Talk:Homeopathy

To Do List

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care. The fact that they didn't use the "heroic" measures in common use, such as bloodletting, powerful drugs like arsenic, strychnine, mercury, belladonna, etc. meant that more patients survived, since these drugs often caused more deaths. In many cases doing what amounted to nothing, i.e. placebo homeopathic treatment, was better than doing something, i.e. overkill with poisons, thus letting the body's own recuperative powers do the healing, which for many ordinary ailments is just fine.

Edit request from ImmortalGaur, 12 April 2011

'similia similibus curentur' principle given by Samuel Hahnemann is outrightly rejected by the science as per this article. However a similar sort of treatment is used in the preparation of antivenom (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivenom. Consider this and edit the article, appropriately, if you find this argument convincing.

ImmortalGaur (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Venom is only used for production: "The subject animal will undergo an immune response to the venom, producing antibodies against the venom's active molecule which can then be harvested from the animal's blood and used to treat envenomation." Bulwersator (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia shouldn't be a self-reference. There may or may not be a rule about it, but there should be. Furthermore, antivenoms have nothing to do with homeopathy, are not related to homeopathy, and are not based on homeopathy. It is based on the immune response of an animal to an antigen. In this case, a diluted and purified venom, and not diluted until there's nothing there, just diluted enough not to kill the animal, is injected to cause an immune response. This is real science, known for a hundred years at least. You're not even talking apples and oranges. More like apples and air. So, no. This isn't an NPOV issue. It's mistaking real science for pseudoscience based on the word "dilution." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifically - the diluted venom is given to a perfectly healthy animal, not to cure it of anything, but to provoke an immune response. The resulting antibodies are then extracted from the animal's blood, stored and subsequently administered to the human victim as a cure. The victim doesn't get a diluted version of anything, the animal isn't cured of anything and the dilution is vastly less than a homeopathic 'treatment'. The homeopathic approach would be to dilute the venom to the point where no immune response is remotely possible - and then administer it directly to the victim. That's an entirely different process. SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regulation and prevalence, proposed reduction

It seems to me that half of this section shouldn't be dedicated to quotes about the UK government's inquiries into whether or not they should fund homeopathic treatment. I would reduce it to something like, "In February 2010 a UK House of Commons inquiry concluded 'homeopathy is a placebo treatment...Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.' However in July 2010 the newly appointed UK Secretary of State for Health reversed this in a document stating, 'our continued position on the use of homeopathy within the NHS is that the local NHS and clinicians, rather than Whitehall, are best placed to make decisions on what treatment is appropriate for their patients - including complementary or alternative treatments such as homeopathy - and provide accordingly for those treatments.' The document also stated that 'the overriding reason for NHS provision is that homeopathy is available to provide patient choice.'" But alas, I can not edit protected articles. 76.22.66.13 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from - but I'm not inclined to make that change - and here is why: This is an article about Homeopathy - not about health care practices in the UK. The carefully done scientific study in the inquiry came to the unsurprising conclusion that the only effect of homeopathy is as a placebo. That is an important statement about homeopathy which certainly belongs here. The decision of a government minister to allow all kinds of alternative medicine - including homeopathy - to be provided by the NHS speaks only about the state of the healthcare system in the UK - it doesn't say anything whatever about Homeopathy, which is the subject of this article. The Minister didn't say that the study was wrong in its conclusions - he merely disagreed over some issue of patient choice. So - as I said - I'm not going to make the change you ask. If someone else decides to do so, then I'd seriously have to consider reverting it. It's just not relevant here. If you really want to see this information in Wikipedia - then I suggest it belongs in one or more of the various articles about the NHS.

IMHO (and off-topic), the Minister was wrong because conventional medicines aren't allowed to be prescribed by doctors in the UK (or most other countries) unless they perform significantly better than placebo. Homeopathic "medicines" should be subjected to the same scrutiny. Furthermore, if prescribing a placebo is a medically and ethically sound decision - then bottles of water, sugar pills and inert syrups could be provided to patients at a microscopic fraction of the cost of homeopathic products.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

An article about homeopathy should definitely consider the funding, regulation, and administration of homeopathy as in-scope. The NHS spends tax money, ostensibly to deliver better public health. Whether or not it covers homeopathy represents an iteresting debate: do individuals have a right to choose an ineffective therapy at public expense? Do homeopaths have a right to public payment for their service as if it was effective? Similar questions play out in other countries, but the UK example serves as a good case in point. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some interesting variations on those themes in a couple of countries in mainland Europe, but the NHS thing is a bit more accessible to editors here since all the sources are in English. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The decision made by the Minister of Health relates to "alternative medicine" - including herbal medicine and a bunch of other stuff. Homeopathy is mentioned in passing as just one example of that kind of thing. WP:UNDUE would certainly apply here. We're not talking about an endorsement of the efficacy of homeopathy by the UK government - and that is what including this would imply. You're right that it's an interesting debate - but it's a debate about how the UK government and NHS handle issues of patient choice in the realms of alternative medicine. There are better places to discuss that. It's off-topic here. At most, we could include a link to other articles that discuss it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So, we don't want to make the proposed edit because the proposed edit may include non-germane information. But the proposed edit is merely a condensed version of what is already written in the article. As it stands, the section has a lot more extraneous information than the proposal. It literally adds nothing new. Here is a further condensed proposal which reduces the section on the UK to a similar size as other countries' policies mentioned in the section and which does not mention the Minister of Health's decision: "In February 2010 a UK House of Commons inquiry concluded 'homeopathy is a placebo treatment...Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.'"76.22.66.13 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If "it literally adds nothing new," what's the point of the proposed edit? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that over half of this section shouldn't be dedicated to quotes about the UK government's inquiries into whether or not they should fund homeopathic treatment. Why should the other seven countries discussed have one sentence summaries while the UK gets more than half the text? The main article, Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, says less about the UK's policies than this section does. As others have pointed out, much of the information currently in the article is irrelevant. One might say, as SteveBaker indeed has, that the information about the steps of the UK's bureacratic process are undue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.18.153 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Marking edit request answered. Still feel free to discuss. Stickee (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

marginal even for homeopathy

"Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include thunderstorms (prepared from collected rainwater)."

For me it looks like very, very marginal site/method/etc. I deleted mention about this on plwiki, as wp:undue. And I think that I will do it also here. Objections? Bulwersator (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Bulwersator (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken redirect

Materia Medica Pura —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulwersator (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be linked from this article, but I've fixed the redirect so that it goes to the page the Materia Medica Pura article was merged with. Brunton (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bulwersator (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 212.219.236.1, 20 May 2011

this is a highly unbalanced article. 212.219.236.1 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean the fact that homeopathy doesn't work, and is nothing more than water? All of which is verified by reliable sources? If you have suggestions then please list them, but make sure they are supported by highly reliable sources. As a piece of advice, after many years, no one has found a reliable source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious sourcing problem

"and then vigorously shaken by ten hard strikes against an elastic body in a process called succussion" is not sourced (ref 54 is not covering this) Bulwersator (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref found Bulwersator (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy and medical ethics - David Shaw

An interesting article from a MEDRS with some good content we can use:

Shaw, David. "Homeopathy and medical ethics". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, Volume 16, Issue 1, pages 17–21, March 2011. Article first published online: 4 NOV 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2010.01051.x Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Conclusion

"Homeopathic practice does not seem compatible with any of the four principles of modern medical ethics, as the hayfever example and the case of Mr Woods and Ms Foster have shown. Homeopathy involves deceiving patients in order to achieve dubious benefit, which could potentially delay access to conventional treatment, contribute to attendant harm, and unfairly waste resources. It has been argued that homeopathy must be provided in order to respect patient autonomy, in the atypical sense that patients ought to be able to choose whichever treatment they want. However, if there is no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy, we should not deprive conventional medicine of funding to satisfy the whims of those who happen to have a particular belief. In other words, respecting patient autonomy does not mean giving patients whatever they want, even if it harms them, but rather offering them treatments that science has shown to work. Homeopathy is an unethical anomaly that has no place in the era of evidence-based medicine." (Emphasis added - BR)

Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FACT... Virtual Issue: Homeopathy

Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies (FACT) has published a virtual issue focusing on homeopathy. There are a number of articles we could use as MEDRS references here:

• Does homoeopathy work? Part I: A review of studies on patient and practitioner reports

Priya Chanda BSc Hons, Adrian Furnham DPhil DSc DLitt

• Does homoeopathy work? Part II: A review of recent scientific papers

Adrian Furnham DPhil DSc DLitt, Priya Chanda BSc Hons

• Applying the simplicity principle to homeopathy: what remains?

Scott Sehon PhD, Donald Stanley MD

• Homeopathy and medical ethics

David Shaw

• Homoeopathy: relic of the past or medicine of the future? (Marking Samuel Hahnemann's 250th anniversary)

David Colquhoun FRS, Martien Brands MD, PhD

• Systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy A focused appraisal

Robert T Mathie PhD

• Why pharmacists should not sell homeopathic products

W Steven Pray

• The History of American Homeopathy, the Academic Years, 1820-1935

W Jonas

Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

First blush, they look good, but are they peer-reviewed? Virtual journals rarely are (or at best, have a biased editorial methodology). If we're going to hold the CAMMIES to high quality sources, then let's make sure that these are. They seem a lot like editorials. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

But let me say...good find. I'm bookmarking these for my anti-pseudomedicine blog. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a special issue. It's not normally a "virtual" journal. The content is being made available for free this time. I guess Edzard Ernst (editor) thought it important enough to do it. The articles should each be evaluated and used on their own basis. Some will no doubt be usable as the opinions of skeptics or of believers. There are both kinds. Jonas is a believer. Others are skeptics. Since this is about homeopathy, we're not dealing with evidence based medicine, but a fringe subject, so special rules apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All the articles have previously been published in the journal over the last five or six years - they have the original references. Brunton (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin reversions

Orangemarlin: I am new to this page, and I spent about 40 minutes making a number of careful, considered, edits. In general, they reflected the fact that homeopathy is a belief system, and no matter how many people may or may not believe in it, beliefs should always be distinguished from facts. This is also true for much of science, ranging from the infinite to the infinitessimal.

I would have expected any subsequent editor to have approached these matters on an individual basis. Evidently, you are of the view that homeopathy is proven, factual science, and you plan to suppress neutral writing. The edits I made were all from the neutral standpoint that the various concepts of homeopathy are those of its adherents. What I have done has a purely neutral POV. If you can show instances where that is not the case, please go ahead.

I have reverted your intervention, and I now ask you to deal with these matters in an individual, responsible way. Simply to reverse wholesale all edits by others is not, by my understanding of wikipedia practise, reasonable.

You are not "in charge" of this page, I ask you to show respect for other editor's time and initiatives. Bluehotel (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your edits (I'm going to do this as soon as I've made this comment), but your impression of Orangemarlin is dead wrong I think. As for calling homeopathy a belief system - while I personally agree, reliable sources call it an alternative “system of medicine”. Our article needs to reflect what the sources say, not what the editors writing it think about the subject. --Six words (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is really interesting that you would accuse Organgemarlin of believing that homeopathy is "proven, factual science." If you look at this talk page and his edit history you will find the opposite to be true. While I appreciate your effort, the some of what you added appears to needless hedging of statements. I will give a few examples, but pretty much everything you changes falls into this category.

• "known to those who believe in it as the "law of similars...""These laws around which homeopathy is based have the same names whether you believe in them or not.
• "some individual studies have produced apparently positive results..." No need to say "apparently", either the results are positive or not, the interpretation of those results might be subjective, but the results themselves are not.

Some of you other changes are not problematic and could be added back. I would suggest making your changes in parts, that way they can be discussed and reverted individually rather than as a whole. --Daniel 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• No offense intended Bluehotel but those were not good changes. See WP:WEASEL for why we cannot use words like that. --John (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I was being nice in my edit summary. Now, I'm going to be blunt. The edits were badly written, so weasel worded that it actually slightly changed the POV. And that I believe that Homeopathy is "proven, factual science." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that's rich. Someone needs to read my talk page. And if I were in "charge" of this article, I would cut out 99.9% of of it, and the lead would simply say "Homeopathy is a load of shit, figuratively, and if it is to believed, literally." It would be followed by 25 citations. And I'd call it a day.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)