User talk:Filll: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:09, 17 March 2008

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Archives

Barnstars Humor
Mainpage ToDo
Staging Area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert withdrawal

I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From [1]

During this period between the world wars, sightings were reported and searches launched for, among others, the snoligostus, the ogopogo, the Australian bunyip, the whirling wimpus, the rubberado, the rackabore, and the cross-feathered snee. These sound like some interesting creatures that deserve articles on WP! The only one I know of is the ogopogo, although I have never seen it, even though I have been to Lake Okanagan many times. ...--Filll (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Challenge

I hereby challenge anyone who is not in favor of mainstream science, but promotes alternative medicine or pseudoscience or magic or mysticism or the supernatural or ghosts to tell me how they interpret NPOV, and why the SPOV proponents are wrong about NPOV. Tell me why there should be little if any critical material in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles for example. This is your chance to change Wikipedia. Write an essay. --Filll (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, you are talking to yourself here. This is not good. Also I resent your statements about the ruling class on the NPOV noticeboard. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (don't know which that could be). If you have a quote for your assertion, please provide it. I thank you in advance.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what the alleged point could be, how can you assume he's disrupting WP to make one? Jim62sch^dissera! 13:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel, I am not even sure what that point is either. And how I disrupted WP on that noticeboard. Perhaps you could be more specific?--Filll (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, now I see what you have supposedly been offended by. No, I stand by that statement. For more details, please see the relevant MH Arbcomm ruling, along with the two RfCs (one of which was deleted so you have to get it back). At least two administrators left or went on very long hiatus because of it. It is clear from the recent attitudes that I have seen expressed that WP:CIVIL is more important than all other WP principles, even WP:NPOV. For details, see the Expert Withdrawal discussion at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. I am not the only one who has noticed. Literally dozens of others have as well. Come to the Expert Withdrawal page at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal and give your opinion on the matter if you are offended. If you are offended by the matter, then that is good; you should be. I am offended by it.--Filll (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the situation is exactly as I described: [2]. There is a price to making WP:CIVIL the main if not the sole policy that is being enforced. So be it... If those of you that are in power want to get rid of NPOV, then that is what will happen. I just would like you to make a formal announcement of the DEATH of NPOV first so those of us who thought it was a useful policy do not make fools of ourselves trying to advocate NPOV. --Filll (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert withdrawal

Hi, I'm thinking of writing a piece for the Signpost about the Expert withdrawal discussion, and I'm trying to figure out how and why it originated. Were you the originator of this movement? Would you mind explaining in a few words what led you to this rather extreme measure, and what do you believe should be done in order to alleviate the problem? --Zvika (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User talk:Zvika#Expert Withdrawal Jay*Jay (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited advice

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - W. Shakespeare (from Hamlet, IIRC) Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just what I was thinking. I gotta work on succinctness. Or at least summaries.--Filll (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know why you bother with it. Leave the POV pushers to push their version of NPOV with optional N. You're going to get an ulcer (which can be treated with homeopathic solutions I'm sure...). Shot info (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... well, maybe with ranitidine bismuth citrate taken with a homeopathic solution... :) Jay*Jay (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I read a good chunk of the Martinphi file, I realized their efforts are all just a load of nonsense. And to try to improve things is just a waste of time in this case.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would that be the Martinphile? :-) Shot info (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--Filll (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article you could propose for translation

In the german wikipedia there is an article about homeopathy in the time of the nazi dictorship. See [3]. Nazis tried to promote a new german medicine, which should include homeopathy, but gave up on that idea in 1939 after the results where disatorous. --80.133.146.251 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

I have responded to your query regarding Homeopathy at my talk page. You may want to look at it. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 09:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional "homeopathic" treatments

Many standard medical practices like prescribing ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and allergy treatments are homeopathic, in that they involve treatment with something that produces the same symptoms as the disease.--Filll (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that really is a very good point. We would need to find a good source that makes this relationship as you have, but it's very true. There is no reason for people to be skeptical of low potency homeopathy, at all. High potencies are another thing. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [4]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [5] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [6]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OR"

If anyone ever tells me that converting 0.35 to 35% is "original research", I will respond that he should be ashamed of himself. Reading, writing, and 'rithmetic are taught in elementary school. What you were taught in elementary school is not your "original research". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has happened where I have had a long fight with an admin who claimed that converting numbers like 312/783 into percentages is WP:OR. And now I am dealing with a slightly more complicated situation, but again being told that it is OR. And when I read math and physics pages, I see that people do all kinds of calculations and manipulations with seemingly no problem. Oh brother...--Filll (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was that administrator? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this discussion? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was on Level of support for evolution. And the admin was violet/riga. The article is still a mess and I have not bothered to correct his vandalism (and that of a few other passing editors who even ruined the quotes from publications to push their agenda), since I am rewriting the article and placing most of the data into better organized tables to be shorter and easier to absorb for readers. I am working on other stuff at the moment but I will get back to that article.--Filll (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on WP:AN

Hi, Filll. I have added some comments in response to the questions from Dlabtot (sp?) about the ArbCom prioritising of civility over anything else. I have noted that I was not meaning to speak on your behalf, but I thought I should let you know in case you want to have a look and / or make a comment. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on potency rewrite

Leaving comments here, as the page is already in Talk space. Now, when it comes to examples of dilutions, it seems that (judging by some of my back-of-the-envelope calculations) it's assumed that you're starting off with one mole of the solute. For instance, let's say you have one liter of a one molar solution. This is typically about the scale you'll find for most common solutions, so it makes some sense. Homeopaths rarely bother with doing volume dilutions, so basing the examples off of these is misleading. Most of the time, they don't even bother being exact with the starting amount (after all, what does it matter?). So I think for the purpose of clarity and matching previous examples given, we should just go ahead assuming we start with a one molar solution. Aside from Yilloslime on Talk:Homeopathy, this seems to be the common assumption. (You can check for yourself that starting this way gives results matching those of the examples, and we also don't have to muddy the issue with mentioning what the material is, specifying its density, etc.). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did it with densities and molar masses is that it is more general, and I believe that if we just specify "one mole" few of our readers will be able to figure out how much that is. I also believe that putting the extra details in the footnotes will help people trying to understand the situation, but they will not be required to read the footnotes to get the general gist of the text. I also do not think homeopaths do anything with moles or 1 molar solutions etc, and I think specifying "1 molar solutions" will be confusing the readers. I think homeopaths do volume volume percentage dilutions, according to my reading of their literature. Different materials will produce different numbers of molecules in a given volume of remedy after homeopathic dilution, depending on what their densities and molar masses are. I will however, try to a different version using some of the ideas you suggest and see what it looks like.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think 1 liter for an initial quantity of the therapeutic material is a lot unless this is being produced in an industrial process, and even then I have my doubts about that quantity from what I know of the literature and technology used to produce these remedies. Sounds misleading to me.--Filll (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, it could use a little word-smithing but overall it looks pretty good. I think I have a solution to the "molarity of the mother tincture" issue that doesn't require assuming it's 1M or using a specific example like NaCl. And that is: rather than discussing the number of molecules of the "active" ingredient left in the final dilution, we could instead discuss the number of molecules of the mother tincture (i.e. the "active" ingredient + the alcohol) that remain in the final dilution. Regardless of the nature of the mother tincture, it's mostly just alcohol (or alcohol/water), right? Whether it's 1M or 0.1M, or contains small amounts of myriad compounds, the overwhelming majority of molecules that are floating around are still just alcohol molecules. So instead of using 1M as our starting concentration, we could just use the molarity of pure alcohol (~17 mol/L for EtOH) and change the text so it says "there would only be xxx molecules of the mother tincture remaining in yyy volume of zzzC dilution." What do you think of that? Yilloslime (t) 05:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I tend to agree with what you're saying above about leaving the gory details of molarity, etc., out the text, lest they confuse people needlessly. Footnoting them seems best.Yilloslime (t) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's fine leaving the details out; it's just that most of the time people have made these examples, they seem to be treating it like I did. It would be best to stick to these for NOR purposes, if nothing else. We can still keep the text simple, and just describe our assumptions in the footnotes. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Venue

Filll, I would appreciate it if you would calm down. I was not ranting, merely responding to statements similar to those who do support evolution have made in the past. If you want me to stop, ask on my page, don't repeatedly respond with comments on my "ranting," or "preaching." I have hoped to disassociate myself with that sort of creationist crowd. By the way, you don't know what "sort of creationism" I do believe in. If you wish to respond to my comments, or address any other comments or criticism towards me, please use my talk page. If you can convince me my comments are inflamatory, I will remove them. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would calm down and not pollute the talk pages of those articles with irrelevant inaccurate material. No the whole world does not believe in "creationism" and evolution is not some evil theory started in Ancient Greece or associated with the Tower of Babel or some other nonsense. Those are creationist canards and you look ridiculous parroting them. Care to tell me how the Buddhists are creationists? Most Jews? The Muslims? The Catholics? Native Americans? Australian Aborigines? Chinese Animists? Hindus? Sure some have creation myths, but they are so different from the fundamentalist Christian one that it is not even funny. And most have no problem with accepting evolution. Some even claim their creation myths include evolution (like many Hindus). Some claim that their coreligionists came up with evolution centuries before Darwin (like many Moslems). Most Americans see no conflict between Christianity and evolution. Most Christians see no conflict between Christianity and evolution. Only a teeny tiny minority who have been lead into confused denial, mostly in the United States, subscribes to this crazy notion.

You do not have to remove your comments since they are irrelevant. They will just be archived and we can all forget them. But it is sort of silly to come to a page and respond to posts that are months old and lecture the people who posted them to not preach, when you are preaching yourself. It is even worse when a large fraction of what you are spouting makes no sense and is just random creationist junk.

The original post of mine you objected to was me responding to someone writing about what happened "before" the cosmic egg (by which I presume they mean the big bang). Even the fact that they spew this sort of silliness tells me that they have no idea what they are talking about; there was no before since the big bang created time itself. But it is hardly worth responding to these ignorant statements except to discourage people from posting nonsense and to maybe make some positive contributions. But few if any ever do. They are not here for that.--Filll (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would be careful who you are lecturing and engaging in fights with on the talk pages. You also have posted right in the middle of someone else's post, which is a complete no-no.--Filll (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Filll. I think you are against creationism. At the same time, you are religious. How is this possible? I am a Humanist. I am a little confused about your views. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the position of most Christians and even most American Christians, most Jews, and many Muslims, and most Hindus, most Catholics, most Buddhists, etc. If you believe otherwise, you have fallen into the fallacious thinking traps laid out for you by the fundamentalists and creationists.--Filll (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Filll, I don't believe in creationism. Are you suggesting that most American Christians are against creationism? I don't think so. I am a non-American. If that were true, then GW Bush should not have won the re-election in 2004? GW Bush is a creationist and an irrational person. Can you please explain your position on creationism and religion clearly? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, there is no reason I should have to. But I think biblical literalism, which is the root of most creationism, is just ludicrous and unreasonable. And so do most Christians. It has been strictly discouraged in the Catholic Church for centuries, for example. If you want to look at statistics, look at level of support for evolution. I am not even sure that Bush is much of a creationist; I think he tries to keep a large voting block reasonably tranquil.--Filll (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried

Hi Filll

As you've probably gathered, my special area of activity on Wikipedia is the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch. My aim is to gradually (it has to be gradual - these articles are all controversial) bring them up to encyclopedia-standard by bringing modern biblical scholarship into the picture. (Have a look at my on-going re-write of Creation according to Genesis - once a stronghold og wide-eyed creationism, not increasingly scholarly, and not yet finished).

Anyway, a new link has appeared on Genesis. It's T Wikiversity: Study of Genesis. I never knew this thing existed. But apparently, in the democratic world of Wiki, not only can any ignoramus write encyclopedia articles to educate his equally ignorant fellows, he can also run university courses. This one, on the study of Genesis, is being run by a guy who woks in a Target store. Jesus wept.

So what to do? It won't just go away. And I can't say I disagree with the "courses" he's set out. But a guy from Target is going to assess papers? http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Study_of_Genesis/Project_Page/Sample_Term_Paper gives you the idea. I just don't know what to do. What do you suggest?

PiCo (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. But I do know that if you look back at the early days of Wikipedia, it was a lot more wild and wooly. And anyone could just declare anything to be true. Then slowly there started to be standards. And sources were increasingly required. And if you look at a GA or FA from 2 or 3 years ago, it was a very different quality level than a GA or FA today. So although WP itself has plenty of problems of various kinds, the standards are improving. Other Wiki projects are not as well developed as WP itself. And one of those I suspect is Wikiversity. It is very early days for Wikiversity, clearly. There is no "accreditation" agency and no standards for courses. Anyone anywhere who wants to set up a course and run it, can. And you are nervous about having to advertise what you feel is substandard material on your increasingly sophisticated and professional article page, but do not want to be uncharitable. I would ask for advice at the Village Pump if I were you. Also, would a tiny link at the bottom really be such a disaster? People will quickly see what sort of resource it is for themselves if and when they look (although I suspect few yet go to look at things from Wikiversity, to be honest). You could just delete the link to it, although that is not particularly fair and he could complain.

What I think will happen eventually is that there will be increasing competition in Wikiversity among those offering courses. And some sort of rating and ranking system will emerge. Some courses will be excluded, or pushed into other places. Another option is that Wikiversity just folds; after all, students have the increasing option to get real courses from MIT and Berkeley, including videos of lectures etc. And they will be joined by other schools. Why should anyone go to Wikiversity run by amateurs when they can get the real thing from world famous scholars, free of charge?--Filll (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to discuss it on Wikiversity itself at their "Collquium"--Filll (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were dead right

about Amaltheus. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was? What do you know? Email me.--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it isn't that conspiratorial. It is just that his entire time at Wikipedia bracketed the Into to Evol FAC. He hasn't contributed since 28 Jan 2008. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right never trust the ones that just disappear: ;)

14:50, 3 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wassupwestcoast‎ (off break)

14:50, 3 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Wassupwestcoast‎ (off break)

21:03, 11 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Wassupwestcoast‎ (→Movies: wiki)

21:01, 11 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Wassupwestcoast‎ (→Movies: movie update)

And welcome back. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was only here for fighting. When there was a "checkmate" situation and he was on the losing end, he vanished.--Filll (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange one for sure. David D. (Talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to this than meets the eye, I suspect.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I never trust me. Especially 'cause I can be a bit naive :-) So far the experience is number 1 on my list of Wikipedia weirdness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it

Why would you say that? Do you think I'm going to block you or something. I'm very sorry if I've offended you in some way. I would be happy to collaborate with you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The system has become more and more poisonous. One has to be extremely careful in the present circumstances because of the way the powers that be have decided WP must be. I cannot change it. I can only try to avoid getting into trouble. It is a shame, but we have decided that CIVIL is more important than anything else. And I can tell that this entire discussion has become so heated and unpleasant that it is too dangerous to continue.--Filll (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that WP:CIVIL is more important than anything else, and I would never act as if it were. How have I ever given you the impression that I would behave that way? What kind of trouble do you think you'll get into? I have no desire to see you in trouble; I want to collaborate with you. Can you work with me, just a little bit? I'm not the "get you in trouble" type. We could use your help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of help could I offer? And you might not be someone who was interested in getting me in trouble, but there are plenty that are. I have had numerous warnings about this in the last 6 months or so, and I have watched Arbcomm's recent behavior on this issue. And I have observed how things have been moving on the pseudoscience pages. If we had to clean up the creationism pages today the way we did a year ago, it would be almost impossible today to do it given the current climate on Wikipedia, where the benefit of the doubt has to be given to those who are against NPOV and RS and LEAD and NOR and other WP policies. If you want to read more about this, take a look at some of what has been written here.--Filll (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The help you could offer is balance. You're familiar with the dispute and the sources. The fact of your contributing would help solidify whatever consensus we arrive at, because we would know that your input was considered fairly. You also have insight into a current problem with the political climate here. You could help change that. Help make Wikipedia a welcoming place for experts by helping me to empower users to deal with tendentious editors and trolls. That's precisely what I'm trying to do. We may disagree about causes of the atmosphere which you describe as increasingly poisonous, but we both want to do something about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, regarding the expert withdrawal page, I know about that. I've read it. I agree with this view, and with this one. Oh, this is extremely good, too. I've actually left a comment there, and I have a question for you. You said: "The powers that be including Arbcomm are dead set against this and have made it clear that they will desysop any admin who does this." Can you give me a link for that, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me

Dear Filll,
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected.

Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:-

STUDIES OF THE ACTIVITY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES

ORIGINAL/TRANSLATED TITLE AUTHOR(S) PUBLICATION ACTIVITY STUDY

Inhibition of lymphoblast transformation test (LTT) in phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) with Phytolacca americana in homeopathic dilution

Colas H.,

Aubin M.,

Picard P.,

Lebecq J.C.

Ann. Homéopat.

Fr., 1975, 6: 1-11.

Inhibitory

Lymphoblast

transformation

Inquiry into the limits of biological effects of chemical compounds in tissue culture. I. Low dose effects of mercure chloride

Mansvelt J.D.,

van Amons E.

Z. Naturtorschung,

1975, 30:

643-649.

Inhibitory

Lymphocyte

growth

The effects of Belladonna and Ferrum phosphoricum on the chemoluminescence of human poly-morphonuclear neutrophils

Poitevin B.,

Aubin M.,

Royer J.F.

Ann. Homéop. Fr.,

1983, 3: 5-12.

Inhibitory
Radical release

Effect of aconitum and veratrum

on the isolated perfused heart of

the common eel (Anguilla anguilla)

Pennec J.P.,

Aubin M.

Comp. Biochem.

Physiol., 1984,

776: 367-369.
Protective Aconitine toxicity

Elements of homeopathic

pharmacology

Aubin M.

Homéopathie

Franç., 1984, 72:

231- 235
Protective Aconitine toxicity

The effect of homeopathic

preparations on the phagocyte

activity of granulocytes. In vitro

tests and double-blind controlled

trials

Wagner H.,

Jurcic K.,

Doenicke A.,

Rosenhuber E.,

Behrens N.

Arzneim.

Forsch./Drug Res.,

1986, 36:

1424-1425.
Stimulant Phagocytosis

Approach to quantitative analysis

of the effect of Apis mellifica on

the degranulation of human

basophils cultivated in vitro

Poitevin B.,

Aubin M.,

Benveniste J.

Innov. Tech. Biol.

Med., 1986, 7:

64-68.
Inhibitory
Basophil

degranulation

In vitro stimulation of human granulocytes and lymphocytes by pico- and femtogram quantities of cytostatic agents

Wagner H.,

Kreher B.,

Jurcic K.

Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1988, 38: 273-275.
Stimulant
Lymphocyte

growth

Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE

Davenas E., Beauvais F., Amara J., Robinson M., Miadonna A., Tedeschi A., Pomeranz B., Fortner P., Belon P., Sainte-Laudy J., Poitevin B., Benveniste J.

Nature, 1988,

333: 816-818.
Stimulant
Basophils

In vitro immunological

degranulation of human basophils

is modulated by lung histamine

and Apis mellifica

Poitevin B.,

Davenas E.,

Benveniste J.

Brit. J. Clin.

Pharmacol., 1988,

25: 439-444.
Inhibitory
Basophil

degranulation

Cytotoxic agents as

immunomodulators

Wagner H.,

Kreher B.

Proc. of the 3rd

GIRI meeting,

Paris, 1989, 31-

46.
Stimulant
Lymphocyte

growth

Contributions of fundamental

research in homeopathy

Boiron J.,

Belon P.

Berl. J. Res. Hom.,

1990, 1: 34-35.
Inhibitory
Basophil

degranulation

Synergism of action between

indoleacetic acid (IAA) and highly

diluted solutions of CaCO3 on the

growth of oat coleoptiles
Bornoroni C.
Berl. J. Res. Hom.,

1991, 1 (4/5):

275-278.
Stimulant
Growth of plant

cells

Study of the action of

Hahnemannian dilutions of

mercury chloride on the mitotic

index in animal cell cultures.

Boiron J.,

Abecassis J.,

Cotte J.,

Bernard A.M.

Ann. Homéop.

Fr., 1991, 23:

43-49.
Protective Hg toxicity

Dual effects of formylpeptides on

the adhesion of endotoxin-primed

human neutrophils

Bellavite P.,

Chirumbolo S.,

Lippi G.,

Andrioli G.,

Bonazzi L.,

Ferro I.

Cell. Biochem.

Funct., 1993, 11:

231-239.
Inhibitory
Cell adhesion

(bact. pept.

10-8-10-9)

Effects of homeopathic

preparations of organic acids and

of minerals on the oxidative

metabolism of human neutrophils

Chirumbolo S.,

Signorini A.,

Bianchi I.,

Lippi G.,

Bellavite P.

Br. Hom. J., 1993,

82: 227-244.
Inhibitory
Leucocyte

activation

(metabolism)

Platelets/endothelial cells

interactions in presence of

acetylsalicylic acid at ultra low

dose

Doutremepuich

C.,

Lalanne M.C.,

Ramboer I.,

Sertillanges

M.N.,

De Seze O.

Omeomed 92 (C.

Bornoroni, ed.),

1993, Editrice

Compositori,

Bologna:

109-115.
Inhibitory
Prostacyclin

release

Effect of high dilutions of epidermal

growth factor (EGF) on in vitro

proliferation of keratinocyte and

fibroblast cell lines

Fougeray S.,

Moubry K.,

Vallot N.,

Bastide M.

Br. Hom. J., 1993,

82: 124-125.
Inhibitory
Growth of

keratinocytes

Effects of different homeopathic

potencies of Lachesis on

lymphocyte cultures obtained

from rabbit blood

Enbergs H.,

Arndt G.

Biol. Tier., 1993,

4.
Stimulant
Mitotic and

immunostimulating

activity (bact. pept

10-5-10-6)

The effect of homeopathic

potencies of housedust mite on

the migration of house-dust sensitive

human leukocytes

Gibson S.L.,

Gibson R.G.

Complement.

Ther. Med., 1996,

4: 169-171.
Stimulant
Leucocyte

chemotaxis

The effects of Nux vomica

Homaccord and Atropinum comp.

on intestinal activity in vitro

Kanui T.I.,

Enbergs H.

Biol. Tier., 1996/1,

43-47.
Stimulant
Contraction of

intestinal muscles

Application of flow cytometry to

the analysis of the

immunosuppressive effect of

histamine dilutions on human

basophil action: effect of

cimetidine

Sainte-Laudy J.,

Belon P.

Inflamm. Res.,

1997, 46:

S27-S28.
Inhibitory
Basophil

degranulation

Effects of Podophillum pellatum

compounds in various

preparations and dilutions on

human neutrophil functions in

vitro

Chirumbolo S.,

Conforti A.,

Lussignoli S.,

Metelmann H.

et Al.

Br. Hom. J., 1997;

86-16.
Inhibitory
Release of

superoxides

In vivo and in vitro studies on the

efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized

substances

Harisch G.,

Dittmann J.

BT, 1997, 2;

40-46.

Difference between

potentised and

non-potentised

substances

In vivo and in

vitro study; basic

research

Experiments with the effects of

Ubichinon-Injeel and strong

Ubichinon-Injeel on an acellular

system

Harisch G.,

Dittmann J.

BM, 1997, 3;

99-104.

Different effects of

associations of

various potencies and

individual potencies

In vitro study;

basic research

Efficacy of the homeopathic drugs

Suis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on

lymphocyte and phagocyte

activity
Enbergs H.
BM, 1998, 1;

3-11.

Effect of

organotherapeutics

and Arnica comp. -

Heel® on immune

system cells

In vitro study;

basic research

Influence of dilutions and

potencies of cAMP on different

enzymatic systems

Harisch G.,

Dittmann J.

BM, 1998, 2;

55-62.

Effects of dilutions

and potencies of

cAMP on some

enzymatic activities

In vitro study;

basic research

Studies of the principles of

homeopathy; the changeover

from in vivo to in vitro

experimental research

Harisch G.,

Dittmann J.

BM, 1998, 3;

98-103.

Potentised and

non-potentised

dilutions are

equally effective,

but have different

actions

Basic research

Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase with cAMP at various potencies

Harisch G.,

Dittmann J.
BM, 1999, 1; 4-8.
Different effects on enzymatic activity

In vitro study;

basic research

Contribution to study of the

efficacy of homeopathic potencies

of phosphorus
Gomez J.C.
BT, 1999, 2;

53-57.

Effect of different

potencies of

phosphorus

Tests on guinea

pigs

Determination of the activity of

acid phosphatase in the presence

of Ubichinon comp.

Harisch G.,

Dittmann J.

BM, 1999, 4;

188-194.

Effect of enzymatic

activity of

homeopathic

medicine
Basic research

Biochemical efficacy of

homeopathic and electronic

preparations of D8 potassium

cyanate

Dittmann J.,

Kanapin H.,

Harisch G.

FKM, 1999, 6;

15-18.

Homeopathic

potentisation is

more effective than

electronic

potentisation
Basic research

Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibiaderived

osteoblasts is promoted

by the homeopathic preparation,

FMS Calciumfluor

Palermo C.,

Filanti C.,

Poggi S.,

Manduca P.

Cell Biol Int, 1999,

23(1): 31-40.

Stimulant

Osteogenesis

(trial with

compound drug)

Thin-layer chromatography (TLC)

of homeopathic active

constituents
Schmolz M.
BM, 1999, 5;

248-250.

Constituents of Arnica comp.- Heel® ointment: electrophoresis accelerates their skin penetration.
Basic research

Effect of homeopathic
constituents on enzymatic
activity. Basic research

Efficacy of a potentised

homeopathic drug in reducing

cytotoxic effects produced by

arsenic trioxide in mice

Datta S.,

Mallick P.,

Bukhsh A.R.

Complement Ther

Med, 1999 Jan;

7 (8): 62-75 (a).
Protective
Arsenic trioxide

toxicity

Efficacy of a potentised

homeopathic drug in reducing

cytotoxic effects produced by

arsenic trioxide in mice

Datta S.,

Mallick P.,

Bukhsh A.R.

Complement Ther

Med, 1999 Sep;

7 (3): 156-63 (b).
Protective
Arsenic trioxide

toxicity

Non-cytotoxic antiviral action of a homeopathic drug
Heine H.
Ärzteitschrift für

Neturheilverfahre,

2000; 41: 542-7.
Stimulant
ã interferon

synthesis

Efficacy of a potentised

homeopathic drug in reducing

cytotoxic effects produced by

arsenic trioxide in mice

Kundu S.N.,

Mitra K.,

Khuda

Bukhsh A.R.

Complement Ther

Med , 2000 Sep;

1 (3): 157-65.
Protective
Arsenic trioxide

toxicity

Stimulatory effect of some plant

extracts used in homeopathy on

the phagocytosis induced

chemiluminescence of

polymorphonuclear leukocytes

Crocnan D.,

Greabu M.,

Olinescu R.

Rocz Akad Med

Biochemist, 2000;

45: 246-254.
Stimulant
Phagocytosis

Difference between the efficacy

of single potencies and chords

Dittmann J.,

Harisch G.

BM, 2000, 1;

18-23.

Potency chords are

more effective than

single potencies
Basic research

Influence of some homeopathic

drugs on the catalytic activity of

uricase, acid phosphatase and the

cytosol glutathion-S-transferase

Dittmann J.,

Kanapin H.,

Harisch G.

BM, 2000, 3;

125-131

Effect of D8

potencies on three

different enzymatic

systems
Basic research

Influence of some homeopathic

drugs on the catalytic activity of

cAMP-dependent protein kinases

Dittmann J.,

Kanapin H.,

Harisch G.

BM, 2000, 6;

289-296.

Effect of different

potencies of 5

substances on

enzymatic activity
Basic research

Neuroprotection from glutamate

toxicity with ultra-low dose

glutamate

Jonas W.,

Lin Y.,

Zortella F.

Neuroreport,

2001 Feb 92; 12

(2): 335-9.
Protective Glutamate toxicity

KEY: BT = Biomedical Therapy
BM = Biologische Medizin
FKM = Forschung Komplementär Medizin
Ramaanand (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé[reply]