, but many people on the extreme disbelief side may see Homeopathy as simply a "hoax". Then the context of ironic usage would be appropriate, because according to their beliefs, there is no "spirit-like" medicinal powers held within any drug.

Misinterpretation _did_ occur, as it happened to me. Also, if someone quotes this outside of wikipedia, especially if they are not providing references, then the context of "it's an encyclopedia, and they don't use ironic quotes" won't be there. As well, there are people who do not consider Wikipedia any sort of reliable encyclopedia, and would likely question if ironic quotes might not occur in the introduction of a topic.

(1) There have been good improvements to the wording of the second paragraph thanks to Peter morrell and David D.. However the primary problem that I pointed out days ago still remains. There remains the incorrect concept that the preparation of the remedies by a serial dilution and shaking process is to only remove side effects. That would only be true for a few substances, such as arsenic (Arsenicum album) and lead (Plumbum metallicum). The vast majority of the thousands of types of substances that are used, such as calcium carbonate (Calcarea carbonica) and red coral (Corallium) are not toxic and essentially inert in the body.

Here's my suggested wording for that sentence in order to clarify this (with citation as to the reference quoted):

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects from those that may be toxic, "adds to their power to stimulate a response", and "develops the special properties of the remedy" - even in those that are chemically inert or past the point where any molecules of the original substance remain.

(2) I agree with Puellanivis that giving the full Hahnemann quote on his belief that there was greater absorption and penetration of the remedy ("penetratingly efficacious") would better give the context of what otherwise sounds like very odd phrasing in the out of context extract about "spirit-like medicinal powers". Arion (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We "agree" for different reasons. I see it as simply an unfair presentation, and you presume it to be an intentional bias, or anti-homeopathy statement. I ascribe oversight as the problem, you ascribe intentional, and direct human action for the specific purpose of defaming Homeopathy. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment about the inclusion of the entire sentence had nothing to do with my ascribing "an intentional bias" or "intentional, and direct human action for the specific purpose of defaming Homeopathy." I never implied that, nor thought that.

I simply agreed that the out of context extract was difficult to understand without the entire sentence showing Hahnemann's belief that there was a "deeper" penetration of the remedy. Arion (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, best to just quote you: "If you read the text of those who want this to be a biased anti-homeopathy article, you will see they do not want ANY material supporting homeopathy in the article." --Puellanivis (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please just implement the revised para Adam and then we can leave the convoluted navel-contemplation to another time or fine-tune the para later. Does that sound reasonable? the ambiguity re inert substances vs. toxic is a non-starter. What Hahnemann claimed to show empirically was that any truly medicinal substance has the innate power to elicit symptoms in a healthy person regardless of its conventional 'toxicity' (that is what provings are all about) and as Paracelsus mysteriously said, to paraphrase him: 'poison is just in the dose; everything is poison and nothing is poison.' What Hahnemann purported to show was that a truly medicinal substance is its power to create predictable disorder in the human system and therein lies its healing power through the law of similars. There is no ambiguity except that the term spirit-like can be interpreted both/either as spiritual and/or as immaterial. I reckon Hahnemann probably meant both. Peter morrell 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about how something spiritual can be seperate from immaterial? As far as the meaning of the word, there is no need to guess what "spirit-like" means, because its available in the original German. He says that it is literally something that is similar to a spirit, as a noun, as well as ghost-like; "Geist" is the same word used for "Holy Spirit". As for making non-medicinal substances therapeutic, well, ambiguous. He simply says that the medical powers are internal, and spiritual. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

It is time to archive most of the discussions on this page I think.--Filll (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahnemann's original German quote

Ok, so since the original is in German, and I speak German fluently, I wanted to see what it said for myself. At http://www.mickler.de/org-rtf.zip you can download the organon sixth edition, with the quote in question at §269: "Die homöopathische Heilkunst entwickelt zu ihrem besondern Berufe die innern, geistartigen Arzneikräfte der rohen Substanzen, mittels einer ihr eigenthümlichen, bis zu meiner Zeit unversuchten Behandlung, zu einem, früher unerhörten Grade, wodurch sie sämmtlich erst recht sehr, ja unermeßlich - durchdringend wirksam und hülfreich werden."

Upon getting this translation a few things immediately popped out at me, where the English translation provided is incredibly inaccurate. "unermeßlich" means "immeasurable", yet that occurs nowhere in the English quote, no less, the English quote has information that is not in the German quote. If you want to read the real quote, updated to modern language, and as absolutely literal as possible translated:

"The homeopathic healing art develops for its specific purpose, the intrinsic spiritual medical-powers of raw substances, by means of a peculiar handling-untried until my time-to a grade unheard of before, by which they all become more than ever very immeasurably penetrating and helpful." -- Hahnemann

This quote differs significantly from the original quote given, beyond explanation of progression of language. (Namely I'm not count effacious -> effective) The meaning of the English Quote given is reasonably different from the original to call it a dubious translation. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an impressive find, and it certainly complicates how we should be editing the paragraph where we (incorrectly, apparently) quote Hahnemann. Antelan ^talk 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's a quote from an earlier edition that didn't get updated, or that the translation combines a later sentence for clarity? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hate to seem skeptical, but... ... are there good reasons for me to think User:Orion4 is not a sock-puppet of User:Arion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Is it possible you mean Aburesz (talk · contribs)? You could ask for a check user, but it would not surprise me if those supportive of homeopathy only edit on homeopathy related pages. Is there a reason other than similar contributions? David D. (Talk) 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Well, i just looked at the contributions and they don't seem particularly similar. This does not seem like a good place to bring this up. It will inevitably poison any discussions in the near future. David D. (Talk) 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry to disappoint you guys. I am not anybody's "puppet" (sock or otherwise)! Arion (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewording of the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph

There remains the incorrect concept that homeopaths believe that the preparation of the remedies by a serial dilution and shaking process is to only remove side effects. That would only be true for a few substances, such as arsenic (Arsenicum album) and lead (Plumbum metallicum). The vast majority of the thousands of types of substances that are used, such as calcium carbonate (Calcarea carbonica) and red coral (Corallium) are not toxic and essentially inert in the body.

Here's my suggested wording for that sentence in order to clarify this (with citation as to the reference quoted):

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects from those that may be toxic, "adds to their power to stimulate a response", and "develops the special properties of the remedy" - even in those that are chemically inert or past the point where any molecules of the original substance remain.

Do I have your agreement to make that change? Arion (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; all of the revised para 2 can now be implemented except the Hahnemann 5th Organon (1833) quote which is still seemingly in dispute by some. Its corresponding 6th Organon (1842) para 269 is a hideously long-winded exposition expanding on each term he uses. In the 6th he drops the word 'spiritual.' Maybe our linguistic friend here can make a suggestion re that? However the phrase 'spirit-like medicinal powers' is not in dispute. And that is all we use in the 2nd para. thanks Peter morrell 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the 6th Organon he uses the phrase 'inner medicinal powers' rather than 'spirit-like medicinal powers' is that any better? I shall insert the uncontested rest of the revised para. thanks Peter morrell 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful demonstration of how poor the English translations are. He uses both in the 6th Organon in German. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My translation was actually from Hahnemann's 6th Organon in German. And the word "geistartig" (spirit-like) yet remains in the wording, but also there is the word "innate", "inner" has kind of a different meaning than "innate". An "inner power" is something that can be developed, and "created", while "innate power" means that the power is there no matter what. It cannot be removed, it cannot be separated, as it at least partially defines the object with that power. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahnemann's original German quote

Ok, so since the original is in German, and I speak German fluently, I wanted to see what it said for myself. At http://www.mickler.de/org-rtf.zip you can download the organon sixth edition, with the quote in question at §269: "Die homöopathische Heilkunst entwickelt zu ihrem besondern Berufe die innern, geistartigen Arzneikräfte der rohen Substanzen, mittels einer ihr eigenthümlichen, bis zu meiner Zeit unversuchten Behandlung, zu einem, früher unerhörten Grade, wodurch sie sämmtlich erst recht sehr, ja unermeßlich - durchdringend wirksam und hülfreich werden."

Upon getting this translation a few things immediately popped out at me, where the English translation provided is incredibly inaccurate. "unermeßlich" means "immeasurable", yet that occurs nowhere in the English quote, no less, the English quote has information that is not in the German quote. If you want to read the real quote, updated to modern language, and as absolutely literal as possible translated:

"The homeopathic healing art develops for its specific purpose, the intrinsic spiritual medical-powers of raw substances, by means of a peculiar handling-untried until my time-to a grade unheard of before, by which they all become more than ever very immeasurably penetrating and helpful." -- Hahnemann

This quote differs significantly from the original quote given, beyond explanation of progression of language. (Namely I'm not count effacious -> effective) The meaning of the English Quote given is reasonably different from the original to call it a dubious translation. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an impressive find, and it certainly complicates how we should be editing the paragraph where we (incorrectly, apparently) quote Hahnemann. Antelan ^talk 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's a quote from an earlier edition that didn't get updated, or that the translation combines a later sentence for clarity? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the fololowing words in the German Organon are essentially filler, but as I took the most pro-homeopathic translation to modern English possible, I doubt you could find anything that would clarify it more in their favor. The reason to use the most pro-homeopathic but correct translation is because Hahnemann himself is writing pro-homeopathy in this instance, and to translate it in anyway that might misrepresent his words is just bad form. :( --Puellanivis (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh... we're not incorrectly quoting Hahnemann, the translator to the English version of the Organon misinterpreted him. If he translated it himself, then he certainly changed the meaning but the English version would then be a valid quote, and representation of his words. It kind of depends on finding out who wrote/translated the English Organon.

It wasn't really much of anything, a search on Google for the German form of Homeopathy, and "Organon", and voila, or rather "seh da". The problem was ensuring that the translation had accurate words, because some of them could be pretty embarassing to use, like "ghost-like"... eh, that doesn't fit the context. So I generally took the most pro-homeopathic wording available that is also correct in meaning. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion was inappropriately archived before and response could be given. Returning it from the archives in a manner that is appropriate to comment on.

Improvement to the article

Is this article about "Homeopathy" or should it be retitled "Criticisms of homeopathy"? Here are my suggestions to improve the article to NPOV:

(1) There is no balanced presentation of the scientific studies that support homeopathy. The medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy needs to be be represented in this article in a separate section, just as the views opposing homeopathy need to be in their separate section.

(2) The language of that third introductory paragraph needs to be corrected to Wikipedia standards of NPOV. Here is my suggestion for slightly modifying the wording so that it does not appear that it is the article or Wikipedia that is making the criticism:

Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. They conclude that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies. Lack of evidence supporting its efficacy has caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. A recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of a placebo. Medical critics also accuse homeopaths of giving "false hope" to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs and prefer to use homeopathic remedies in their place.

I request comments from the other editors so that we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Arion (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposed revision is grotesquely POV, plainly violates WP:WEIGHT, and as such is a non-starter. And how on earth can loaded, inflammatory language like "critics insist..." even be suggested? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree this third paragraph is a non-starter. It should outline the scientific case, as the first two outline homeopathy, the counter points should be in the body of the article. What are the bits you object to most in the third paragraph? David D. (Talk) 05:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require us to give "equal validity":

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

If you have specific claims that the article is worded such that it appears that Wikipedia is personally of the position that Homeopathy is wrong/bad/fake, then we will address those, however, the overwhelming majority of verifiable medical, and scientific world pretty much consistently agree that homeopathy cannot possibly work better than placebo as it is currently practiced. We do not have to give homeopathy "equal validity", because the overwhelming professional opinion is that its bogus. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. But that should not be the issue, rather that the topic on wikipedia is about "homeopathy", not "anti-homeopathy". From that standpoint, we should deal with the topic first, and then present the opposing views. Thoughts? docboat (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To humor you, I read the text as shown currently. All statements of fact are fact. it is scientifically implausible (not impossible, but nearly so), as well, it does conflict with modern pharmaceutical knowledge. If you're honestly of the belief that it works at a level beyond current scientific knowledge, why would you be upset with such a statement? Because it would entirely align with your beliefs. "Modern pharmaceutical knowledge conflicts with homeopathy, but homeopathy does not claim to work off of modern medicine, but by spiritual medical powers." If you're upset that the article has a lot of material that is quite damaging to homeopathy, that's because the scientific evidence against it, is that strong. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this debate seems to revolve mostly around fundamentally flawed understanding of "NPOV". While I don't see anything particularly "inflammatory" about "critics insist", the simple fact is that if homeopathy is considered to have no merit in mainstream opinion, no amount of campaigning is going to change this, or Wikipedia reporting on it. Wikipedia is built to reflect mainstream academia. If prevalent opinion is that homeopathy is quackery, Wikipedia will report homeopathy as a topic of quackery, with a minor "other views" coverage of dissenting opinions. Please don't try to get your way just by persistence and filibustering. If you have a fair case, present it. If you don't, accept it and settle for appropriate WP:WEIGHT. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I read this it is a LEAD issue not an article complaint. I think the idea is that criticim should be retricted to a criticism section. David D. (Talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The manner in which this criticism is presented as a leading section issue is a problem. A false premise is created in which the reader is erroneously led to believe that scientific data ONLY dismisses homeopathey is utter "nonsense" (or relying on "spiritual medical powers' as a belief system - almost like a religion). Scientific criticism should be retricted to a criticism section, while scientific support for homeopathy should be in its separate section. The leading section can reference the discussion of BOTH scientific points of view (POV) in their respective sections.

Remember, terms such as "validity", "plausible" and "pseudoscientific theory" are all subjective judgments, not objective measurements.

How anyone can object to my suggestion for changing "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" to "Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" to help change this article to NPOV standards is unbelievable! Arion (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just best to quote Hahnemann: "geistartigen Arzneikräfte". Again, this means "spiritual medical powers". To quote the English Organon: "the spirit-like medicinal powers". --Puellanivis (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well "validity" means that it's valid, how is it valid? well, it's valid if it's assertions and/or beliefs are consistent with what actually happens.

"Plausible" well ok, we can change that to "probable", and by giving a statistical model of how likely it is that anything at all remained in the water, or that a structure was formed in the water as a "memory" like effect. Weighing all that in, for Oscillococcinum, we have 1:10^400. By any and all definitions of statistics, that's "improbable". Oh, what about the chance that it's doing something that science hasn't discovered yet? Pretty low... if there existed such a thing as "water memory" we'd have something relatively mainstream that uses this process, not just for healing as in Homeopathy, but for any other of a number of purposes, such as industrial work, etching of steel, etc.

There is no need to put in "Critics insist" to the statement "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically improbable." Just like you don't need to say "Proponents say that 2 and 2 equals 4." There is an actual proof that can be given to show that this statement is true, see above paragraph. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Plausibilty

Is there a science of plausibility, or it is subjective? If the former, please support with references. If the latter, then all claims of plausibilty / implausibility need to be qualified with the subject who expressed the subjective opinion.

In any case, I fail to see how making the article more specific as to precisely who believes what makes it worse. Curious Blue (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a link to the Wiktionary definintion of plausible. It seems that the plausible is defined in terms of how something seems to someone, which imo make the whole argument about whether to use "are" or "seems" nearly moot; due to the way plausibility is defined, the meaning is the same regardless of which word is used, but to use seem appears to be more accurate and honest. Curious Blue (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Plausability is defined in science as something which is probable. Homeopathy is considered implausible in part because of the very low probability of the solute actually being in the solution. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be definition 5 then, which uses the work possibilty rather probabilty, "A possibility in reason or thought experiment, but which may as a matter of fact be true or false, the truth of which is yet unknown to the thinker." This is clearly not any kind of absolute and the use of absolute semantics by means of the use of "are" is clearly intended to be misleading and pushing a POV. Curious Blue (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no absolutes, but we're stuck with a language that cannot handle nuance at the levels of near certainty. So we need to be plain in our descriptions which is what we will continue to do regarding the implausibility of homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious, in your edit your wrote "The ideas of homeopathy are considered by some researchers to be scientifically implausible" but this would not be right. If you want to go that route it would have to be "most scientists". David D. (Talk) 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with "most modern scientists" provided that there is some sort of citation to a general survey of scientific opinion which shows this. I doubt there is one, so how about "many modern scientists"? I think modern or some other qualifier is necessary, as views of science change, and historically science has been more empirical and less insistent on double-blind tests, and has been less rejecting of homeopathy and other even less plausible ideas. Or if you don't like modern, maybe contemporary. Clearly there are scientists who support homeopathy, so to present this as an absolute rather than a majority opinion has clearly been bothering some editors on the other side of the issue. Curious Blue (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. A better choice would be "most scientists" and not "some researchers".

The subjective use of the word "implausible" by ScienceApologist appears related to his statement that there is a "very low probability of the solute actually being in the solution". This shows a lack of understanding as to what basic homeopathic principles are. In MOST homeopathic remedies that are utilized in homeopathic medical practice, those that are above 12X and 12C in potency, there are no molecules remaining of the original substance that was used to prepare the remedy. The theory is that there is a transfer of the substance's characteristics to the diluent. What the exact nature is of that "transfer" has been the subject of homeopathic research. Arion (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic principles of water memory are irrelevant because they aren't scientific. The statement is about science, not pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) study showed that all twenty-three different Homeopathic Remedies and Potencies tested had distinctive readings of submolecular activithy, while the placebos did not. This suggests there is some type of energetic activity that unlies homeopathic remedy effects. Sacks A. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies. Journal of Holistic Medicine, 5 (Fall-Winter 1983): 172-175; Boericke GW and Smith RB. Changes caused by succession on NMR patterns and bioassay of Bradykinin Triacetate (BKTA) successions and dilution. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 61 (November-December 1968): 197-212.

This was not a "water memory" study. The use of the term "pseudoscience" is a derogatory subjective term that is inappropriate. Arion (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, but NMR doesn't really work that way... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arion, could you clairfy your point? Are you asserting that "most scientists" *don't* find the purported mechanism implausible? Or, that *most scientists* are incorrect in rejecting the theory of 'energetic signatures'? Naturezak (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is entirely appropriate; Feynmann's term cargo cult science applies as well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But can the data from those types of experiments be reproduced? There are many cases where they are not, PMID 11212083 PMID 11212090, and that is why scientists reject these data sets. David D. (Talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if water memory did exist (which it doesn't) this would still leave homeopathic remedies prepared by grinding solids with no plausible mechanism. Unless we also hypothesise "sugar memory". :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is probably worth noting. From the sources I have read about trituration, they dilute with lactose by grinding successively to very very low concentrations, much as the potentization methods work. Interesting...--Filll (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Products labeled homeopathic

Are all products sold as homeopathic actually examples of homeopathy? I get the impression (at least from advertizing) that a lot of these are just various "natural remedies" using a marketable term. But I may be entirely wrong on this, as I'm not terribly familiar with the alternative medicine business. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is more than homeopathy, so I suspect you are not looking at homeopathic remedies when you see them in a concentrated form. But i should probably not comment since I never look at the alternative medicine aisle, or any medicine aisle for that matter. David D. (Talk) 08:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If termed "homeopathic" then the product should contain substances prepared as "homeopathic potencies". Homeopathic medicines have been regulated since the 1930’s separately from pharmaceutical drugs by a Board that governs the US Homeopathic Pharmacopea. Most homeopathic medicines are designated as over-the-counter preparations, though many pharmacies restrict the sale of higher potencies to homeopathic practitioners. Arion (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh...my....gosh...--Filll (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Folding

Out of courtesy I am informing the other editors that I am folding due to this action and taking Homeopathy off my watchlist. This is not the kind of gaming and drama I want to get involved with. Curious Blue (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What has been done to Curious Blue, and the vicious harrassment that I personally have been subjected to in the last several days, should be a wake-up call to the Wikipedia community. A number of anti-homeopahty editors are determined to maintain this article as a biased anti-homeopathy article and willing to use any tactics they can think of.

An encyclopedia article on homeopathy or any other subject should not be turned into a battleground of special interests seeking to have their own biased version prevail. As I have said before, this article must not be either a pro or anti homeopathy article, but a neutrally presented exposition of the subject, with opposing and supporting scientific data presented in their own respective sections. It is also not the role of any editor here to PASS JUDGMENT on which research data passes their personal litmus test to qualify for inclusion in this article. Arion (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

An article can be subject to interest by several competing interest groups and still end up neutrally written. A neutral article doesn't need to give equal weight to claims of unequal status. Antelan ^talk 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "biased" version going on here. Physics, mathematics, and chemistry all say that homeopathy is EXTREMELY improbable, and if it were as easy to do as homeopaths present it to be, then chemists and certainly alchemists (you know, the crazy guys that handled raw mercury) would have hit upon it much sooner. They were trying to change lead into gold... We now know that a lot of Alchemy was based on flawed ideas that people had at the time, because of a lack of knowledge that we have now. But, in the same way Alchemy (magic) brought us Chemistry (science), Homeopathy (spiritual) brought us Pharmacology (science). --Puellanivis (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to us to pass judgement. We just report on what the science community and medical community say about homeopathy. And they say it is nonsense. So that is what we have to report. Get it? This is NOT the place to promote fruitcake theories. We can describe them, but we are not to promote them. And we are to describe the mainstream view of them. And the positive and negative views should be in the rough proportion that they are in the relevant mainstream field. So instead of being 60 percent pro homeopathy, which is what it was last time I checked, it really should be about 99 per cent anti homeopathy. Get the message? --Filll (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Filll], you are quite right in your assessment of the mainstream thinking, but what you and others do not get is this major point: this article should be about "homeopathy" and as such, it needs to be about homeopathy first and foremost. At the present, this is a very good article about anti-homeopathy, and it belongs appropriately under the title "anti-homeopathy" and it is a FA candidate under that title. For this article to be about homeopathy, it needs to present the "what is homeopathy" side as an article about homeopathy, and then (after the information about homeopathy) we need a section on "controversy" when any and all positions of mainstream medicine and science can be presented in structured order. That is plainly not the case at present. Now all arguments about efficacy or fraud to one side, this is the basic flaw of this page. For someone to seek information about homeopathy from Wikipedia at present, they are not going to get what hoemopathy "is" unless they first distill out the POV scientific criticism. And that is not good enough for an encyclopaedia. Comments? docboat (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, that is a great idea. It just is not something that is supported at Wikipedia under Wikipedia principles and policies, which have been repeated ad infinitum here on this talk page (like WP:NPOV for starters). Sorry. It just is against WP policy. If you want to go to a place where what you suggest is policy, go to wikinfo. But it is not policy at Wikipedia. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoah - I have to digest this Filll. AFAICT the encyclopaedia is about dissemination of information first and foremost. Accurate, peer-reviewed and evidence-based information. The WP:NPOV has been invoked here often to maintain POV, and I note the basic rule of "ignore all rules" provided the ignoring of the rule improves Wikipedia. Now here, while there is accurate scientific information openly displayed, it is being used to produce an article which is the opposite of the title. Agree with homeopathy or disagree with it, if the aim of the majority of editors WP:CONCENSUS is to produce an article which does not reflect the title, then the encyclopaedia has a problem. That is my basic premise. So either we change the article as suggested above (which is well in accordance with the WP guidelines as I have noted) or we change the title. It seems to make sense. docboat (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not anti-homeopathy. It's just accurate and specific. One of the most notable aspects of the subject is that it's quackery. Demoting that aspect to later in the article in order to seem more "neutral" is just silly. You can't write an unbiased article about homeopathy without mentioning early in the article that any reliable source in the scientific community agrees that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Making it a section called "Controversy" would make it seem like there is some kind of disagreement among reliable sources as to homeopathy's efficacy, and there just isn't a disagreement about this. Rray (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, but for those for whom homeopathy is just excellent - and there are many of them - it is not "quackery" That is your POV, and you are entitled to hold it. What you are not entitled to do with an encyclopaedia is to enshrine your POV and clothe it as "fact". The facts of homeopathy are that it holds to a certain rationale and many people agree to that, find it beneficial, and prefer it to classical school medicine. This is homeopathy. What the detractors say about homeopathy is not "homeopathy" but anti-homeopathy. It is merited, it needs a place, but we should not move people to accept our POV as gospel. Our job is to put down the facts. Would you not agree? docboat (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that our job is to include facts. I disagree with everything else you wrote though. You and I might be better off just agreeing to disagree though. Rray (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! :) docboat (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Our NPOV policies discourage separating POVs out by article structure (ie, creating a criticism section) and that is what is being proposed. If there was a broad anti-homeopathy movement it might be deserving of an independent article. This article mostly weaves the criticism into the text, as it should. That the criticism is damning to anyone looking for a "scientific" basis for homeopathy is not an NPOV problem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Reorganization of the lead

I've reorganized the lead by moving the stuff about legal status and extent of usage to the end of the lead. By doing this, the structure of the lead is now basic definition -> principles of the method -> scientific perspective -> legal status and extent of usage, which I think is a more logical progression. I didn't any substantive points, only the order. Please comment as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works. docboat (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy/Antihomeopathy

I'd like to understand the arguments about anti-homepathy. Docboat, can you give me a list of like 3 things you think would be in a "homeopathy" article, and 3 things you think are in this article that wouldn't belong in such an article but instead an "anti-homepathy" article? I want to better understand what you've got in mind, because I'm not familiar with your terms yet. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Antelan ^talk. I think that all of the information in the article as it stands is good. Of course we could add more, there are studies to be added etc, but as it stands all is good. I think it needs to be re-arranged, as Raymond just showed. It is - IMHO - about producing an article which deals with the topic, without bias. Facts laid out in a way which enlightens people. What we see here is a striving to lay out facts in a way which moves people in the direction preferred by the editor of the moment, and that is not good. What would I do? For an article on "homeopathy" I would introduce the basic premise of what is homeopathy. As in the lead, but from a purely homeopathic standpoint. That is, after all, what homeopathy claims to be. Then I would introduce the proofs - one section for "pro" and one section for "anti". History to follow etc or as the editors see fit. For an "anti-homeopathy" article, I would let Orangemarlin et al edit the topic freely. Actually, truth be told, it is not that far off an ideal as it is now. I would love for all editors to take a step back and look at the editing from the other POV, just to get more of a perspective, chill a bit, and see what merit there is in the opposing argument. Now if we could get that done, then we have a damned good article. Does that go some way to answering, without answering the specific question? docboat (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that goes some way towards an answer, thank you. I am interested in how you would suggest introducing homeopathy before getting into pro and con. I agree that to do so could be a good idea. I disagree that it should be from a homeopathic standpoint - I think it should be from a neutral standpoint, simply describing what is done, not why or for what purpose something is done. Then, we can get into the homeopathic perspective on why/how it works, and the hard-science on why homeopathy is thought to work purely through a placebo effect. Does this seem unreasonable? Antelan ^talk 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds very reasonable to me. docboat (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. What do others participating in creating this page think? Antelan ^talk 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as markedly different from what we have now. The present organization could be improved. For example, I think the "history" section gets in the way. Give the principles of the method first, then the historical details can be fleshed out in a later section. However the material is organized, we have to be careful that the scientific/medical perspective isn't shunted off into a "criticism" ghetto. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns make sense. Weighting of material must follow WP guidelines. I think your suggestion to reorganize is also wise, especially from a reader's perspective. If homeopathy were, say, a dead language, the history might be what a reader cares about most. Since it's an active part of alternative medicine that is not universally understood, explaining what homeopathy actually consists of is probably more relevant. Shall we bump down the History section? I actually think that Development of remedies should probably be the first major section, since Philosophy is largely told from the Homeopathic standpoint of for what purpose something is done and should therefore come later. What do you think? Antelan ^talk 05:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I definitely agree that this article needs to take a neutral stance and only report, and not force a point of view. The known empirical reality that we are in says that Homeopathy is extremely improbable. Given the definition given by Google Define for "quackery": medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings. This certainly gives a nice succinct statement of what Homeopathy is. While the advice and practices are based on empirical findings, and experiences (testimonials), they ignore the scientific fact that the likelihood of obtaining anything but water in a homeopathic remedy is improbable. It's scientific fact that water taken in small quantities is a placebo, with no medicinal effect upon the body. Given that information, homeopathy is inconsistent with empirical reality, but says nothing about if it "works" or not. In some cases it may be beneficial by anyone's standards. One person I knew allowed his wife to get homeopathy for her migraines, despite him believing all of it is quackery; simply because it was the cheapest, and easiest solution available. To present homeopathy as anything but contradictory with scientific empirical fact, is a misrepresentation of homeopathy. Some proponents of Homeopathy (in particular Hahnemann) dismiss contradiction with scientific fact, and say that the healing process comes from "spiritual medical powers", which is then outside of the realm of science to say it can't work. As long as it's being insisted that Homeopathy be treated like any other type of medicine, then it is subject to the scientific empirical facts that all scientific attempts to describe how the efficacy of homeopathy is produced contradict known scientific law. Some doctors may also support this treatment because they would get in trouble for prescribing Obecalp to a patient, but prescribing them homeopathy will give the same results, and the person won't sue the doctor for giving them a placebo. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why I think we should begin the article (not the lead, but the beginning of the body) with a section that just describes what homeopathic remedies are. What do they contain? How are they made? Once we let the reader know what we're talking about, then let's get into the competing claims, all the while respecting WP:UNDUE and avoiding a ghettoization of the views of either scientists or homeopaths.

Let the reader know what precisely these remedies contain, and then once we've done that we can give the reader a taste of both the homeopathic belief in water memory and the empirical scientific evidence against this. Antelan ^talk 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a good idea. Simply state the process, and what the homeopathic remedy physically contains, those parts that are all in agreement between homeopaths and current empirical reality. Then bring in the debate about homeopathy where both sides are intermingled neutrally to present a case for homeopathy and against homeopathy. A reader more strongly interested in scientific evidence would scoff and call it quackery, and a reader with spiritual beliefs would consider that Homeopathy works by a spiritual mechanism, while scientific proponents of homeopathy would consider that Homeopathy works via a different science. Lastly, a skeptic of wondering of what homeopathy is, will read the cases and be able to weigh the respective parts as personally appropriate and make their own decision. Again, recall that any statement in favor of homeopathy really needs to state that current scientific fact does not apply to the mechanism whereby homeopathy works, if either side depends upon current scientific fact to prove itself, then it's going to be contradictory. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from some of those who think that this article is too anti-homeopathy. Do these suggested procedures make sense and seem fair? I want to get started rearranging and rewriting as necessary, but first it'd be good to get more feedback from the involved parties. Antelan ^talk 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Antelan ^talk 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry Antelan, real life taking over for a moment here! Changes seem to make sense to me. From my POV, there is not much to be gained from being too strident about the anti-homeopathic slant on this page - it is really not too bad, does reflect the anti-homeopathic viewpoint well, and will be altered over time with concensus. These changes will be helpful. docboat (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)\

I don't think this is about closed minds, scientists usually view the weight of all the evidence. That is where homeopathy falls. David D. (Talk) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta-science

Oh yeah, I just thought of another route that could be use. If Homeopathy were based on a meta-science that we are currently unable to detect or test with our modern science. This again makes the statement unfalsifyable, against which science cannot therefore make claims. However, a basis on meta-science would need to be presented in such a way of giving a presumption of how the process works, rather than an indicative statement stating that it is known how it works. If it is known how to work physically, then science can test it, and potentially falsify it. Only so long as it's given as a presumption of method of action, which requires a science beyond what we have today, can not be contradictory to scientific fact. A good example of this is quark confinement, that a quark can not occur alone. We make this presumption because we've never been able to find free quarks, however it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be that way, we just don't have the ability to falsify the theory right now, and every attempt at falsification so far only produces strong empirical evidence in its support. However, as with any logic, it only takes one counterexample by empirical reality to change that, no matter how much evidence has been amassed to support it. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>An amazing attitude. It must be wonderful to live in a fantasy world. Wow.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree... however either would make their argument not subject to scientific criticism. Faith Healing seems to be doing fine, despite it being entirely debunked. People with faith still exist and make much of this world turn. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Puellanivis, if there is any literature that suggests that is the mechanism by which homeopathy works, it might merit inclusion, but frankly it sounds like if someone has made that case, they are probably on the fringes of homeopathy itself. I think we need to keep this simpler and keep more emphasis on WP:UNDUE, but your argument does make sense. Antelan ^talk 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just best to quote Hahnemann again: "geistartigen Arzneikräfte". Which means "spiritual medical powers". To quote the English Organon: "the spirit-like medicinal powers". --Puellanivis (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's incredibly poor choice of "mainstream" homeopaths to attempt to claim a modern scientific answer for why Homeopathy works. In fact, "water memory" is exactly what I describe above, based on a meta-science. Current physics, and chemistry says there's no way that it could be there, but homeopaths continue to insist that it is. To attempt to state that homeopathy can be validated with current scientific law, is pretty much self-contradictory. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that homeopathy is based on a meta-science, that is, a *different* science. But there aren't any alternative sciences, higher, lower, parallel, or otherwise situated in relation to 'science'. The full, non-contradictory integration of data and explanatory theory is one of the primary characterizations of science. To make my point more clearly: you can't make up a term "meta-science" and postulate that the purported mechanism for homeopathy operates within it, no matter what we dim, low-level thinkers believe here in the ground-floor realm of *mere* science. It's all rather silly. Naturezak (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that Newton thought he had all the answers as well. Likewise did physicists when we got down to Baryons and Hadrons. People with all certainty described lightning with various religious and supernatural explanations. Now, we know it's just static electricity, of a bunch of electrons passing from the ground up to the clouds. Nothing religious or supernatural about it... simply science has come to a point where we can explain it. "Water memory" may possibly exist (that's why the statement is highly improbable, not definitely impossible) but we certainly can gauge it right now, nor measure it, nor in any way verify that there is anything like "water memory" in existence, and clinical trials definitely continue to show that homeopathy has no better than placebo effects. Regardless of all of that, one can make a statement that homeopathy is dependent upon a scientific principle that we currently do not know, and we're not even aware that we're unaware that we don't know it. Such a science however is para-scientific at this time, as science cannot falsify it. If a person insists that the workings of their method fit within current scientific principles, simply just with the addition of some principles that we cannot yet observe, then science cannot prove them wrong, in fact precisely for the reason that we cannot prove religious/spiritual stuff wrong... we can not objectively observe the events claimed to occur. If you were to go back to the time when Baryons and Hadrons were thought to be the smallest objects, and you stood up, and explained to them that beta decay was the transition of one smaller part of the Neutron, into a different smaller part that then made the Proton, they would laugh your butt and relegate you to pseudoscience. "Pff... something smaller than a Bayron/Hadron, right..." You would certainly have no proof to prove your theory, or that would even suggest it's possible. It's only by 20/20 hindsight that we see that such an argument would be part of science, but as long as it's a kooky theory that you can't test, it's para-science/meta-science.

"Science" is not a term inclusive of all correct answers and laws. It only consists of those theories that we have proven to be the best possible model to explain what we observe at this point in time. Science will grow, and it will expand and include more and more stuff. Every day "science" is bigger than "science" was yesterday. Todays "meta-science" may be "science" a year, or two or five from now. Although in all the cases described above, Homeopathy fails to demonstrate even one shred of possibility, so the only thing that makes this not impossible, is that it relies upon something that we cannot observe objectively with science at this time. As our science grows, this possibility is likely to continue to shrink, until it gets REALLY REALLY small, but it can never become outright "impossible." --Puellanivis (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that this article should make clear that homeopathy is not supported by the modern scientific understanding of the world? Naturezak (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, 100%. That's why I'm saying they should ditch the "it can be explained with science" and stick to sutff that science can't disprove if they want to continue their faith. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think meta-science is the same as pseudoscience.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism & Support

Since we have a section titled "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism", I propose that there be a section titled "Medical and scientific analysis and support". Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we could implement such a change, you'd need to identify even one article the provides evidentiary support for the purported effects of homeopathic medicine. There aren't any. Naturezak (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you a practicing homeopath? Naturezak (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for 27 years. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the endorsement implied by your practice of this controversial methodology undermines the appearance of NPOV in the authoring of this article? Naturezak (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are looking for, I think is the conflict of interest guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are 4 examples of research suggesting homeopathy is not a mere placebo effect:

• British Medical Journal. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23. [2]

Clinical trials of homoeopathy. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G., Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

• Complement Ther Med. 2006 Dec;14(4):237-46. Epub 2006 Oct 13. [3]

Homeopathic arnica therapy in patients receiving knee surgery: results of three randomised double-blind trials. Brinkhaus B, Wilkens JM, Lüdtke R, Hunger J, Witt CM, Willich SN. Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

• Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):17-21. [4]

Homeopathic Arnica montana for post-tonsillectomy analgesia: a randomised placebo control trial. Robertson A, Suryanarayanan R, Banerjee A. ENT Department, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

• Homeopathy. 2003 Oct;92(4):187-9. [5]

Effect of Arnica D30 in marathon runners. Pooled results from two double-blind placebo controlled studies. Tveiten D, Bruset S. Baerumsveien 451, 1346 Gjettum, Norway.

These are a mere 4 out of many others. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you must have gone through in order to produce these sources. However, they aren't very useful, unless you give an explanation of what conclusion the research behind each paper supports. Otherwise, it is just a list of titles. I happen to have three of these at hand, and would be very ready to discuss those in detail as long as you are. To be clear, I would assert that none of the four papers you've presented provide evidentiary support for either the non-placebo efficacy of homeopathy, or the mechanisms claimed in the theory. Naturezak (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 4 examples of research suggesting homeopathy is not a mere placebo effect:

• British Medical Journal. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23. [6]

"Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found."

• Complement Ther Med. 2006 Dec;14(4):237-46. Epub 2006 Oct 13. [7]

"In all three trials, patients receiving homeopathic arnica showed a trend towards less postoperative swelling compared to patients receiving placebo. However, a significant difference in favour of homeopathic arnica was only found in the CLR trial."

• Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):17-21. [8]

"The results of this trial suggest that Arnica montana given after tonsillectomy provides a small, but statistically significant, decrease in pain scores compared to placebo."

• Homeopathy. 2003 Oct;92(4):187-9. [9]

"These pooled results suggest that Arnica D30 has a positive effect on muscle soreness after marathon running, but not on cell damage measured by enzymes."

There are also complicating elements in homeopathy that will impact homeopathic research and need to be considered:

• • There is the well-known principle (among homeopaths) that unless the homeopathic remedy (and the "potency" level) is specifically chosen on the basis of the totality of the patient's psychological and physical symptom presentation, then it will simply have no effect.
  • With that said, there are "polycrests" (remedies that affect more specific simple symptoms, without the need to get into psychological considerations). A simple example that I utilize many times daily is in regard with patients in my clinic is low back pain. If Rhus tox. was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. If Bryonia alba was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. But if you administer Rhus tox. to those whose symptomatology is worse when sitting and on first getting up (and better with walking), then almost all will improve. If you administer Bryonia alba to those whose symptomatology is better on resting and no movement, then almost all will improve. These are my clinical observations.
  • The skill and experience of the one administering the remedies is an extremely important factor. I would consider my skills have been much better in the last seven years than in the first twenty years of practice.

Incidently, language describing homeopathy as "a lot of the crap in here is so hysterically inane that only sadly desperate individual would endeavor to utilize this 'therapy'." is not constructive. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to critique your reference sources, but the only one that is truly peer-reviewed by real scientists and researchers, BMJ, I'm almost certain you missed the conclusion, which states: CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. So yeah, it is hysterically inane. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could look at a 1991 BMJ study, but it is a bit old now (16 years). We could also look at the 2005 Lancet study (PMID 16125589) whose conclusion included the statement, "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." (Update: If you read the entirety of the article, you can see that the clinical effects of homeopathy are compatible with placebo effects because the odds-ratio of random-vs-nonrandom effects crosses 1. That is, the authors found no statistically significant difference, in the large, well-controlled homeopathy trials, between the effects of placebo and the effects of homeopathic treatment. I thought I'd add this to clarify exactly 'why' the authors came to the conclusion that they came to.) Antelan ^talk 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am writing to concur with Orange and Antelan; your characterization of those studies is incorrect... they do not provide evidentiary support for the medical claims of homeopathy. Your personal experience is 1) original research, and therefore unusable as being against WP policy; 2) anecdotal, and therefore empirically uninteresting; and 3) ad hoc. For those reasons, I suggest you try to substiante your claims with other arguments, as these are for all practical purposes invalid.

Also, the fact that you are a practicing homeopath makes it somewhat difficult for this article to maintain the appearance of impartiality. How have you addressed this? Naturezak (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, consider the input of practising homeopaths to be invaluable for this article. I wish we had more of them. The prerequisite, of course, is that they follow the rules of the game, but that applies to all of us. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on, Naturezak - The studies do provide evidentiary evidence, merely not to high enough standards. His personal experience accords with the experience of all homeopathic practitioners and many of their clients. The reporting of those anecdotal records has been documented sufficiently in the appropriate homeopathic publications, but not to the "gold" standard of double blind placebo etc etc. They are most certainly empirically interesting to all who wish to keep an open mind, and examine all evidence. Those with closed minds (never a good feature in a scientist) will agree with your point though. docboat (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether you consider their input valuable is rather irrelevant to the point that the encyclopedic nature of WP precludes the involvement of advocates of fringe science. Will you address the issue of NPOV?

Where did you get that idea? We all have our own POV, but that does not preclude any of us from editing the article to have a NPOV. In particular I would like to draw your attention to these statements from WP:COI.

• Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest.
• However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

If you believe that Arion 3x3 is making POV edits, then specify which edits you are referring to, and why you think they are not neutral. Otherwise, assume good faith and do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, Art. I had meant to make the point that the involvement of a practicing homeopath undermines the appearance of NPOV; I see that what I wrote came off as altogether more accusatory. I have no edits to refer to at this moment, but will continue to be vigiliant against the use of neutral, or negative-effect, studies as if they provided evidentiatry support for homeopathic theory. Starting with the assumption of good faith, and the seeing that Arion continues to argue for the inappropriate use of studies, is what leads me to ask whether his personal investment in homeopathy is working against the objectivity needed here. Naturezak (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point about the evidentiary support provided by the cited studies is incorrect; the authors themselves are careful to make this point. I encourage you to read them thoroughly before attempting to characterize their evidentiary weight.

The experience of homeopathic practitioners does not constitute verification of homeopathic theory; as much as the experience of TM practitioners does not verify the theory of yogic flying. Anecdotal evidence is not a a reliable source; especially when provided by an individual whose career is invested in the verification of the theory in question. Naturezak (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30