Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Leading off with pseudoscience

Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. There, I've said it.

And that's ok, because it's true and verifiable. Now that I've said it, the article should, too.

Contrary to this edit comment, it's not just my personal opinion. And, contrary to this one, the prior existence of a consensus does not prevent the consensus from changing.

Is there actually any good reason why we shouldn't lead off with the fact that homeopathy is a pseudoscience? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not like creationism where it's clear there is unity among experts (and "experts") that it is pseudoscience. It's certainly on its way, but it's not quite there yet. We can still document serious discussions, objections, arguments in favour of it, and so forth, and proponents are not utter cranks. It's also got lots of mainstream (i.e. consumer and industry) support. Though it needs to be noted and attributed as pseudoscience in various noteworthy people's opinions, we can not quite yet give it a blank, flat description of pseudoscience. Yes, you and I and many other editors know it is pseudoscience but for the page to say it outright and unambiguously is premature.

We can however, detail (briefly in the lead, substantively in the body) the reasons why it's considered pseudoscience, which is of service to readers. I've always thought that a serious discussion of why X is nonsense and X's supporters beliefs are spurious to be far more powerful and convincing than simply saying "X is nonsense" and leaving it at that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dylan that it is not just his opinion that homoeopathy is a pseudoscience - it is well supported that it is the prevailing scientific position. Having it where it is in the lead, in the paragraph about the scientific implausibility of homoeopathy, puts it in this context. As WLU says, it is better to explain why it is viewed like this than to flatly state it. To do so in the opening paragraph of the lead would make the structure of the lead rather confused. Additionally, while it is certainly the position of scientific consensus that homoeopathy is pseudoscience, this opinion is clearly not universally held, so again it is probably not correct to include this as a flat statement in the opening sentence.

I also agree that consensus can change. However, there has been an enormous amount of discussion of the lead on this page, with almost every statement being argued over (that's why the lead is so heavily referenced, for example). Proposed changes need to be viewed in the light of the previous discussions. Brunton (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a great change, supported by references and the opinion of the scientific community (which is who defines pseudoscience). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Things seem to be in a bit of a flux at the moment with homeopathy on the defensive. But I can still see a number of reasons not to mention pseudoscience in the first sentence:

• It jumps at the reader and makes the article appear biased to those with a positive attitude towards homeopathy.
• It does not reflect the way the topic is usually presented in the reliable sources that it makes sense to use as a guide for our overall treatment. (This may be because they are not up to date. In that case it is a problem that will solve itself soon.)
• For many, the hardcore pseudoscience parts (trying to "prove" that "it works", certain specific procedures) are less important than the fact that homeopaths tend to be old-fashioned, good at making a very good impression to the patients, spend a lot of quality time with their patients, and promise simple, all-encompassing cures that go to the root of the problem. These are things that shamans are also very good at (for example), and which most modern doctors can't do at all, for various reasons that are not their fault. Describing this just as pseudoscience probably appears imperative if you are the kind of person for whom "spiritual" things play no role at all, and who also tends to downplay emotions. But some people consider these aspects much more important than that the medicine they are getting actually has an effect by itself. And I guess it's precisely these people who are best at tricking themselves into getting better after taking a placebo from a person they trust. Homeopathy is not a religion and it is not a system of ancient rituals, but it comes pretty close to both and seems to fill a similar gap in modern health systems. (My experience is mostly from Germany. I believe in England it is or used to be similar, while in America things are probably totally different.) We don't say religion or Shamanism are pseudoscience, although they definitely have very strong elements of these (e.g. theology).
• Pseudoscience is activity that is similar to science, but is not science. Homeopathy is an unusual case in that most of its pseudoscientific aspects are similar to 18th century science rather than modern science. (The "water memory" nonsense is modern pseudoscience, of course, but it is relatively marginal w.r.t. daily homeopathic practice.)
• Homeopathy is still pretty established in some areas. Some of the German public health insurers are currently fighting to keep the right to pay for homeopathy, claiming it saves them money because after a homeopathic consultation patients tend to keep better care of themselves. That's the kind of thing that you can't measure in a double-blind study, so it appears at least plausible. (There is also reason for suspicion, but that's another story.) Hans Adler 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are good discussion points to include if sourceable and give a context for why patients might perceive it works, but of course don't make it science. Shamanism and religion don't try to portray themselves as science, they are obviously religions. Creation science does, which is why it is labelled pseudoscience.

Seriously, if you can reference those points it'll be great info for the page, but none really address the pseudoscience issue directly. But I think the consensus, which can change, is pretty clear that we're not going to be including a flat "pseudoscience" label. Something along the lines of "homeopathy violates the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Its apparent effectiveness has been explained through... Homeopathy has been called pseudoscientific by..."

Again, great points to make - need sources! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can provide sources for the last point, and I also have a German article about how the Nazis tried to push homeopathy as "German medicine" and made extensive studies to prove homeopaths' claims. The article says the homeopaths themselves felt very uneasy about this because they knew what was going to happen: A large number of the patients who could have been healed by the standard treatment died. (I don't remember what disease it was. Probably some infection.) I will provide these sources when I get around to it. It was in a relatively recent special issue of Der Spiegel. The articles are freely available online, but in German.

The problem is, not much is written about the aspects of homeopathy that don't fit the schematic thinking of either its supporters or its opponents. For me the above points are important reasons not to mention pseudoscience in the first sentence, regardless of whether we can say these things in the article or not. It's an editorial decision. Of course it needs to be mentioned in the lead, but some caution is advisable. As to the second point, just look up homeopathy in any general-purpose encyclopedia. Often the articles are absurdly positive, probably written by homeopaths. Encyclopedia Britannica online is more neutral, but it also doesn't talk about pseudoscience in the first sentence ("a system of therapeutics, notably popular in the 19th century, which was founded on the stated principle that “like cures like,” similia similibus curantur, and which prescribed for patients drugs or other treatments that would produce in healthy persons symptoms of the diseases being treated"). This may be due to monetary concerns (publishers can't ignore the market share of homeopathy users), but the state of the published literature is still an important factor.

If anything we might want to look into giving the pseudoscience part a bit more weight and removing the nexus with quackery. Quackery has connotations of fraud (i.e. bad faith) and lack of professionalism that don't quite fit, given that (at least in Germany) there are numerous regular doctors for whom homeopathy was part of their university education and who give it to their patients, and that practice of homeopathy by others is regulated by the state. Presenting the pseudoscience and quackery allegations as equal gives the quackery part too much, or the pseudoscience part too little weight, depending on the general attitude towards homeopathy with which the reader comes to this article. In either case it's misleading. I think it would be a good idea to upgrade the pseudoscience mention in the lead but remove the quackery mention from the lead and leave that topic for the body. (It's an instance of lead doctoring anyway. The quackery passage in the body was originally copied from the lead. A more thorough discussion of the quackery aspect would be appropriate if it can be sourced.) After all, homeopathy is quackery precisely to the extent that this follows from its nature as a pseudoscience. Hans Adler 08:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles in Der Spiegel are in the issue for 16th July, but I've only been able to find what looks like an English summary freely available so far. I think it may have asked for some sort of login when I tried to follow a link to the German text - whatever, I couldn't access it. I'd be interested in links to the full text if you can find them.

As for the pseudoscientific aspects of homoeopathy being similar to 18th century science, that doesn't make them not pseudoscientific in today's terms - the aspects of 18th century science that have been abandoned have been abandoned because the evidence suggests that they are wrong, and ignoring (or selectively citing) inconvenient evidence is pretty much characteristic of pseudoscience. Propounding phlogiston theory would nowadays be regarded as pseudoscience even if it was once considered the mainstream scientific view, for example. Brunton (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to read through all this with an eye to drawing a conclusion, and I'm at something of a loss. Is there an actionable consensus hiding in there somewhere? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In the past, changes of this kind to the lead have led to battles that lasted weeks and involved a dozen or more editors. We haven't had any of these recently, but we also haven't discussed any such proposal seriously during that time. It's hard to predict what would happen now. I would certainly not change anything after the limited discussion that we have had so far. If someone mentions pseudoscience in the first sentence, or removes quackery from the lead, that is almost certain to start such a battle, which I would prefer not to see unless a very wide consensus has been established first that actually has a chance to survive the fracas. Hans Adler 07:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm having trouble feeling out the consensus. Is there any reason we couldn't just vote on it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly try that. I wouldn't be particularly happy because I think it's likely to lead into chaos and I would like to be involved but am having more than enough to do with conflicts related to Ireland and global warming, while under an obligation to rewrite a sensible article related to the Polish-German relations. The problem is that a straw poll is not particularly good for predicting what happens in article space at a high-visibility article like this one. We already have regular complaints from homeopaths on this talk page, and it's easy to predict that this will get worse if pseudoscience gets even more weight in the lead. Recently we have had a relatively quiet time here: It seems that for quite some time neither homeopaths nor sceptics groups have recruited Wikipedia editors to this article via their mailing lists. That's exactly as it should be. Hans Adler 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If voting doesn't work, I'm going to try a simple experiment: I'll move "pseudoscience" up and see if a plausible explanation is given when it's reverted. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with whether homeopaths will come to the article to complain. Mainstream sources label it pseudoscience and we should not avoid leading off with the most descriptive definition available. If all anyone reads is the first sentence or two it is good they get a very solid and pointed criticism because that criticism is why homeopathy continues to get any attention at all in the 21st century. Homeopathy supporters would be ignored if it was not for the continued mainstream debunking they continually ask for. It is a fringe belief, that should be made clear early without any dilution of that fact. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, if you want to try it, go ahead. My experiment was a failure: Brunton reverted without the decency of a specific explanation, just a general hand-waving at Talk. *shrug* Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your "experiment" was a failure because you clearly do not have consensus for the change. See above. Brunton (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What I saw above are views on all sides of the issue. What I saw from you was a complete reversion without explanation. I think I've seen enough, thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be editing the lead without adjusting the body; if the body hasn't changed, there's not much reason to change the lead. If there are new, prominent, highly reliable sources that are more clear about the pseudoscientific nature of homeopathy, this should be reflected in the body and then the lead. Until then I would say it is inappropriate. Homeopathy is still immensely popular throughout the world and we can't even say "all scientists consider it pseudoscience" because not all do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to show that "all" scientists agree. There only needs to be a consensus, which allows for a view dissenting voices that are ignored due to the poor quality of their evidence. You are artificially raising the bar for this quackery. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's still lots of entities, individuals and agencies that take homeopathy seriously. Don't get me wrong - it's nonsense and I know it. Utter, utter bullshit. But look at bioidentical hormone replacement therapy which I substantially wrote - there's a list of all the major organizations that say it's crap, prominently in the lead. Despite a near-universal condemnation of BHRT as nonsense it still doesn't say pseudoscience. The two aren't completely comparable, but the comparison is interesting. Homeopathy has no scientific basis, is actually contrary to much science, has been extensively tested (and failed the most rigorous tests) and is still taken seriously. BHRT has a considerable scientific basis (if you assume they're simply hormones), has a lot of science behind its effectiveness (again because you are taking hormones), hasn't been tested at all, and isn't taken seriously. In both cases there is enough "debate" to warrant listing some major players and their reasons for endorsing or objecting to both. One thing that should be prominent should be the reasons scientists and skeptics give for homeopathy to not make any sense scientifically - there are no "mother tincture" molecules left and no means by which "information/treatment/quantum" is known to be able to have an effect after dilution, splashing on a sugar pill, drying and being consumed. Better service to the reader than "it's pseudoscience" which just sounds dismissive.

We don't get to override all the idiots who take homeopathy seriously on the basis that it breaks scence (though that would be nice) and in fact it is incorrect to say homeopathy doesn't work. It does work, through nonspecific effects. The pills do naught, but the long, exhaustive consultation is very helpful, as is the patience it gives the sufferer to wait for symptoms to regress and natural healing to occur. This is also worth mentioning in the lead - homeopathy is thought to "work" through the placebo effect, the homeopath's attentiveness, the patient's sense of empowerment, and the simple passage of time. Always better than a blank label is a discussion of why the label is appropriate.

Though it is scientifically appropriate to dismiss all studies as grossly flawed, on wikipedia we don't get to do so - but we can use medically reliable sources to demonstrate the results of studies, meta-analyses, reviews and criticisms of homeopathy. It's almost certainly on its way out, dying a slow, lingering death, but it's not there yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

All mainstream sources label homeopathy as pseudoscience ?

The use of term pseudoscience does not reflect the way the topic is usually presented in the reliable sources: See below examples from mainstream high quality reliable sources with a different point of view. The writers are very notable in the field.

Examples "However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies." [1]

There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.

orig_db=PubMed&db=pubmed&cmd=Searchterm=138[volume%20AND%205[issue]%20AND%20393[page]%20AND%202003[pdat]] "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method."..............The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is fairly clear. We do not need all mainstream sources, just a showing of what the mainstream consensus is, which is obvious. Cherry picking papers that don't label it pseudoscience is the same as highlighting the fringe number of studies that show some minor effect. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It is clear from the above sources that there is a dispute on this issues. That's not a consensus. I did not cherry pick anything. I just produced a number of reliable sources with a different point of view. These are major, mainstream and not fringe papers and/or sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been through "NCCAM and the Linde letter" almost ad nauseam, not just in that archived thread but much more recently. For a start, neither is peer-reviewed. And as SchmuckyTheCat notes above, the fact that you can find some statements that are vaguely supportive of homoeopathy (or at least supportive of further research) does not mean that the scientific consensus is not as reported in the article. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Brunton (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did you see the consensus? The scientists that are cited above and in the article disagree on whether homeopathy is only a placebo therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Because those "scientists that are cited above" are a distinct and laughably small minority. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No they are not. They are published in reliable sources : the Lancet, etc.If they were a "laughably small minority" they would not be getting attention and published in major sources; furthermore the wikipedia article would not quote and cite them so much. Even if they are a minority wikipedia requires all views to be presented as long they are published in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"wikipedia requires all views to be presented" No, Wikipedia does not require that. Homeopathy is quite clearly in the second description. If anything the presentation of the article as currently written is too sympathetic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's news to me. So the minority views and the controversies on homeopathy should not be reported even if they are published in reliable sources like the lancet etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As an IP editor with three days of history on the site, I would expect the nuances of Wikipedia policies to be news to you. Controversies and the sore thumb positive reports should be reported in proportion to the negative reports and overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Providing prominence to elusive data and cherry picked advocates gives a soapbox to promotion of homeopathy beyond the merit in the very data being reported! In fact, a review of mainstream, not scientific, sources suggests it is the controversy over homeopathy (and funding it by insurers and gov't health care) and not general effectiveness which is the greater story. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Don't you think though that the major scientific groups which have researched whether homeopathy is only placebo or not, have different views and the article reports only the skeptical view as being a consensus among all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"The scientists that are cited above and in the article disagree on whether homeopathy is only a placebo therapy." That might come as news to some of them. For example, as I've already noted above, Edzard Ernst reports that in a recent article in Der Spiegel, "Klaus Linde, the first author of a much-cited, positive meta-analysis (Linde et al, Lancet 1997) is quoted as saying 'we can no longer uphold our conclusions, because positive results can be caused by bias'" (I think Hans may have the Spiegel article in the original German). Even in the letter you want to cite, Linde and Jonas write that "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust" and that their 1997 analysis "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". The Jonas, Kaptchuk, and Linde paper you quote states in its conclusions that "some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine. More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system". The NCCAM page you cite says "Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies." That isn't significantly different from the consensus as reported in the article. The very sources you are citing against the position reported in the article actually agree with it.

The best result for homoeopathy you'll find from well conducted research is conclusions that there might be something going on at the edge of statistical noise but that further well conducted research is needed to confirm it, and appeals to keep an open mind. And that is not a finding that it works better than placebo.

But that's beside the point - what the article is reporting is the scientific consensus, and the collective evidence, which is overwhelmingly that homoeopathy has not been demonstrated to work better than placebo. Brunton (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonas and Linde wrote a letter to the lancet objecting that all homeopathy is due to placebo. And you are telling us that this is not a significant difference to the position that homeopathy is only placebo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the Jonas and Linde letter is guilty of some ambiguous terminology, resulting in confusion. They state that "some...unexpected effects [are reported]", but is their detail of the effects or the reliability of the reports? Worse again is "the evidence of effectiveness...is scant" (emphasis mine), which makes explicit the existence of such evidence - but is there any reference as to what this evidence is and indicative that it is reliable - which is another matter altogether (if not, one questions the suitability of the word "evidence")?

The NCCAM page similarly states the existence ("there are some") "studies", "trials" and "research" "that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies", which are predicated with adjectives suggesting their reliability ("individual observational", "randomized placebo-controlled" and "laboratory" respectively). It is crucial to recognise that in both instances, existence is stated. However, the problem is that they skirt a line between certainty "there are", and obfuscation "some". In both instances these vague "somes" are reported but nothing more, except for the "scant" comment. On that point I think it is important that no value is given to the "evidence" in that instance, and what is meant by evidence is unclear. If the reliability and particulars of effects, properties and of any reliable reports of them cannot be provided, then you must agree the point is vacuous. One thinks of a bare particular: they are stated to exist but are nothings until they are said to have content. Ocarrollcian (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is additional information to a comment by Brunton above. Der Spiegel online recently had a special focus on homeopathy. Some of its many articles from recent years are linked from this page. (6 articles in the German Wikipedia are also linked...)

One of them is Der große Schüttelfrust (the title being a clever pun, since Schüttelfrost is chills, Frost is frost, and Frust is frustration). In it Klaus Linde is cited as follows:

"Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein." Einzelne Studien mit positiven Ergebnissen allein seien "noch kein überzeugender Beweis für die Homöopathie".

In English, approximately:

We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies." Individual studies with positive results alone didn't "amount to convincing evidence for homeopathy."

I also found the two articles I mentioned in an earlier discussion: One on the Nazis' failed attempt to establish homeopathy as "German medicine", and one on the German public health insurers, whose organisation insists that they should continue to be allowed to pay for homeopathy as it saves them money. All in German, but at some point I will try to integrate them in the article if nobody else is faster. Hans Adler 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and translation, Hans. I see that it also mentions the 1999 reanalysis (or as Babelfish put it, "In a subsequent article lime tree admitted, "that our Metaanalyse the effectiveness of homöopathischer treatments at least overrated hat""). There's another reference to the Nazi-era research here (see final paragraph of article), with references to a four-part discussion in a German journal. I've also seen a reference to Donner's work being reported in a French journal back in the 60s, but haven't been able to find any actual citation for it.

The above seems entirely consistent with the statement in the lead about the collective weight of the evidence.Brunton (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Hans Adler 09:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a commentary (in English) on the circumstances of the 1936-1939 German research here. It links to a page giving the publication history of the Donner report and letters, with links at the foot of the page to the full text of the Report and letters (in German and a Dutch translation). Brunton (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on efficacy of homeopathy among different researchers  ?

Letter to the editor does not trump numerous other studies. Certainly that one letter doesn't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That'a false. It is not just a "letter to the editor" from a minor scientific group. It is a letter from scientists whose opinion almost misinterpreted in this article. The writers themselves referring to their metastudy state that homeopaths used their meta analysis to claim that homeopathy is proven, and it highly implausible but also in the same letter they state that homeopathy is effective in some conditions and not always due to placebo. This is an idea which exists in their meta analyses it is not something new.

In any case, can someone tell us why the readers of wikipedia article on Homeopathy should not know that the major scientific groups whose studied homeopathy's disagree on its effectiveness ? And why they should be given the impression that there is a scientific consensus among these groups since there is strong evidence that there isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you don't have a reliable source for it (and you're unlikely to find one as it doesn't seem to be the case). Brunton (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The objection letter to the editor to the Lancet from scientists you yourself consider notable enough to be cited and quoted in the article is a reliable source.http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now read the letter, and I must say the reasoning appears sound. I don't have the time to examine all the claims in detail, obviously, but if the factual claims are correct, then it appears that some people have overstated the outcome of the Shang et al metastudy. I don't have access to the metastudy itself, but I note that the freely available abstract puts it this way: "[...] there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." I note that the finding itself, as described, appears also compatible with the notion that homeopathy has clinical effects for some diseases but not for others, and the Linde & Jonas letter adds to this the aspect that in the hypothetical case that homeopathy is more effective for some diseases than for others, and that the larger studies concentrated on diseases for which homeopathy is not effective at all, then Shang et al's first conclusion (weak evidence) is not actually supported.

Put simply: The larger and better studies show no effect of homeopathy, but the smaller and poorer studies do. Without randomising what is studied, we can't exclude the possibility (for example) that this is simply because the better research groups with more money want to prove homeopathy is ineffective and choose the diseases studied accordingly.

But overall, unless there is a subtle difference between "unsupported" and "not supported" I don't think we are overstating anything by saying: "Homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence." It's certainly not the case that the collective weight etc. supports the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo. Technically we are not saying more than that, and the fact that readers automatically read more than the sentence really says appears appropriate to me. Hans Adler 18:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "put it simply" section is your own opinion and interpretation; in their letter state the following :

If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method. Therefore, restricting an analysis to the largest studies risks producing a false-negative result. Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.

Therefore the statement "homeopathy is unsupported" is not precise and it is misleading.At least.

We are not here to arrive to a conclusion on whether homeopathy works or not but to inform the readers what notable scientists say about that.

But regardless of the previous paragraph why the readers of wikipedia article on Homeopathy should not know that the major scientific groups whose studied homeopathy disagree on its effectiveness ? And why they should be given the impression that there is a scientific consensus among these groups since there is strong evidence ( an objection letter in the lancet by notable scientists) that there isn't? Please give me one reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the same letter that has already been discussed. It is not peer-reviewed (the research by the same scientists that is cited in the article is peer-reviewed), and does not state an opinion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. It is a comment on whether the authors think the methodology of a particular paper supports its conclusion. While the authors did once produce a meta-analysis that concluded that its results were "not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo", they effectively retracted that conclusion in a reanalysis of the same data two years later, stating that their earlier analysis "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments", and the lead author on the paper has recently been quoted as saying "we can no longer uphold our conclusions, because positive results can be caused by bias." The position of these researchers does not appear to contradict the consensus reported in the article. Brunton (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is signed by the same scientists whose study was not retracted but was qualified to be precise and it differs than Shangs -it does not say that everything is due to placebo. The writers themselves state in the Lancet that they disagree with the consensus that it is stated in the article ( homeopathy is due to placebo). It does not have to be a new meta analyses to report this notable information. Why the readers should not know about this lack of consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The writers do not say that they "disagree with the consensus that it is stated in the article" - they say that they do not agree that the methodology of the particular study on which they are commenting supports its conclusion. The only general comment about the efficacy of homoeopathy is in the opening paragraph of the letter, where they say that "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". That is not a statement that homoeopathy works, and it is consistent with the consensus reported in the article. The Shang paper is not absolutely essential to the consensus - it is merely the most recent in a series of reviews and meta-analyses, none of which has produced unequivocally positive results for homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

They object to the conclusion and the methodology: If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. Do you see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see: that is a statement about the limitations of the Shang paper, not a statement about the efficacy of homoeopathy. Do you see? By the way, please sign your posts. Brunton (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about statements on efficacy of homeopathy but whether or not Linde and jonas agree with Shangs findings. They don't. They say : "Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. --108.1.109.63 (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to use the letter as a source for a statement, not that Linde and Jonas disagree with the conclusions of Shang, but that Linde and Jonas have concluded that homoeopathy is not just placebo, and it doesn't say that. If you want to include such a statement you need to find a source in which they conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo (and it probably needs to be peer-reviewed). Brunton (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point I m questioning your good faith. I just said before that "we are not talking about statements on efficacy of homeopathy but whether or not Linde and jonas agree with Shangs findings. They don't. They say : "Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.63 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the subject of the thread is not whether there are researchers who have questioned the conclusions of the Shang paper: it is about whether the consensus is as stated in the article (in fact, until you added the current heading a few hours ago it was a continuation of the "All mainstream sources label homeopathy as pseudoscience?" thread). You and another IP have been arguing that there are researchers who have concluded that homooepathy is more effective than placebo (for example "The writers themselves state in the Lancet that they disagree with the consensus that it is stated in the article ( homeopathy is due to placebo)"), and have been citing this letter to support that contention. It doesn't support it - for that you need peer-reviewed sources in which the researchers have come to that conclusion, not a letter to the editor in which they question the methodology of a specific paper. Brunton (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, this letter pops up often enough that it just might deserve its own FAQ. /smack head. Yobol (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen Brunton: The article states that the scientific consensus among the researchers of the meta studies on Homeopathy's efficacy is that it is only a placebo therapy. The writers of the homeopathy article mainly cite Linde and Shangs conclusions supporting this. Is this accurate? Do the 2 groups agree on the conclusion that homeopathy is only a placebo therapy? Obviously not. If they agreed to the notion that homeopathy is only placebo, they would not have object to the Lancet that "Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement". Or they would not have stated that If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4),..... . Since they object to the methodology and the conclusion of the study that means that their meta analyses conclusion differs significantly from Shangs. That obviously means that their meta analyses is misrepresented in the homeopathy article. In their own words, in their view, the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement". That does not prove homeopathy. But it states clearly that the Linde group does not conclude that homeopathy is only placebo. My question remains unanswered: why you and others you want to hide this important disagreement among these groups from the average wikipedia reader? Do you have a good reason? Can you answer this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.182.169 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One letter to the editor doesn't change the general opinion of scientists and researchers who oppose homeopathy on scientific, methodological and clinical grounds. It's a letter to the editor. It's not a research article, meta-analysis or systemic review. Let it go.

A FAQ about this letter is a good idea, because it keeps cropping up on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just showed you above that 2 major scientific groups which are cited have arrived in different conclusions and they strongly disagree and that it is falsely stated that they are in agreement - don't you care about that? Do you have any good reasons you want the readers to think that there is a consensus among them when there is not one? --162.83.182.169 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What "important disagreement"? The Linde/Jonas letter, before it goes into specific criticisms of the Shang paper, congratulates Shang et al on their paper, and states that they "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust".

You have not "just showed you above that 2 major scientific groups which are cited have arrived in different conclusions", because the letter does not say anything about the conclusions of any of Linde et al's meta analyses. It just expresses an opinion that the conclusions of Shang are not adequately supported by its methodology. If you want to state that "the Linde group does not conclude that homeopathy is only placebo" you need to cite research this group has published that concludes that. The letter is not peer reviewed, and does not state that Linde and Jonas have concluded that homoeopathy is not just placebo. It states an opinion that Shang's conclusions are not supported by its methodology, and that is not the same thing.

You say that "The article states that the scientific consensus among the researchers of the meta studies on Homeopathy's efficacy is that it is only a placebo therapy" - can you say exactly where in the article it says this? The word "consensus" does not appear anywhere in the article. The lead says that "Homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence," but this is not contradicted by a statement that there is some evidence that homoeopathy works, or works for some but not all conditions, any more than the fact that some birds are ducks means that all birds quack. Brunton (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If the conclusion of shangs were similar to Linde and Jonas they would not have sent a letter to the Lancet objecting methodology and conclusion unless they are mentally ill. I don't really understand why you don't want the readers to know about the disagreement shang and linde groups? Isn't important when a major research group criticizes so strongly another and this criticism appears in the Lancet ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.182.169 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Linde et al have published research that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, you will be able to cite it. The letter is not a good source for this because it is not peer-reviewed, and even if it was, does not state any such conclusion. Brunton (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You refuse to answer the question. If you cannot you don't have to.The question is : why the readers should not know about the disagreement shang and linde groups? Isn't important when a major research group criticizes so strongly another and this criticism appears in the Lancet"  ?--162.83.182.169 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The question only makes sense if there is an actual disagreement. Please cite the published research in which Linde et al have concluded that homoeopathy has effects over placebo.

The comments about the Shang paper are only relevant in the context of discussion of the Shang paper, which is currently covered in only two sentences in the article. Introducing this non peer-reviewed source would give it undue weight. Brunton (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop saying about peer reviewed sources they are they same scientists who conducted the meta analyses. (Is this a peer review source which is used in the lead ? - UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy" none objects though.)

Is this an example of the famous neutral point of view of wikipedia? The readers should not know about the controversies and disagreements of scientists they have been chosen to be cited and quoted? Interesting. --162.83.182.169 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Committee's report is used to support a statement of the results of the Committee's inquiry, not of the scientific consensus. It doesn't matter that they are the same scientists who conducted the meta-analyses: peer-review reviews the paper, not its authors. I assume the reason that you don't want peer-review mentioned is that you don't have a peer-reviewed source in which Linde and Jonas have concluded that homoeopathy works better then placebo. If you don't have that, then you don't have evidence for your claimed "disagreement". The letter does not state a conclusion on the efficacy of homoeopathy, so cannot be used to support a statement that its authors have come to a particular conclusion on the efficacy of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

""My claimed disagreement"? The writers of this letter (isn't the letter peer reviewed?) published in the Lancet speak about " major problems with the way Shang and colleagues present and discuss their results, as well as how The Lancet reviewed and interpreted this study. We will point out two. and they conclude stating that Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.They don't have to arrive to a conclusion that Homeopathy works to report this information even though in their view "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4"), ... there is some evidence. Please do not misinterpret the sources. --162.83.182.169 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(Letters are not peer-revied.) The authors of the letter disagree with the methodology of Shang, but they specifically have not stated that the conclusion is incorrect, merely an overstatement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is still a strong objection to the study's methodology and conclusion and a strong objection to the Lancet about Homeopathy. Can you give us a reason for exclusion? Why you think wikipedia readers should not be informed about notable controversies published in reliable sources like the lancet? --162.83.182.24 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Excluded from where? You have not yet made any suggestion as to where and how you think this should be included in the article.

2. You seem confused about the meaning of "reliable source" in this context. Peer-reviewed articles in the Lancet are considered reliable sources for scientific conclusions because they are peer-reviewed, not because they are published in the Lancet. It is the peer-reviewed article that is a reliable source, not the entire journal. It is not a question of people having "a strong objection to the Lancet about Homeopathy". For example, the aticle does not reference the Lancet editorial that accompanied the Shang paper: the editorial, like the letter you want included, is not a peer-reviewed publication. If we consider a letter published in the Lancet to be a reliable source, surely an editorial produced by the the Lancet itself should have as great, or even greater, authority? If the Lancet is such an unimpeachable source, do you think we should perhaps have the Lancet's opinion of homoeopathy, as expressed in its own editorial, included in the article? Brunton (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is reasonable whatever appears in a reliable source (lancet's editorial and position on homeopathy and notable objections and controversies like the letter and other documents like homeopaths position in detail ) should be included. Not like now where the reader has the impression that he reads a position article against homeopathy.Do you agree with the inclusion after all in general and then we can talk the way it could be included.? --162.83.182.24 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you proposing should be included, and where? Also see, again, my comment about reliable sources in the preceding post. Brunton (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever has appeared in a reliable source especially a letter from researchers whose opinion have already cited and quoted qualifies. That 's self evident. Do you agree with the inclusion in general?--162.83.182.24 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this specific criticism of Shang should be included, because in the context of the brief mention of Shang itself in the article it would be giving it undue weight. But if you have a suggestion for an actual edit to the article, you should mention it here and see if you can get consensus for it. Otherwise, it might start to look as if you are just here to make a point.

And once again, please try to understand that it is not being published in a particular journal that makes a peer-reviewed article a reliable source: it is the fact that it has been through that journal's peer-review process. Brunton (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I wonder if anon would support citing a drug advertisement because it appeared in the Lancet and was written by experts (both advertising experts and scientists working for the company). There is no consensus for the page to be substantially adjusted based on a single letter to the editor. This is clear, and has been clear for years now, ever since it was first published. We've discussed, there's only one editor supporting the idea, and now we're done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What sources should be used for the article?

I am a bit new to this page, but I'm curious what other editors are looking for in terms of sources for this page. I'm all for homeopathy (and in combination with traditional medicine when needed). What about articles in medical journals (non-homeopathic) discussing the benefits of homeopathy and possible limits? Something falling in the same line as (not negative) discussing for the sake of discovery of possible future benefits. Sorry, I don't think I'm being clear. Please feel free to move the post if it belongs under a different or separate category. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:MEDRS. As for the suggestion of "discussing for the sake of discovery of possible future benefits" see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. We need to wait for these "future benefits" to be discovered and reported in reliable sources before reporting them. Brunton (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Why {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} is not together with {{Alternative medical systems}}? It makes more sense to keep summary things in the first paragraph. Bulwersator (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was moved to the section where the actual pseudoscientific aspects are discussed. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word remedy.

The second section (Homeopathic remedies) of this article's body states that "Remedy is a technical term in homeopathy that refers to a substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients; it is not to be confused with the generally-accepted use of the word, which means "a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieves pain"." The article's introductory text understandably contains no such explicit differentiation, despite referring to homeopathic remedies, as does the caption to the first image.
I think this might (1) confuse a reader as the introduction puts boldly forward statements of disproof alongside the seemingly confirmatory collection of letters "remedy" and (2) it accepts the homeopath's attempt to instate the technical meaning they ascribe to the word English word "remedy" as an accepted reading; which appears to me to be a (probably) naively-innocent yet subversive attempt to annex acceptability through association with actual (rather than pseudo-scientific, such as potentization) terminology and thus should not be accepted.
Therefore, I propose to demarcate a distinction between the two: let the homeopath's technical meaning be symbolised by: "remedy", with quotes, and the conventional, medical meaning be symbolised by: remedy, without quotes. I will not implement this without (at least o'er-long silent) acceptance first; as the issue may have been discussed here before but deleted. On this matter I note that other homeopathic terms, whether for the sake of (1) reader clarity or (2) distinction of fringe terminology from "Conventional" English are italicised in the introduction. Ocarrollcian (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think scare quotes are appropriate, but I would certainly agree with italics. I think the only reason the article isn't using them is that the first occurrence of "remedy" is in the link homeopathic remedy. As a general rule we usually don't italicise links, under the assumption that the link formatting makes them stand out anyway. But in some cases, such as the print version of an article, that is not true, and I think we would be justified to make an exception. Hans Adler 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps make a point of using "homeopathic remedy" every time, rather than simply remedy. Otherwise, Hans' suggestion seems fine to me. Realistically, we can't do much against the associations the word "remedy" holds - the best we could hope for would be a reliable source discussing the distinction between the definition of a "remedy" and a "homeopathic remedy" but I doubt we'll get that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans on the use of italics rather than scare quotes. Using "homeopathic remedy" each time still leaves the word "remedy" there, with its connotations. Brunton (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about using the term ‘preparation’? It’s especially appropriate considering the disproportionate amount of attention homeopaths give to preparing their products as opposed to determining whether they work. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Remedy" is the term used for the preparations, so I would have thought that it is the term we should use for them in the article. Brunton (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I see the sense of the term preparation, it is "homeopathic remedy" that one comes across, and "preparation" I think is more the definition of what a h.p. remedy is. Preserving the term seems most appropriate, whilst highlighting its...terminess. Using italics as an exception is I think a good solution, and fully consistent with the approach to homeopathic terminology elsewhere in the article. Thank you all for your input. Ocarrollcian (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Stick with remedy, italics but no scare quotes seems reasonable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To the Editor: sorry, I have edited the main text of your article, when I thought I was adding a comment in the Talk/Discussion page. I am not so quick with learning use of programs.....I do apologize for inserting it. I would quite like it to be placed on this page, however. Thank you.Genevievea (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Genevievea 1.10.10

Quite okay, I'm learning the ropes all the time myself. Having successfully implemented the italicisation, I have a few further, related suggestions/queries. Zicam Remedies have been left untouched - I am presuming they count as trademarks/titles and so a distinction ought be respected. I query whether psora and miasm ought receive the same treatment (and any other homeopathic technical term), rather than inverted commas as in some instances. In psora's instance, the word is introduced between inverted commas, and it's English-language translation given in italics - surely this is backwards? Where flower remedies were referenced in the article, the remedy part of the term was italicised - is this correct? Ocarrollcian (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph of Homeopathy#Dilution debate

As the next paragraph states that Hahnemann himself recommended 30c potencies (fn 61), that makes a nonsense of the erroneous reference to early homeopaths using remedies in dilutions no higher than 12x. Original case studies show that large numbers of homeopaths, some of whom were also MD's, were using potencies up to 1M and higher from very early on in the practice of late 19th, early 20th Century Homeopathy: See eg. published works of Boenninghausen, a contemporary of Hahnemann, James Kent, MD and John Henry Clarke, MD. The entire article is filled with one-sided, badly chosen references and borders on the polemic. It is entirely unacademic in its content and should be removed, or rewritten with less bias.Genevievea (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Genevievea 1.10.10 moved here from article --Six words (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The two statements are not incompatible: it says "many", not "all", early homoeopaths. It is also not clear that "early" is referring to homoeopaths of the late 19th and early 20th centuries - by this time homoeopathy had been in use for almost a century. Hahnemann doesn't appear to have made the recommendation until the later editions of the Organon. The paragraph seems adequately referenced. Brunton (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted, "many" is not "all". My mistake re. centuries: should have written early 19th Century and left it at that. It is true that many homeopaths practicing then were NOT in favor of the high potencies: but I think you'll find that the "many" were still using the Centesimal range C potencies, albeit at the lower end of the scale, and were not confining themselves to the decimal range (x) potencies, as your article avers.Genevievea (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be adequate sources to support what the article says. If you want another, try Anthony Campbell (2008) Homeopathy in Perspective p. 64, in the section about 19th century British homoeopaths: "The vast majority of British homeopathic prescribing at this time was based on the use of very low (material) dilutions - 6c and below." The same page also mentions "the claims of Jenichen, Hering and others to be able to produce ultra-high potencies by various non-Hahnemannian techniques" (and the "gentle derision" with which the leading British homoeopaths treated these claims) so it is possible that homoeopathy was practised differently in other countries. You will need to find reliable secondary sources to support this if it is the case; using the original case studies would probably be considered original research. Brunton (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Healing Crisis

whis is this redirected from Healing Crisis? I can't see any connection between the two or any reference to healing crisis in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.84.15 (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think that it is the idea that a patient taking a homeopathic remedy will get worse before they get better. The history of the redirect just says doctrine in classical homeopathy. #Miasms and disease might be a good place to mention the term, if anyone has a good source handy. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a concept used in homoeopathy, but perhaps not limited to it, having also been used in other medical systems of the 18th and 19th centuries. For example, Roy Porter's history of medicine, The Greatest benefit to mankind mentions the concept of bringing an acute condition to a crisis in the context of hydropathy. I'm sure I've also seen the term "healing crisis" used in the context of the orthodox medicine of the 18th and early 19th century, but I can't find a reference for it at the moment. Brunton (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Brunton, you are correct. It's a fairly common idea used in alternative medicine circles. These circles often hold onto ancient and long since abandoned ideas. Although not factual for homeopathy (homeopathic remedies won't produce any physical effect, but the actual disease might be worsening totally independently of the supposed remedy), it can be factual for some forms of alternative medicine where actual substances can make someone sick. In the worst cases the term is used as a sort of preemptive excuse, just in case the patient gets worse, all in the hope that they'll get better afterwards. The therapist is covering their ass. The problem is that if the patients really suffers from a serious illness, belief in this claim may prevent them from going to the ER in time to save their lives. In such cases it's a dangerous claim to make. ER doctors run into this situation occasionally. It's very sad. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a pedantic aside, it is possible for homeopathic remedies to cause side-effects, because the infamous extreme dilutions are not always used. Occasionally lesser dilutions are used, in which case there might be enough of the "active" substance to provoke a side-effect. Plus, homeopaths themselves appear to have some very confused ideas about doses and potencies, and they are unlikely to have adopted advanced Big Pharma methods of getting a consistent quantity in each pill. Could you really be sure that your 6X Arsenicum Album was only made with 1ppm arsenic?

However, side-effects aren't likely to be common. bobrayner (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LMFAO! You're quite right. Of course that begs the question of whether they are actually using homeopathy, or just calling it that....;-) Personally, precisely because of this problem, I have considered the numerous public mass suicide attempts (using overdoses) by skeptic groups to be a bit risky. What if they get a batch that's not really diluted enough? It would be an easy way for a homeopathic practitioner or pharmacy to "off the opposition". -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As an even more pedantic aside, since the intention in administering the remedies is to cause symptoms, they probably can't cause side effects by definition. Brunton (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The term goes back at least to 1914 in naturopathy. See Henry Lindlahr (2009) [1914]. Nature Cure; Philosophy and Practice Based on the Unity of Disease and Cure. General Books. ISBN 9781150083747.. Several writers attribute it to Hippocrates. See Connie Kaye, Neil Billington (1997). Medicinal plants of the heartland. Cache River Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780962742286.

LeadSongDog come howl! 05:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Lyane

Sources included: http://www.universidadcandegabe.org, www.naturalnews.com/029940_homeopathy_scientist.html Llyane (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Llyane

Use of the term ipse dixit

L.S.,

I find the term ipse dixit undesirable in this context; it's used properly but gives it an (imho) unwanted scientific ring. Perhaps someone can add (Latin: he himself said it) to it to undo this effect or replace it with another term (I wouldn't know what term to use though). (Pseudoscience often uses this trick.) (I'm not a native English speaker so perhaps I'm wrong and the term is used quite often, if so it's probably better to leave it as it is.) 94.208.171.27 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ipse dixit is not very common in English, but putting it in the open with a simpler (and no less accurate) "he just made it up" would provoke more complaints about WP:NPOV, I think! bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

its not a common english term, but since this is medically-related aritcle i see no reason (apart from unwanted and undesirable atempts at soapboxing or creating inadvertent coatrkacs to remove medical terminology from an article about medicine. User:Smith Jones 17:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were a medical term, I would point out WP:JARGON. But how often do you see ipse dixit in medical textbooks? If we were to select an English-language alternative with the same meaning I doubt that would be coatracky or soapboxy. For me the main drawback, if there is one, is that making a negative point more readable rather than hiding it in latin could unleash complaints about NPOV from some quarters - regardless of how accurate & sourced it might be. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just added the first ref to ipse dixit, but I agree, it's a mistake to use the term here. While Latin was standard curriculum in Hahnemann's day, that's no longer the case. We have wp:USEENGLISH for a reason. We shouldn't obscure our meaning in translation, we're here to inform readers. It would be better to simply call it a "declaration of dogma" or something similar. If it is necessary to use it to reflect a source, we should provide a plain-English translation. Some editors won't like it, but we couldn't please everyone even if that were our goal. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

declaration of "dogma"? this isnt a religious article and portraying as such in the WP:LEDE without a single citation to back it up is uncessary and unnatural. I have no rpoblem with replacing "ipse dixit" with an English alternative (although since its linked i see no problem why; we also use other terms like "ad hoc" in other articles without a fuss being thrown). User:Smith Jones 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:ipse dixit and wikt:dogma. Not all dogma is religion. My 1982 Consise Oxford essentially agrees. "ad hoc" is in common English usage, not so "ipse dixit". LeadSongDog come howl! 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, I'm the one who originally found those sources and made that edit. I quoted the term from the source, but adding an English translation would certainly be appropriate. We do use Latin expressions here, but this one is pretty rare and an explanation would be in order. It literally means he made it up. I vote to keep it, but with a translation in parentheses. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

thats exceedingly fair, Brangifer, and i agree with your sugestion. Lets not use the phrase "he literally made it up" b/c that doesnt fit in with the academic tone of the rest of the article. can we use the literal translation word for word of "ipse dixit" as presented ont he "ipse dixit" article instead. with your consensus, i will go ahead and incorpudate that into the article. User:Smith Jones 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

i suggest furthermore that euse this clarificatory box here:

Ipse dixit: coined in Latin from Greek ipse- ὅμοιος- "he himself-" + dixit πάθος "said it"

Wiktionary

for the pruposes of includating a non-obstrusive and neat way to add the English meaning without sacrificing the ledes flow or comprehendibility. User:Smith Jones 19:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Better than nothing, but it's simpler just to link to that article (or the wiktionary article) then. That's kind of the point of hypertext. Of course the wp:principle of least astonishment requires a clear meaning on the face of the article and a simple literal translation obscures the point that "ipse" or "he himself" is an appeal to the authority of the speaker. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just leave it as it is, with the link. Brunton (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I too support just the wikilink without the box. It's a nice box, but we don't need the clutter. Anyone who clicks the wikilink finds the same information, so it's a superfluous box, although well-intended. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai

MUMBAI: Six months after the British Medical Association rubbished homeopathy as witchcraft with no scientific basis, IIT scientists have said the sweet white pills work on the principle of nanotechnology.

Homeopathic pills containing naturally occurring metals such as gold, copper and iron retain their potency even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre, states the IIT-Bombay research published in the latest issue of 'Homeopathy', a peer-reviewed journal from reputed medical publishing firm Elsevier.

IIT-B's chemical engineering department bought homeopathic pills from neighbourhood shops, prepared highly diluted solutions and checked these under powerful electron microscopes to find nanoparticles of the original metal.

Certain highly diluted homeopathic remedies made from metals still contain measurable amounts of the starting material, even at extreme dilutions of 1 part in 10 raised to 400 parts (200C), said Dr Jayesh Bellare from the scientific team.

His student, Prashant Chikramane, presented the homeopathy paper titled, 'Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective', as part of his doctoral thesis.

"Homeopathy has been a conundrum for modern medicine. Its practitioners maintained that homeopathic pills got more potent on dilution, but they could never explain the mechanism scientifically enough for the modern scientists, said Bellare.

Read more: IIT-B team shows how homeopathy works - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/IIT-B-team-shows-how-homeopathy-works/articleshow/7108579.cms#ixzz18FwnpLXS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.96.234 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I searched and found the abstract:

• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-518T4YP-3&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3742c7a676d864d32688d36d6edd30a4&searchtype=a

The newspaper headlines and the abstract are quite different. The headlines claim homeopathy "works", while the abstract simply states that some metallic elements were still found in the diluted samples they had purchased. That has nothing to do with any supposed effect on any disease or health condition. It also doesn't address the likely confounder.....that the samples weren't properly made. I don't see anything here that comes close to a MEDRS we can use. We'd need much better testing, reproduction and confirmation by independent researchers. Why does India seem to have so many pseudoscientists? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

there are controversial scientists everyhwere BullRangerfur; the only diff is that ppl are more likely o mock and berate themf or it here than in India so they are more oepning about publishing here than there. User:Smith Jones 14:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy happens to have a very large following in India. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

precisely the reason why then lol!! Indias sicentific and medical communtiy is fary less afraid of controversial new ideas than the American or the Westenr Eruopean dichotomy currently medicalization. that snot to to say that homoeopathy is correct or that WEstern medicos are wrong, but its a lot easier for somoene with a daring new idea to get a foothold there than here, irregardless of weather or not their idea is good. User:Smith Jones 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fear isn't a factor in this. The presence of widespread superstition and ignorance in India is a huge problem, and there are active efforts to protect the populace from those who exploit that ignorance. It's such a great problem that the mainstream scientific and medical community are much more free with using the word "quackery" to describe their efforts to stop charlatans and pseudoscientists. I don't know if you use Google Alerts (it's free), but it's a great service. I get many different types of alerts and the word "quackery" always brings up lots from India, much more than anywhere else, especially to describe crackdowns on pushers of alternative medicine nonsense. So you see, not all scientists and medical personnel in India are ignorant. There are those who know the difference between science and non-science (nonsense) and who try to protect the populace from getting scammed and injured. The pseudoscientists who support the nonsense are doing a great disservice. They aren't on the "cutting edge", but rather the wrong edge. An ordinary search is interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

do you thinkt hat information about this would go bees here on Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy or on Homeopathy or anoyther related aritlce o perhaps pseudoscience or [[pseudociensce?" User:Smith Jones 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Which information? The level of your indents doesn't make it clear, so I can't figure out what you are replying to. India already has a subsection in Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Loeny021, 18 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Loeny021 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to justify such a request. The mere addition of a POV tag can be seen as disruptive when no discussion has taken place on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several discussions have taken place on the matter (see the archives), and each time the consensus has been that this tag is not appropriate. There have been no significant changes to the approach of the article since this was last discussed, as far as I'm aware, so IMO there isn't really any reason to reopen this. Brunton (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

References

In the lead there is a mention of individual studies with positive results. This is however unreferenced. Is this claim supported and there actually are such studies? If there are they are clearly not obvious so I believe this should be referenced. --Smalcat (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See references 15-19. Brunton (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, there is quite a new article in "Rheumatology" (peer reviewed, OKish impact factor) that seems to be not present in the article, but may be of some use for you. This paper is quite curious, because the authors basically compared "homeopathic complex remedy vs. placebo" and "homeopathic complex remedy + homeopathic consultation vs placebo + homeopathic consultation" for 82 people suffering from arthrosis. A fifth group received a verum individually prescribed according to hahnemann`s laws. The authors report no differences between placebo and homeopathic remedy in either group, however, they demonstrate a significant difference in the proband`s "well-being" between consultated and nonconsultated groups. The authors are CAM-advocates and the paper is partially funded by CAM institutions. That being said, the paper clearly states that the remedy is of no use at all, while the consultation is (which basically means that communication and attention benefits the ill -> nothing new i guess, but then again the rule of "present something positive" in scientific articles may apply :)). The article can be found here together with a commentary by E. Ernst:

• http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/08/rheumatology.keq234.full
• http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/08/rheumatology.keq265.full

This just in. I am co-working on the german article, and this paper provided a good reference for us. It may be also used to counter the old pro-homeopathic view that individualized homeopathy could not be measured by conventional RCTs. Btw, i would like to congratulate you on the english article, as it is really good. I would love to just translate it to german, but in Germany homeopathy happens to be one of the most controversial topics ever. Whatever, i hope this helps! 82.83.239.107 (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dehydrated Water pills shown in article photo, but not described

This article does not describe what homeopathic pills are, but shows a photograph of them. They are widely sold at health food stores, where they sometimes have an entire shelf allocated to them. Does anyone know how homeopathic pill makers claim they function? (Dehydrated-water memory?)HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo

{{edit semi-protected}}

--BeatriceX (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Reasons: Many users dispute the neutrality of this article since it uses selectively studies to discredit homeopathy. Look at your archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Also http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/5/577.abstract

"Conclusions. This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50 000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia."--BeatriceX (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The article does not selectively use studies. It uses the results of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the research that has been carried out, and therefore reflects the results of the research on homoeopathy overall. On the other hand, cherry-picking this seven year old single trial would amount to selectively using studies. Brunton (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Many users say that it cherry picks the reviews which show negative without mentioning mainstream scientists who see in the reviews evidence that homeopathy has an effect over placebo. That's why they have asked for the appropriate tag. --BeatriceX (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If these "mainstream scientists" have published peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses, that have concluded that homoeopathy works, then these can be cited. If their support for homoeopathy is limited to single trials and letters to the editor which begin: "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", then this is not going to outweigh the peer-reviewed papers the article uses as sources. For the article to be cherry-picking "reviews which show negative", there would need to be some positive reviews that it is ignoring, and there don't currently seem to be any. Brunton (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between "mainstream science" and "science"?HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that several researchers have questioned the validity and the reviews which are mentioned in the article shows that there is another point of view on the available data which is suppressed. We don't see these opinions anywhere. - I think the request for a tag is about that aspect.--BeatriceX (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Have they published any peer-reviewed work (and in particular reviews rather than single trials) that has concluded the it works better then placebo? Please cite some sources. Brunton (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive Deletion of Work

This[2] is NOT a major edit. Each SMALL change was made step by step, with a detailed edit summary at each small step, without objection from editors for 2 ½ days. All that was done was to simplify the opening to include only ordinary English, and any details were moved to appropriate sections. ALL of the content of the article as I found it two days ago was preserved, almost WORD FOR WORD, as can be seen here[3]. Even the technical and overly detailed sentences in the opening section were preserved, but were moved to the appropriate detailed article section. I further simplified the opening in the edit I am about to make. Please review how the material was simply moved into appropriate sections. Please do not make massive changes, per the semi-protect at the top, but only make them step by step with detailed edit summaries.HkFnsNGA (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sure you're only trying to improve the article, and some of your changes may well be advantageous. But I have to agree that you did make some pretty large scale changes, and they did change the overall tone of the article - for example, a few bits looked like excessive "dumbing down" to me. Now that your changes have been challenged and reverted, you need to discuss them here and gain a consensus to re-do them. If you have a look at WP:BRD, the B and R have been done, and you must now do the D - you must not edit war to reinstate your changes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: Splitting a large change into lots of small individual edits doesn't alter the fact that it's a large change overall. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It only appears to be a large change here[4], but this is only due to a quirk in Wikipedia, since all of the material was preserved, and none deleted, out of respect to whoever wrote it. I only added an ordinary English introduction that can be easily read by a pre-college student, leaving the detailed stuff I found, with technical terms, to be moved to the introductions of the sections.

A major restructuring is still a large change, even if the old contents are retained and rearranged. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the "dumbing down", so that the kind of person who might be considering buying these "deydrated water" pills can read it, without any education, and with a one paragraph attention span, which is what I had, so when I first came to the article and tried to read it, I could not. You are not correct about a major restructuring. I simply moved, en mass, the introduction paragraphs to become section introductions.

Again, as already said, that is not the purpose of the lead. And I guess we'll have to disagree about whether your restructuring is "major" - but you'll still need to get a consensus if you want to do it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, with reverting you Brunton made clear he disagrees, so it's time to discuss before changing back anything. If it helps I was also unhappy about the way you changed the lede, but didn't have time to look at your other changes in detail and I probably would have reverted in the next days, so it's at least two editors who objected. Six words (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

He might not have noticed that when you compare the changes here[5], there appear to be large deleted sections in red, but this is only because of a tag, and what should be section introductions were moved, word for word, into the relevant sections. No material was deleted, and only minimal things were added.~~

Or he might have noticed and thought that it wasn't improving the article. There are “relevant sections” for those sentences because what you moved were the summaries of those sections. The lede should give an overview of the article so that if you read it you know “basics”. If readers want to know more about it, they can then go on reading the article, but we don't use the lede to “tease” them, nor do we write it to put them off reading the article. Six words (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you seriously not see the difference in balance and tone between this and this? The lead in particular has been the subject of discussion here (see the archive ad nauseam) with almost every word of it being the result of extensive discussion. Please discuss changes, and allow time for response. Brunton (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Brunton, RE "Do you seriously not see the difference in balance and tone between this and this?", there is no difference, since ALL of the words in the minuteae in the former are included, WORD FOR WORD, as can be seen here[6] (Even the parts in red are word for word the same from left to right, but only reorganized into proper sections.) The only differnce is that the former has the more detailed, technical, introductory remarks in the first sentences, while the later moved these detaled summaries to be introductions to the relevant sections. And the latter has a general article summary in a few, short, ordniary English sentences that can be read by an elementary school student, and is likely all a general reader wants to know about homeopathy. How can this be called a MAJOR change when ALL of the words were simply moved into relevant sections as section summaries?HkFnsNGA (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You rewrote the lead, significantly changing its tone and emphasizing certain specific points rather than presenting a summary of the overall article - your lead effectively presented a one-sided emphasis that homeopathy is bunk, and even if that's true, it's not the way the lead should be written. And significantly restructuring an article IS a major change, even if you keep all the words but change their arrangement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change the arrangement, except that I moved the detailed introductory paragraphs to become section introductions. I like your summary that you just wrote, "homeopathy is bunk", which is the summary I would use when talking to educated friends with whom I have authority. But it is a particular kind of bunk, "Homeopathy is mixing a substance that causes of symptoms of a malady into water, diluting repeatedly until there is only water left, then claiming the water has a memory and helps the ailment that the substance causes symptoms of, which has no effect as claimed, and contradicts the most basic principle of chemistry. Homeopathic pills are sugar pills and DEHYDRATED WATER." Any more detail can be left to the sections, if the reader still cares. Anyone who would buy this stuff is likely the kind of person who needs a dumbed down version that is only about a paragraph (which is about my own attention span).HkFnsNGA (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what homeopathy is - this is not the place to discuss homeopathy itself. The point is that whatever one's opinion, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be balanced, and not aimed at being condescending towards "the kind of person who needs a dumbed down version". You should not rewrite article leads to emphasize your personal view. And as Brunton pointed out, the lead has taken a lot of time and work to develop, with much discussion regarding its minutiae - you cannot unilaterally rewrite it without first gaining consensus, and I honestly don't think you're going to get that consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: As for "I didn't change the arrangement, except that I moved the detailed introductory paragraphs to become section introductions" - that IS changing the arrangement. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By moving sentences you did change the arrangement, and if you want to write a dumbed down version you could start a and for those in need of a less technical explanation of what homeopathy is, there is a “Simple English” article. WP:LEDE says the lede should be able to stand alone - the one you created isn't. Six words (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for referal to WP:Lede. See next section below.HkFnsNGA (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for addition to the article

After reading Six words’s comment above about WP:Lede, I propose adding the following to the beginning of the article.

"Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a practice of treating some maladies with a preparation of pure water that is claimed to have a “memory”. Homeopathic pills are sugar pills upon which the water has been dropped, then evaporated from. The water is obtained by taking a substance that causes symptoms of some malady, crushing the substance, then mixing the substance into the water with ten parts water to one part substance. The mixture is then repeatedly diluted at a rate of ten to one until no molecules of the substance remain, and the resulting preparation is called a “remedy”. Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, before the theory of the molecule in Chemistry, which proved that no molecules of the original substance would remain in the “remedy”. Water does not have any structure, so it can not have a “memory”, according to the laws of physics. Homeopathy has no effectiveness in treating any maladies. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience, and is considered an alternative medicine."

The original opening paragraph would become the second. It is mostly about additional technical details of the theory, and summarizes the early sections of the article.

The reason is that it stands alone (per WP:lede, thanks Six words, contains all of the essential information in the article in a very short paragraph, and has no technical terms. Especially because it has no technical terms from this pseudoscience, like “ipse dixit axiom”, “succussion”, “potentization”, “repertories”, and “remedy”, that are completely useless in that they have nothing in reality that they correspond to. It also does not have information about the opinions of additional “authorities”, who might have wasted their time investigating whether chemistry might be false and homeopathy be true.HkFnsNGA (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this proposed lede is very much over-simplified. Homeopathic preparations aren't always water-based, nor are they always diluted 1:10, nor do they always contain zero molecules of “active” ingredient, ... The technical terms are important precisely because they're unique to homeopathy (and btw: ipse dixit isn't one of them). As a replacement of the current lede it's not suitable because it's so imprecise, and as an addition it's superfluous. I already mentioned the Simple English article which is the place for “plain English” explanations (please note that I'm not suggesting you put this paragraph in there but giving a reason why there's no need for simplification here). Six words (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not superflous since the words "molecule and chemistry", essential to understanding what homeopathy really is, is not in it, nor its utter lack of efficacy, nor that liquid water has no structure by which to have a "memory". I did not suggest eliminating the technical words used in making a homeopathic remedy, only that there is no reason to put them in the lede, other than "remedy", which is the final product, and a description of what it is and why. There is no reason to use technical words when it is unnecessary. Saying that there is not always zero molecules is like saying that a coin does not always come up either heads or tails, but may land on its side, which is much more likely to repeatedly happen than to chance upon a molecule in a "remedy". No mention is made of one of the top selling homeopathic products, homeopathic pilss, which nothing more than sugar pills. Homeopathic remedies are supposed to always be water, since the way the scam law (and its amendment) were passed, by which they were exempted, was based on their only containing water, but the word "liquid" could be substituted. HkFnsNGA (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The word molecule is already in the lede (though I'm not agreeing that it needs to be there), so is the lack of effectiveness. You're still incorrect in assuming that homeopathy is “always water” as there can be active ingredient(s) (think of low potencies) as well as other solvents (e.g. ethanol) in it, and I'd really like to see the source for the crushing a substance and mixing it with water bit. I don't say that this isn't what some homeopaths do, just that it isn't standard procedure. This article - including the lede - needs to be as precise as possible, and its wording needs to be neutral, both of which I don't see in your proposed paragraph. As it doesn't add new information, I oppose its inclusion. Six words (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not actually true that all homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredient - many indeed don't contain anything, but some actually do. The key characteristic of homeopathic remedies (to the best of my knowledge) is not super-massive X24 (or whatever) dilution, but the use of an ingredient that in high concentrations causes similar symptoms, but which is claimed to have the opposite effect and cure the symptom when highly diluted. Basically, this proposed addition dumbs things down to the point of inaccuracy and non-neutrality -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes that is claimed, but what Hahnemann actually said was that it would produce the same symptoms in the healthy that it would cure in the ill (hence the need for homeopathic “provings”).Six words (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a more accurate summation of the core idea of homeopathy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Oppose. Proposed addition is clearly too POV, is imprecise, and appears to be aimed at opening the article with an attempt to debunk homeopathy rather than to present a balanced summary. The oversimplification leads it to error (eg "Water does not have any structure" is incorrect - whole books have been written on the structure of water). The scientific rebuttals of homeopathy are sufficiently well covered by the current lead. Also, the technical words used in the current lead are not used standalone, their meaning is explained, eg "which homeopaths term succussion", and so in context they have meaning. If you genuinely only have a one-paragraph span of attention yourself and you need a dumbed-down explanation, you have been directed to the Simple English Wikipedia - please stop trying to force it on the rest of us. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Homeopathy has no effectiveness in treating any maladies" is a POV judgment/analysis/conclusion, which a Wikipedia article should not do (even if correct). It should present the opposing views in a balanced way with sources (as the article currently does) without drawing a conclusion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Homeopathy has no effectiveness in treating any maladies" is not POV, it is a fact from the article body. Every suggestion I have made is directly from the article body, except about the "dehydrated water" pills. I did not suggest eliminating the opening paragraph, only to move it to the second paragraph. The opening paragraph does not even mention the word "molecule" or "chemistry". Nor are these words in any of the lede paragraphs. Yet homeopathy is false precisely because of basic chemistry and physics. The article lede leaves one with the impression that homeopathy is not false on the face of it? HkFnsNGA (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence", which the current lead already includes with 5 references to support it, is worded appropriately as fact. The wording of "Homeopathy has no effectiveness in treating any maladies" is clearly POV, and it is, in fact, also false - homeopathy has placebo effectiveness, which genuinely exists. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, homeopathy is wrong because the scientific evidence indicates it works no better than placebo. Scientists don't expect it to because our current understanding of chemistry, biology and physics tells us that it shouldn't, but they also know that they're thinking in models that are only approximations of the real world, so “our science tells us it can't work” wouldn't be enough to dismiss it if it could be proven to work. Six words (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Proposed addition is not NPOV; it is effectively redundant as most of what it says is already included in the lead, which is quite long enough without the addition of this material; and it is also oversimplified to the point that it includes a number of inaccurate statements. Brunton (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathic pills

One of HkFnsNGA's additions deserves reinstatement, since it includes information that is not at present made explicit in the article:

"Homeopathic Pills

"Homeopathic pills are made by taking pills with no medical effect (e.g., lactose pills), then putting a drop of the water obtained after the dilution process above, which is then evaporated from the pill. The original pills, together with the "dehydrated water", are then sold as having the powers of the liquid "remedy", and are also called "remedies"."

It could do with a bit of tidying up (I'm not keen on the expression "dehydrated water" for a start, and I think it would be more NPOV to just say that it uses sugar pills rather than "pills with no medical effect (e.g., lactose pills)") and could use some slightly more precise sourcing (the source used is good, but for example doesn't mention the water being allowed to evaporate from the pill). It would also be good to introduce something about Hahnemann's reasons for using sugar pills - I have read somewhere that he was worried that if liquid remedies were carried in a pocket, or transported by cart on rough roads, the resulting shaking might make the remedy too strong, but that dropping the remedy onto sugar pills would somehow "fix" the potency. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it and cannot currently find a RS for it. Brunton (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

With the right source and wording, I'd definitely support including the preparation of homeopathic pills. I haven't found anything on the “why” yet, but I vaguely remember reading something in the “Organon” about those pills making it possible to reach a higher potency faster since they contain less than a drop of liquid remedy (however, I'm not 100% sure about that). --Six words (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me; keep it short and sweet and it would be a fine addition to the lede. bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I included a reliable source on pills, being suger with "remedy" put on and then evaporated, but it was deleted, when each of my edits, detailed with extensive edit summaries. were deleted as a whole. Also, per talk page header, characterizing homeopathy in a negative way, has been determined to be NOT POV. That said, why not replace "dehydrated water" with "water (or alchohol), with the water (or alchohol) removed". Any other wording would simply obfuscate facts from anyone reading the article, and thus be POV.HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Brunton, an RS on the sugar pills (lactose pills) is here[7].

Because it's a nonsensical statement. We can just say what they do: drip the “remedy” onto some sugar pills and let the water evaporate. What is left is dry sugar pills plus some imaginary “memory” or “energy”, not sugar pills with “dehydrated water”, or sugar pills “with water/solvent, with the water/solvent removed”. --Six words (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA, your agenda here is becoming quite clear - to debunk homeopathy as blatantly as you can. That is not the purpose of this article, nor of Wikipedia as a whole. We should be writing the article in a balanced and factual manner, stating supported facts as neutrally as possible and letting them speak for themselves - there is no need at all for loaded pointy phrases like "dehydrated water" or "water with the water removed". Also, I don't know why you rewrote the lead and rearranged the article again a few hours ago and then immediately reverted yourself, but please don't do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Boing, sorry about my edit and revert. I was grabbing my original edit from the article history to modify it, per your own (and other editor's) correct "accuracy" and "dumbing down" criticisms of my original edit, then accidentally saved it. I immediately reverted the accidental save. Sorry.HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the humorous “dehydrated water” expression is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, short and accurate as it may be. Another humorous expression (that I did not put in) is that “evaporated alcohol” is truly “denatured”.HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My “agenda” is to get consensus with you and other editors to accurately shorten the VERY long lede. The article body debunks homeopathy, not my proposed lede summary of the article body.HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained a number of times, the job of the lead is to summarize the whole article, not to focus on one aspect - that of debunking homeopathy. And you are not going to get any consensus from me for the direction you're trying to take this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the source you used, and that I linked to above but, as I said, while it's a good source it doesn't quite support the statement. It says that the pills are "lactose pills on which a single drop of infinitely dilute solution has been placed" but, for example, nothing about the water being allowed to evaporate. Brunton (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wasn't proposing adding this to the lead (I think that would be going into too much detail in a lead that is already long), but putting it back where HkFnsNGA placed it, at the end of the "Homeopathic remedies" section. Brunton (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth including something about the prevalence of the use of remedies in pill form, if we can find a source. All the remedies I've seen on sale in pharmacies in the UK have been in pill form, although it may be different in other countries, and it may be that homoeopaths themselves use liquid remedies more. Hahnemann himself wrote about using "globules" (i.e. pills) for provings in the Organon (see aphorism 128, 5th edition). Brunton (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I would support adding something about homeopathic pills - there do seem to be a lot of them on the shelves of some UK pharmacies. And yes, in the appropriate section - it's really not needed in the lead. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathic pills are the ONLY things available at my various local American chain supermarkets, too. Suggest putting sentence stating prevalence in UK and US, with appropriately used “citation needed” tag.HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I put in the pills section, according to above editors comments, with no mention in the lede (there should be, as I have never even seen a liquid "remedy" bottle, but the pills are commonly sold everywhere I look locally), with an RS cite for the first sentence, and a "citation needed" tag on the unsupported, but true by common sense, sentence.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've modified it slightly, because I'm pretty sure homeopathic pills aren't always sugar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your modification. But the pill takers had better hope the pills are "inert", since the US Senator Copeland, the principal author and sponsor of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, was a homeopathist with a conflict of interest in keeping the ingredients of homeopathic "remedies" secret, by classifying them as patented "drugs", unlike any other ingested non-drug which has to list the ingredients. Homeopathic "remedies" were also exempted from needing to be tested. One FDA official formally commented on this exemption during the process amending the act, by stating that the "remedies contain only water", and so are harmless. This simple historical fact, which makes homeopathic medicine "true by federal decree", is not very clear or easy to find in the article body, as it is VERY long.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How to allign the pills photos?

I don't know how to properly allign the pills photo to preserve section body appearance. Can someone help with this? Perhaps it can be done by shrinking the "remedy" photo to the same horizontal dimension of the pills photo.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sentences in lede can be summarized with a single sentence.

The existing lede is VERY lengthy, and unnedcessarily so. Many of its sentences can be accurately summarized in a SINGLE lede sentence,

“The collective weight of scientific and medical evidence shows that there is no effect of homeopathic practice beyond a placebo, and that homeopathic theory contradics basic accepted principles of chemistry and physics”

.:This proposed lede sentence is clearly supported in the article body, with multiple RS citations that contain almost this exact wording.

I propose replacing the lengthy mass of corresponding lede sentences in the existing secondary lede paragraphs, with this simple single sentence, which summarizes the some of the existing lede paragraphs with minimal loss of content, and then to move the corresponding lengthy secondary lede paragraphs, word for word, to become lede paragraphs of the corresponding article sections. Perhaps someone can make my proposed lede sentence even shorter.HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per discussions above, and because the proposed single sentence doesn't even say what homeopathy is! Repeating yourself over and over again isn't going to gain you any consensus - don't you think it's time you let this crusade drop? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Boing, I must have mis-stated my proposal. I am not suggesting putting this at the beginning of the lede, but as a replacement for some, not all, corresponding later lede paragraphs. The bread and butter of pseudocscience is excessive verbiage describing elaborate and confusing ritual practice. Excessive verbiage is thus in itself POV. Other editors on this talk page have repeatedly commented on how long the lede and article is, but no one has positively responded with a proposed shortening. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm opposing, because, along with most people, I do not share your inability to follow and understand the current lead, because the thing about experimental evidence being lacking is already covered in a neutrally worded way, and because the article is not intended to contest the "bread and butter of pseudoscience". If the lead is to be reworked, it needs to be done a lot better than your biased attempts to turn it into an anti-homeopathy statement. I really do think that you need to drop this - can you really not see you are extremely unlikely to gain the consensus you need here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive verbiage is the bread and butter of pseudoscience, and should be avoided, when possible, on Wikipedia.HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

no its not. but the use of extensive and wel-written sentences is the breadandbutter of WP:MOS and of Wikipedia. your proposed lede would be vague, deliberatley disrespectful, and inaccurate summary of the rest of the article. we should be as clear and direct as possible, withut using the lede to POV-push or obscure the intent of th sources that we are citing or the content of the article we are trucking about. User:Smith Jones 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicely worded reparte, User:Smith Jones. Thanks for the reference to [WP:MOS], which I am reading. Pseudosciences, like "magic", survive by distraction. A pseudoscience distracts with extensive and convoluted rituals, using extensive jargon (See homeopathy article lede first paragraph, and these are just a few of the "terms of art"), borrowing and abusing scientific terms (e.g., "remedy"), shifiting meanings or claims in reaction to debunking (e.g., water has memory), piling scientific methodology on top of rubish foundations (e.g., bombarding "remedies" with x-rays, then using extensive scientific methodology to analyse the results), and hiding the location of the rubish in a mass of verbiage (just look at how long the article is so far, for such a simply refusted pseudoscience). The resulting mass of words needed to describe all this is so extensive that many are overwhelmed or accept it. When a rebuttal has to use a similar mass of words to respond to the mountain of assertions, the amount of words needed obfuscates things (e.g., in homeopathy, as in acupuncture, the claims of thins to treat is so extensive that it is impossible to test them all in a study).HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I tried to explain above the argument “it contradicts physics/chemistry” is not a good one. --Six words (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Six words, I got “contradicts chemistry and physics” from the article, which quotes the lead sentence of the National Institutes of Health conclusions, “a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics)", and the lead sentence of the American Journal of Medicine conclusion, also quoted in the article body, “If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect”. Maybe you meant to tell me that “Not consistent with” is better than “contradicts”. I still think the lede can be made more concise and more readable at the same time, despite my previous inadequate attempts to do so. Incidentally, do you object to my using your exact words on the talk page as to how the pills work, with a citation needed tag?HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has many repetitions

The article frequently repeats things, in only slightly differnt ways.HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did ancient Greeks first propose Homeopathy, UC Berkeley course says "yes"

This[8] states that homeopathy was first proposed by ancient Greeks, then made widely known by Hahnemann. Another editor said the University of California Berkeley .edu site is not RS. Is the assertion made there true?HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i think government publications are generaly not considered realiable sources here, for obvious reasons. User:Smith Jones 22:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Having had a brief look through it, as course notes it does seem to contain personal judgment, like "It is not hard to see why so many people...". The bit about the Greeks just says "Although homeopathy had been originally discovered by the ancient Greeks..." in passing, and I think we'd really need something a bit better than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with [User:Boing! said Zebedee] (where did "Boing! said Zebedee" come from?) and [User:Smith Jones]], and it was my mistake to put this in without checking the source more, but is the source being what it is lends credibility to the assertion, so the question is, is the assertion true?HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(See The Magic Roundabout -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

The Magic Roundabout has a concise lede. "Boing".HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are about 400,000 results googling "'ancient greek" AND homeopathy", most of the first say it first practiced in ancient greece. But most of the first ones are homeopathy sites, not RS on historical information.HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

the ancient Greeks were very primitive as far as medicine and science goes. the likelkhood that they discovered any advanced technology that was mystierously lost until Hanhmemans time is extremely implausibl. i wouldbe leery about linking to this alleged claim before any good substantiation. that website might be on the Berkely webpage but Berkeley is hardly a reliable source and the article looks like some schoolboys essay on homeopathy that was misfiled and put on the actual site rather than an official publication by the univeristy anyway. User:Smith Jones 05:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call homeopathy "advanced technology" ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor who reverted and I stand by my statement that this isn't a reliable source. It seems to be part of a freshman seminar titled “Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes” and could be either the notes to a lesson dealing with homeopathy or some course work by a student (I don't know). The lecturer is Prof. Don Olander, so it's not by him, and it isn't published in a book or a journal, making it a self-published source. We could use it if the author was an expert in the field and it was attributed to him (A. Wysong says that...), but he doesn't seem to be an expert (at least I couldn't find any publications by him). Google hits are no substitute for a reliable source. --Six words (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. While many homoeopaths make this claim, as an appeal to authority or to antiquity, no good sources have been found to back up the use of homoeopathy by the ancient Greeks, and the suggestion that Hippocrates described the principle of homoeopathy seems to be based on a particular, and probably wrong, interpretation of some of his writings. See links to (and from) archived material. Brunton (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Introducing statements that lack sourcing

The citation needed tag isn't a carte blanche allowing you to introduce statements that need verfication without having to search for them yourself - if you know that a source is needed you have to find one before you introduce the statement. These new statements need to be sourced in the next days, or I'll remove them. --Six words (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

High Dilutions and Darwin's experiments

Is this more appropriate here? There is no article about high dilutions. The quote is used in Ullman's article on Darwin.

The reader will best realize this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask [barrel]; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often the blade of the leaf. ... My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. ... The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. ... In fact every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves (p. 170) Darwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect_fm.htm.

--BeatriceX (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate here? Do you have an article, outside of another homeopathy promoter such as yourself, that shows this is significant and should be in this article? --Kleopatra (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point I would kindly ask you to behave yourself and try to give less emotional answers. The above is from Darwin 's bookDarwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co'. --BeatriceX (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you consider a request for a source to be "misbehaving" and "emotional" you're going to have problems adding anything to wikipedia. All material must be sourced. If you don't have sources, please don't continue promoting your theory on article talk pages. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, promoting a theory without sources cannot be added to an article, therefore, without sources, your theory is not about the article and does not belong on this talk page. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You did not request for a source. You asked me to leave and you called me a "homeopathy promoter". I gave long time ago 2 sources:Darwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co. and Ullman's article ( it is published in a reliable source ). But without Ullman's article Darwin's own words must suffice to any good faith reader.And you still pretend you don't see it? --BeatriceX (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, as to the nature of this article you want included in wikipedia. It's not a research article. It's a commentary. And this is what the journal says about comments:

Hypotheses, Conjectures, Comments: Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, but authors are requested to thoroughly discuss existing data related to the hypothesis and also to propose a methodology (experimental, epidemiological or statistical) as to how the hypothesis can be tested.

It's Ullman's speculation. That's enough of your promoting it on wikipedia without providing another source that shows its significance, when the journal published it in the "can be purely speculative" pages. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

:Is this taken from a reliable source which is Darwin own book ?or not ? :

the reader will best realize this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask [barrel]; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often the blade of the leaf. ... My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. ... The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. ... In fact every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves (p. 170) Darwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect_fm.htm. --BeatriceX (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The thing is that except for Ullman, nobody ties this to homeopathy, so if you're not suggesting to use his commentary, there's no connection to this article. Homeopaths usually point out that their remedies aren't dilutions but have to be “potentized” (Darwin didn't do that), so Darwin's own words won't suffice. Also, a dilution of 10^-6 (starting from the pure substance) isn't that dilute - in radical polimerisation for example, the amount of initiator used can easily be in that range. Six words (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

For the 10th time I do not suggest any link to Homeopathy but to high dilutions. Is there any article for high dilutions? I would take it also there. But there is not. --BeatriceX (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) I suggest you take a look at the article's name: it's “Homeopathy”. So is this relevant to homeopathy? If it isn't, the homeopathy talk page isn't the place to discuss it.Six words (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, Six words. Therefore, BeatriceX, please stop posting this on homeopathy articles. Consider this a level-2 WP:Disruptive editing warning. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)--Kleopatra (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find an article on high dilutions. High dilutions are mentioned in Homeopathy only. Do you have any other suggestions as to where it could be appropriate?--BeatriceX (talk)

No, I have no suggestions on what other article talk pages you can use in an attempt to promote your speculation. Encyclopedias are not the places for promoting your speculations. Please stop. Thank you. --Kleopatra (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thirty minims is approximately 1/16 of an ounce of exactly 1/16 of a fluid ounce, that means the concentration is 1/80,000 or 1.25*(10^-5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Darwin's own book" says nothing whatsoever that could justify a claim that this research has anything to do with homoeopathy. There is no mention of homoeopathy or of any homoeopathic principle, there is nothing to suggest that the solutions used were prepared by serial dilution with succussion, and the experiments established that the effect decreased with decreasing concentration, reaching a point at which no effect was observed, thus contradicting the so-called "law of infinitesimals". Incidentally BeatriceX's link to Darwin's book doesn't work for me. The book can be found here on the Darwin Online website; see Chapter 7 (pp. 136-173) describes the experiments in question.

And as for "high dilutions", the dilutions used by Darwin were not particularly high, even in non-homoeopathic terms - the solutions used will still have contained detectable amounts of the solute. See Darwin's comment, in the footnote on page 170 of the book, that "the spectroscope has altogether beaten Drosera". We're not talking about the preparations commonly used by homoeopaths that have none of the starting material present. Brunton (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very interested in finding out just exactly what BeatriceX proposes the article should be edited to? Shot info (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. That shows curiosity and good manners. You have been improved the last 10 minutes. Glad you were not influenced by the bad examples which appeared in this talk page. Honestly I don't know what exactly must be said. As I said before I was looking for a high dilutions article and could not find one. I will tell you in while. --BeatriceX (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be patronising BeatriceX, all the editors I see above (and in other articles) have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more editing cred that you do and hence their opinions hold a bit more (ok, a LOT more) water than yours do. This is the third article you have been asked to present your proposed edits. As the Good Book once said "It's time to put up, or shut up".  :-) Shot info (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's accounts of these experiments say nothing to suggest that they had anything to do with homoeopathy. The only observations that appear relevant to homoeopathy are those that contradict the "law of infinitesimals", and to use these would be WP:SYN or WP:OR since the point is not explicitly made in the source. Brunton (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So far I was agonizing to convince some of you to stop deleting my contributions. Give me some time.--BeatriceX (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted at AN/I. BeatriceX needs to read the policies that have been quoted to her. Her now gaming the system with "other stuff exists" and personal attacks on editors she disagrees with is just more that doesn't belong on wikipedia or on article talk pages. It's time to take this discussion elsewhere. About User:BeatriceX at AN/I. --Kleopatra (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)--Kleopatra (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about dilutions of the order of 1 part in 1 million here. In Darwin's day, it would have indeed been surprising that biologically active substances would be effective in such low concentrations, but today it's no big news at all - I regularly put pills containing mere milligrams of drugs into my 100kg body. Those kind of concentrations are really nothing to with homeopathy, and so this work of Darwin has no relevance to this article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the other major difference between Darwin's experiment and homeopathy is that Darwin discovered that the substance had the same effect when diluted, whereas homeopathy claims it has the opposite effect - that whatever causes the symptoms at high concentrations, cures them at homeopathic dilutions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems beyond obvious that dilutions are a big part of this article. This article assumes that high dilutions are a relevant part of Homeopathy by allowing the examples of dilutive absurdity to be shown even when those examples have nothing to do with the potentizing. If dilution by itself is not relevant then we should remove it completely. However, if we leave it, showing another example of when ultra dilute substances may be relevant in nature and natural processes is absolutely relevant. I think noting that Darwin did not believe in the "counter" principle seems important as well and differentiates the concept from the exact issue of homeopathy. My only real opinion is that for those of you saying that dilution isn't part of homeopathy, fine, I can accept either one but we can't produce extreme example of dilutive nonsense and not put in some other information that may be dilution based as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.247.44 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If a remedy isn't prepared using both ultra-high dilution and potentization, it's not homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned and Blocked editors aren't allowed to edit Wikipedia - no matter how they disguise themselves as IPs... Shot info (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because homeopathy involves dilution, that does not mean that everything that involves dilution is homeopathy. Darwin's work, which only involved dilutions that are in keeping with everyday modern medicine, had nothing to do with homeopathy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"...showing another example of when ultra dilute substances may be relevant in nature and natural processes is absolutely relevant". Darwin's experiments did not use ultradilute solutions. They were at concentrations at which substances could be detected by other means, even in Darwin's day (note his comment that "the spectroscope has altogether beaten Drosera", for example). Additionally, their preparation did not involve serial dilution with succussion (supposedly an essential part of the preparation of homoeopathic dilutions), and his experiments found that the effect became smaller and more difficult to observe with decreasing concentration, and reached a point at which, while still present, the ammonium salts had no effect. Darwin's work had nothing to do with homoeopathy, and the inferences drawn in the article suggested as a source for this are not supported by the evidence. Brunton (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Law of Similars is slightly misstated in the Lede

The Law of Similars is slightly misstated in the Lede.HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? Brunton (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The law of similars (as defined in the article body twice) does not require dilution, but is put in as a part of the "axiom" as defined in the lede. The potentization "axiom" declared by homeopathy is different than the law of similars.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That is correct - the principle is simply that patients suffering from particular symptoms can be cured by giving them a remedy that produces similar symptoms in healthy subjects. In fact Hahnemann originally both "proved" remedies using material doses, and treated his patients using those same doses. He introduced the dilutions when he discovered that his remedies caused (to quote Kayne's Homeopathic pharmacy: theory and practice which is used as a source by the article) "aggravations that amounted, in some cases, to dangerous toxic reactions", and also prescribed "proving" using the diluted remedies (see the Organon, 5th edition, aphorism 128). As the article states in a passage sourced from Kayne's book, "most modern provings are carried out using ultradilute remedies in which it is highly unlikely that any of the original molecules remain." It is the remedy itself that is supposed to mimic the patient's symptoms, not whatever it is prepared from. I've previously changed the lead to reflect this but it has since been changed back. Brunton (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it again - it took about three months to be changed last time, so I'll see how long it sticks this time. Brunton (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see it's confusing, partially because Kayne's statement is taken at face value, even though it seems to contradict everything we've learned from everywhere else about the difference between provings and remedies. I find it to be problematic that we use him exclusively..... because if he's right, then there is no difference between the preparation used in the proving and the finished remedy, yet they are supposed to work differently, which is nonsensical, since neither one of them should "work" at all. The proving is supposed to cause artificial symptoms in a healthy individual (and we know that a highly diluted mixture isn't going to cause any symptoms of a significant disease, neither real or artificial symptoms) and the remedy is supposed to remove the real symptoms in a sick individual. (Yes, I know, don't expect to find any real logic in this because we're talking about homeopathy, but there is supposed to be a form of internal consistency to homeopathetic logic, even if it bears little resemblance to real logic as used in the outside world. In fact it makes my head spin and I'm no longer sure if I got that right or if I'm even alive....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The remedy isn't supposed to directly remove the symptoms in a patient (see all the claims from homoeopaths that "homeopathy heals" while real medicine "only treats the symptoms", or "masks symptoms", or the statement in the article - under "Ethical and safety issues" - about "suppression"). In homoeopathic thinking, removing symptoms is a bad thing as they are seen as part of the healing process. The explanations vary, but it is supposed to stimulate the body to heal by intensifying the symptoms, or displace the actual disease by causing artificial symptoms which then subside. Or something. See also the concept of "aggravation", or the "healing crisis", a concept from the 18th century medicasl paradigm under which Hahnemann was trained. The remedy is not supposed to produce, in patients, the opposite effect to that observed in "provings". There are other statements from homoeopaths along these lines, but they tend to be on self-published websites; Kayne is used because it is a RS. And, yes, we know that the ultradilute remedies have no observable clinical effects, but homoeopaths, via the post hoc fallacy and confirmation bias, "know" that they do. Most modern "provings" (at least those of which accounts are posted on the web) seem to follow Hahnamann's prescription and use 30C remedies; I've yet to see an account of a modern proving that used the undiluted substance. Brunton (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tressalud, 5 January 2011

Resolved

{{edit semi-protected}}

• "Learn Homeopathy Now: Education in Homeopathy and Bach Essences", Learn Homeopathy Now - School with Certification Training Programs http://www.learnhomeopathynow.com/ {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Tressalud (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

N Declined - Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Doctrine of signatures

Resolved

I have an issue at this article and wish for input there:

• Talk:Doctrine_of_signatures#Homeopathy_section

Brangifer (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where will it ever end?

I noticed that there is a homeopathy section in the Doctrine of signatures article, but no mention of the doctrine of signatures in the homeopathy article. It seems that a homeopath declared the doctrine of signatures to be part of homeopathy, and in it went. By this reasoning, if a homeopath declares anything to be part of homeopathy (e.g., quantum entanglement, the theory of relativity, and chaos theory, as is stated in the homeopathy article), the article for that thing would get a homeopathy section. This would mean every article at Wikipedia would have a homeopathy section. It would also mean the homeopathy article would be infinitely long. How is it decided which whacko theory gets attached to homeopathy (e.g., water memory), and which does not (e.g., doctirine of signatures)?HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed by simply deleting the section for lack of RS. We can return to the issue if RS turn up that tie the Doctrine of signatures together with the Law of similars. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is remedy consistently italicized?

Resolved

...in this article? What convention, typographical or otherwise, justifies it? --24.6.228.145 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As explained in the article a "remedy" when used as a term in homeopathy is different from the common use of the term. It is therefore italicized to emphasize the difference. Yobol (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, it is being used as a term of art. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would support replacing the italicized remedy with a scare quoted version, "remedy".This is a more conventional way of distinguishing a term of art from an identical word that has a common and ordinary usage. Does anyone object?HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would be fine with that aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Its done.HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy/Regulation and Prevalence

Resolved

{{edit semi-protected}} Section 5 Regulation and Prevalence contains the sentence "The Swiss government, after a 5-year trial, withdrew homeopathy and four other complementary treatments in 2005, stating that they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria.[174]" In 2010 there was a referendum and the Swiss electorate voted to include the right to CAM treatments, including Homeopathy, in the Swiss Constitution. {Cite - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45we18.htm} Please insert "However, in 2010 there was a referendum and the Swiss electorate voted to include the right to CAM treatments, including Homeopathy, in the Swiss Constitution" after "criteria.[174]" Woodcarver2010 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a full citation: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45we18.htm |publisher=Memorandum submitted by the European Committee for Homeopathic Medicine in Europe (HO 18) |title=The use of homeopathic medicine in Europe: Its licensing and regulation |date=November 2009 |accessdate=2011-01-17 }}</ref> Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source for this. They appear to be reinstating homoeopathy, and the four other alternative therapies, for a further six year trial period by the end of which they must have proved "efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability", starting in 2012. Brunton (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The homeopathic manufacturers have got some pretty powerful lobbyists in Europe. It's a big business and nobody wants to touch something that makes so much money. Actually stopping it and burying it would be too final for some to tolerate. To some degree the same problem in England. The NHS won't follow the recommendations/demands of the scientists, and it doesn't help that Prince Charles and the royal family still have their own homeopathic physician, Peter Fisher. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it to include the reinstatement. Brunton (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this section as resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See also section

Resolved

It is preferred that the terms in this section be combined into the article. If they cannot be combined it may indicate that they are to tangential and thus should not be given such prominence per WP:DUE. Per here "a good article might not require a "See also" section at all." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I incorporated the terms "allopathy" and "Electrohomeopathy", with links to their articles, into the article body as suggested by Doc James. I could not find an RS linking homeopathy with Sympathetic magic, nor a mention of homeopathy in the sympathetic magic article, nor a mention of sympathetic magic in the homeopathy article. I deleted the See Also section as suggested by Doc James. HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)