Jump to content

User talk:Filll: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Please help!: new section
Line 260: Line 260:
::::By the way, dealing with an accusation such as this is done better if you avoid words such as "POV-pusher" or "troll". Until you said those, nobody could reasonably accuse you of a personal attack, but you just handed them a little bit of ground to stand on. Why do that? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
::::By the way, dealing with an accusation such as this is done better if you avoid words such as "POV-pusher" or "troll". Until you said those, nobody could reasonably accuse you of a personal attack, but you just handed them a little bit of ground to stand on. Why do that? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ok, noted.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll#top|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ok, noted.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll#top|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

== Please help! ==

Hi,<br>
By now you must have read the studies/clinical trials I posted about on Schmucky's Talk Page (you can find the same matter on my Talk Page as well);if you haven't, I strongly suggest you read it.
I know that some people will have objections to the ninth study, but I'm sure the other studies should be acceptable, especially if the allegation made by the 'Nigerian Journal of Medicine' that Homeopathy is "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" is 'acceptable'.
I request someone to now change the Paragraph in the introduction from, "Claims.....................quackery at worst", to something like, "There is scientific evidence that Homeopathy works...............<br>
I've already done the Home-work:-<br>
There is evidence that Homeopathy works<ref name="Inhibition of lymphoblast transformation test (LTT) in phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) with Phytolacca americana in homeopathic dilution"></ref><ref name="Inquiry into the limits of biological effects of chemical compounds in tissue culture. I. Low dose effects of mercure chloride"></ref><ref name="The effects of Belladonna and Ferrum phosphoricum on the chemoluminescence of human poly-morphonuclear neutrophils"></ref><ref name="Effect of aconitum and veratrumon the isolated perfused heart of the common eel (Anguilla anguilla)"></ref><ref name="Elements of homeopathicpharmacology"></ref><ref name="The effect of homeopathicpreparations on the phagocyteactivity of granulocytes. In vitrotests and double-blind controlled trials"></ref><ref name="Approach to quantitative analysisof the effect of Apis mellifica on the degranulation of humanbasophils cultivated in vitro"></ref><ref name="In vitro stimulation of human granulocytes and lymphocytes by pico- and femtogram quantities of cytostatic agents"></ref><ref name="Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE"></ref><ref name="In vitro immunologicaldegranulation of human basophilsis modulated by lung histamineand Apis mellifica"></ref><ref name="Cytotoxic agents asimmunomodulators"></ref><ref name="Contributions of fundamentalresearch in homeopathy"></ref><ref name="Synergism of action betweenindoleacetic acid (IAA) and highlydiluted solutions of CaCO3 on thegrowth of oat coleoptiles"></ref><ref name="Study of the action ofHahnemannian dilutions ofmercury chloride on the mitotic index in animal cell cultures."></ref><ref name="Dual effects of formylpeptides onthe adhesion of endotoxin-primedhuman neutrophils"></ref><ref name="Effects of homeopathicpreparations of organic acids andof minerals on the oxidativemetabolism of human neutrophils"></ref><ref name="Platelets/endothelial cellsinteractions in presence ofacetylsalicylic acid at ultra lowdose"></ref><ref name="Effect of high dilutions of epidermalgrowth factor (EGF) on in vitroproliferation of keratinocyte andfibroblast cell lines"></ref><ref name="Effects of different homeopathic potencies of Lachesis on lymphocyte cultures obtainedfrom rabbit blood"></ref><ref name="The effect of homeopathicpotencies of housedust mite onthe migration of house-dust sensitivehuman leukocytes"></ref><ref name="The effects of Nux vomicaHomaccord and Atropinum comp.on intestinal activity in vitro"></ref><ref name="Application of flow cytometry to the analysis of the immunosuppressive effect ofhistamine dilutions on humanbasophil action: effect of cimetidine"></ref><ref name="Effects of Podophillum pellatumcompounds in variouspreparations and dilutions on human neutrophil functions in vitro"></ref><ref name="In vivo and in vitro studies on the efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized substances"></ref><ref name="Experiments with the effects ofUbichinon-Injeel and strongUbichinon-Injeel on an acellularsystem"></ref><ref name="Efficacy of the homeopathic drugsSuis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on lymphocyte and phagocyteactivity"></ref><ref name="Influence of dilutions andpotencies of cAMP on differentenzymatic systems"></ref><ref name="Studies of the principles ofhomeopathy; the changeoverfrom in vivo to in vitroexperimental research"></ref><ref name="Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase with cAMP at various potencies"></ref><ref name="Contribution to study of theefficacy of homeopathic potencies of phosphorus"></ref><ref name="Determination of the activity ofacid phosphatase in the presence of Ubichinon comp."></ref><ref name="Biochemical efficacy ofhomeopathic and electronicpreparations of D8 potassiumcyanate"></ref><ref name="Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibia derived osteoblasts is promotedby the homeopathic preparation,FMS Calciumfluor"></ref><ref name="Thin-layer chromatography (TLC)of homeopathic active constituents"></ref><ref name="Efficacy of a potentisedhomeopathic drug in reducingcytotoxic effects produced byarsenic trioxide in mice"></ref><ref name="Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice"></ref><ref name="Non-cytotoxic antiviral action of a homeopathic drug"></ref><ref name="Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice"></ref><ref name="Stimulatory effect of some plant extracts used in homeopathy on the phagocytosis induced chemiluminescence ofpolymorphonuclear leukocytes"></ref><ref name="Difference between the efficacyof single potencies and chords"></ref><ref name="Influence of some homeopathicdrugs on the catalytic activity of uricase, acid phosphatase and thecytosol glutathion-S-transferase"></ref><ref name="Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases"></ref><ref name="Neuroprotection from glutamatetoxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate"></ref>, but critics who haven't tried it, say that claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the [[placebo effect]] are unsupported by [[scientific method|scientific]] and [[clinical medicine|clinical]] studies<ref name="pmid12492603">{{cite journal |author=Ernst E |title=A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy |journal=Br J Clin Pharmacol |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=577–82 |year=2002 |pmid=12492603 |doi= |url= http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x/full?cookieSet=1|accessdate=2008-02-12}}</ref><ref name="asthma">{{cite journal |author=McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ |title=Homeopathy for chronic asthma |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |issue=1 |pages=CD000353 |year=2004 |pmid=14973954 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000353.pub2 }}</ref><ref name="dementia">{{cite journal |author=McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R |title=Homeopathy for dementia |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |issue=1 |pages=CD003803 |year=2003 |pmid=12535487 }}<br/>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197&sectionId=27 |title=Homeopathy results |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[National Health Service]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html |title=Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97) |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[American Medical Association]]}}<br/>{{cite journal |author=Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Willich S |title=The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture |journal=International journal of epidemiology |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=526–531 |year=2001 |pmid=11416076 }}<br/>{{cite journal |title=Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials |author=Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E |journal=Mayo Clin Proc. |date=2007 |volume=82 |issue=1 |pages=69–75 |pmid= 17285788}}</ref> and that the ideas behind Homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge"<ref name="shang">{{cite journal |author=Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, ''et al'' |title=Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy |journal=Lancet |volume=366 |issue=9487 |pages=726–732 |year=2005 |pmid=16125589 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2}}</ref><ref name="Ernst2005"/><ref name="Johnson2007">{{cite journal |author=Johnson T, Boon H |title=Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice? |journal=American journal of pharmaceutical education |volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=7 |year=2007 |pmid=17429507 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507}}</ref><br>
Thanks in advance for the co-operation.<br>
[[User:Ramaanand|Ramaanand]] ([[User talk:Ramaanand#top|talk]]) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) alias Dr.Jhingadé

Revision as of 03:19, 19 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)

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.  &#151; 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? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;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]

Comments on the second version: First, the phrasing in the sentence, "Hahnemann is reported to have joked that a suitable procedure to deal with an epidemic would be to empty a bottle of poison into Lake Geneva, if it could be succussed 60 times." implies that it isn't sure that Hahnemann said this ("is reported to have joked..."). I think the sources we have for this are suitably reliable that we don't have to mince words here, and we can just say that he said this. I'm also not so sure he was joking about it.

Also, I went and read the section of this textbook, and it doesn't actually say that you'd be certain to encounter a molecule after consuming about 1% of the pool. It says this is how much you'd have to consume to expect to encounter one molecule. To me, the word "expect" implies probability (as in "expectation value"). It seems that the writers here just decided not to get into the details of probability. I think the best way to write this would be to just have "expect" in the main text, and you can explain the exact probabilities in the footnotes. Also, though you mentioned you were using molar solutions above, this doesn't carry into the footnotes for this version. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a bit difficult to know what they meant by "expect" here. I took it to be certainty, but of course there are other interpretations. I was less sure that Hahnemann had actually made that comment about Lake Geneva, since it comes from a religious tract that basically says homeopathy is the work of the devil, etc. And I put "joke" in there to soften to blow to homeopathy supporters. The molar solution is used in the earlier examples, but I saw no reasonable way to use it in the swimming pool example. The reason is that molar solution implies that the original material is some quantity of molecules or moles in a given volume, that is a density. Whereas the swimming pool example, reading between the lines, suggests that the original material is some volume of material. So the starting assumptions are different; one is of a density, or equivalently, a number of moles, the other is of a volume. --Filll (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the text in the article slightly to put "expect" in there, although this is a somewhat improper use of the word "expect" in a probability setting. I tried to keep it accurate and as close to the textbook example as I could.--Filll (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The way I look at things is more a question of how easy it is to do these calculations. Since homeopaths are inexact in their preparations, all that's really needed is a rough estimate of the starting concentration. The reason I think these examples are using moles is that it's a ton easier to do calculations that way. Moles already translated directly into molecules with no extra information (such as density and molar weight) being needed. However, running through the calculations, it seems this actually isn't how it's done in the swimming pool example. Here's how my calculations for it would work:
  • Start with a 1 molar solution. Dilute it to a factor of 15C, getting a 10-30 molar solution.
  • Multiply 10-30 M by the volume of the solution: 2.5 x 106, getting the number of moles in the pool: 2.5*10-24
  • Multiply this by Avogadro's Constant to get about 1.5 molecules in the pool.
What I think they're actually doing in this example is assuming the original substance is similar to water. They basically did their calculation by taking the number of water molecules (1032) and dividing it by the dilution factor (15C, or 1030), to get a result of 100 molecules in the pool. Given that this reproduces their result exactly, I'm pretty confident that this is indeed how they did it. It might not be how I would have done it, but that's how they went, and we should work with that.


I think you are basically correct. They assume that the original substance has essentially the same properties as water (which you notice I note in my footnote where I discuss the D/M for the original substance). They have 10**32 molecules in the pool, and after 15C dilution, about 100 molecules left of the original material if it has the same properties as water (for example, if initially the 10**32 molecules in the pool were all original material and this was diluted by 15C, 100 molecules would remain after dilution, and the rest of the molecules in the pool would be water). If these 100 molecules are evenly distributed through the pool, for every 1% of the pool you ingest, you will get about 1 molecule. And then you are done! The problem is that of course there is no guarantee that 100 molecules of the original substance will be evenly distributed throughout the pool (you could be unlucky and just drink parts of the pool that had no original molecules in them, for example, or the original molecules could "clump together"). Also, there is no reason to believe that the original material has a D/M similar to that of water! However, in the footnotes all this is explained in enough detail that someone interested can figure it all out properly.--Filll (talk) 17:16, 17 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]

I do not have a direct diff or link to this. However, I would direct you to the outcome of the Matthew Hoffman case at Arbcomm, and many of the complaints and comments made by Arbcomm members and hangers on on the pages associated with the case. The message I took from that case was very clear; newbies and trolls and disruptive elements are to be coddled and nurtured at all costs, because they might turn out to be productive in a few months or years. Established productive editors are unwanted; they were called "dogs" and worse. And they should basically f-off.--Filll (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman? I'm reading it now. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And there are 2-3 RfCs as well involved. And many many pages of material.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I've read main page of the ArbCom case, and I would disagree with your interpretation. ArbCom did not say that that trolls are to be coddled, they did not say that productive editors are unwanted, and they did not say that WP:CIV and WP:BITE are more important than WP:NPOV and WP:V. That interpretation seems to be based on something other than the case I just read. My experience is very different, and it seems to me that the Admin in that case was de-sysoped for handling the block very badly and unprofessionally.

It's true that admins who deal with trolls, vandals and POV-pushers unprofessionally will be de-sysoped, and that is healthy and right. Admins who deal with such users correctly have nothing to fear. I intend to demonstrate this fact on the homeopathy pages to which I've been pointed. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the sections you agree with, as near as I can tell, they basically say there is no problem here and if experts do not like it, they should get lost. Frankly, that is not a particularly helpful position if one is trying to change the culture to make it more welcoming.--Filll (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the meaning I take from those positions. Would it be helpful for us to understand each other a bit better before making conclusions? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes maybe. I am just giving you my feedback on those sections.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I take from those sections is that the problem, insofar as it exists, can be solved by the experts taking a different approach. There are ways to edit the wiki, maintaining one's integrity, and effectively working against POV-pushers without incurring blocks or other negative results. Those who don't like the current state of affairs would do well to take swimming lessons. It makes getting around in these waters much easier. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am not sure the problem can be solved unless there are some new approaches. If it has been decided that NPOV is not important any more, or is not as important as CIVIL, then I think there is nothing anyone can do.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that has by no means been decided, nor will it be as long as there are any of us left to fight it. I would take issue with the notion that there is any conflict between NPOV and CIVIL, because I see no instance in which being less than perfectly civil could help with greater neutrality, but recall that I'm talking about actual civility, not adherence to some "rule" that's written on the page WP:CIV. New approaches are indeed the solution, and we're working on some of those now. See the section on my talk page about Admin training, for example. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Infonation101 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR Shot info (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no personal attacks in Filll's recent contributions to that page? Am I missing something? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small lesson in how malcontents are using CIVIL as a weapon now.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, how they're might try to use it as a weapon. I don't see anyone buying it. We'll deal with accusations such as this by simply shining light on them, at which point their spurious nature becomes clear. What's the problem? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, dealing with an accusation such as this is done better if you avoid words such as "POV-pusher" or "troll". Until you said those, nobody could reasonably accuse you of a personal attack, but you just handed them a little bit of ground to stand on. Why do that? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, noted.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help!

Hi,
By now you must have read the studies/clinical trials I posted about on Schmucky's Talk Page (you can find the same matter on my Talk Page as well);if you haven't, I strongly suggest you read it. I know that some people will have objections to the ninth study, but I'm sure the other studies should be acceptable, especially if the allegation made by the 'Nigerian Journal of Medicine' that Homeopathy is "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" is 'acceptable'. I request someone to now change the Paragraph in the introduction from, "Claims.....................quackery at worst", to something like, "There is scientific evidence that Homeopathy works...............
I've already done the Home-work:-
There is evidence that Homeopathy works[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][36][38][39][40][41][42], but critics who haven't tried it, say that claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies[43][44][45][46] and that the ideas behind Homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge"[47][48][49]
Thanks in advance for the co-operation.
Ramaanand (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) alias Dr.Jhingadé[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Inhibition of lymphoblast transformation test (LTT) in phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) with Phytolacca americana in homeopathic dilution was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Inquiry into the limits of biological effects of chemical compounds in tissue culture. I. Low dose effects of mercure chloride was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference The effects of Belladonna and Ferrum phosphoricum on the chemoluminescence of human poly-morphonuclear neutrophils was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Effect of aconitum and veratrumon the isolated perfused heart of the common eel (Anguilla anguilla) was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Elements of homeopathicpharmacology was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference The effect of homeopathicpreparations on the phagocyteactivity of granulocytes. In vitrotests and double-blind controlled trials was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Approach to quantitative analysisof the effect of Apis mellifica on the degranulation of humanbasophils cultivated in vitro was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference In vitro stimulation of human granulocytes and lymphocytes by pico- and femtogram quantities of cytostatic agents was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference In vitro immunologicaldegranulation of human basophilsis modulated by lung histamineand Apis mellifica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cytotoxic agents asimmunomodulators was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Contributions of fundamentalresearch in homeopathy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Synergism of action betweenindoleacetic acid (IAA) and highlydiluted solutions of CaCO3 on thegrowth of oat coleoptiles was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Study of the action ofHahnemannian dilutions ofmercury chloride on the mitotic index in animal cell cultures. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dual effects of formylpeptides onthe adhesion of endotoxin-primedhuman neutrophils was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Effects of homeopathicpreparations of organic acids andof minerals on the oxidativemetabolism of human neutrophils was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference Platelets/endothelial cellsinteractions in presence ofacetylsalicylic acid at ultra lowdose was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference Effect of high dilutions of epidermalgrowth factor (EGF) on in vitroproliferation of keratinocyte andfibroblast cell lines was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference Effects of different homeopathic potencies of Lachesis on lymphocyte cultures obtainedfrom rabbit blood was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference The effect of homeopathicpotencies of housedust mite onthe migration of house-dust sensitivehuman leukocytes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference The effects of Nux vomicaHomaccord and Atropinum comp.on intestinal activity in vitro was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference Application of flow cytometry to the analysis of the immunosuppressive effect ofhistamine dilutions on humanbasophil action: effect of cimetidine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference Effects of Podophillum pellatumcompounds in variouspreparations and dilutions on human neutrophil functions in vitro was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference In vivo and in vitro studies on the efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized substances was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference Experiments with the effects ofUbichinon-Injeel and strongUbichinon-Injeel on an acellularsystem was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference Efficacy of the homeopathic drugsSuis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on lymphocyte and phagocyteactivity was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference Influence of dilutions andpotencies of cAMP on differentenzymatic systems was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ Cite error: The named reference Studies of the principles ofhomeopathy; the changeoverfrom in vivo to in vitroexperimental research was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase with cAMP at various potencies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference Contribution to study of theefficacy of homeopathic potencies of phosphorus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Cite error: The named reference Determination of the activity ofacid phosphatase in the presence of Ubichinon comp. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference Biochemical efficacy ofhomeopathic and electronicpreparations of D8 potassiumcyanate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ Cite error: The named reference Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibia derived osteoblasts is promotedby the homeopathic preparation,FMS Calciumfluor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference Thin-layer chromatography (TLC)of homeopathic active constituents was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference Efficacy of a potentisedhomeopathic drug in reducingcytotoxic effects produced byarsenic trioxide in mice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ Cite error: The named reference Non-cytotoxic antiviral action of a homeopathic drug was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference Stimulatory effect of some plant extracts used in homeopathy on the phagocytosis induced chemiluminescence ofpolymorphonuclear leukocytes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  39. ^ Cite error: The named reference Difference between the efficacyof single potencies and chords was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  40. ^ Cite error: The named reference Influence of some homeopathicdrugs on the catalytic activity of uricase, acid phosphatase and thecytosol glutathion-S-transferase was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  41. ^ Cite error: The named reference Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  42. ^ Cite error: The named reference Neuroprotection from glutamatetoxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  43. ^ Ernst E (2002). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". Br J Clin Pharmacol. 54 (6): 577–82. PMID 12492603. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
  44. ^ McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ (2004). "Homeopathy for chronic asthma". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD000353. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000353.pub2. PMID 14973954.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  45. ^ McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R (2003). "Homeopathy for dementia". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD003803. PMID 12535487.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    "Homeopathy results". National Health Service. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
  46. ^ "Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97)". American Medical Association. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
    Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Willich S (2001). "The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture". International journal of epidemiology. 30 (3): 526–531. PMID 11416076.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clin Proc. 82 (1): 69–75. PMID 17285788.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  47. ^ Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L; et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ernst2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  49. ^ Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education. 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Filll&oldid=199260113"