Talk:Homeopathy

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's homeopathy article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made by newly arriving editors is that this article presents homeopathy from a non-neutral point of view, and that the extensive criticism of homeopathy violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity" The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Homeopathy FAQ. Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of homeopathy. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of homeopathy or promote homeopathy please do so at google groups or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Archives and other information

Question of dilusion

I haven't gone beyond 2nd year highschool chemistry. From rough calculations, to get about 1 mL of an active chemical in a 30C concentration, you would need to have something upon the lines of 10^27 Litres of water. (I'm probably off by a little, but even in that magnatude, it is easy to see that it would be virtually impossible to get a meaningful dose.

I just want to verify that water (or any other substance for that matter) doesn't contain a "memory" of past interactions with other substances does it?

Also, is it the idea to drink or consume a lot of these doses, or does the patient only consume 1 bottle at a time?

Seems pretty ridiculous to me... but I am no professor of chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.244.49 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You make the dilution in several steps, so you only need a small amount of water on each step. I'm not an expert, but, for example, you can dissolve 1 centiliter of active subtance in 1 liter of distiled water, then you take 1 centiliter out of the resulting substance into another 1 liter of distiled water, then you take 1 liter of that dilution, etc. so a 10 steps process will require only 9 liters of distiled water and give you 1 liter of 10C remedy as a result (same as 20X or 20D). And you can refine that so you use less water. You definitely don't need 10^27 liters of water for manufacturing the remedies, you can do a sizable amount of remedy using only test tubes on a lab (. Oh, and you are supposed to shake it at every step (succussion), or it won't work (or so say homeopaths.....), see Homeopathy#Dilution_and_succussion. (some explanation like this one should go into the article, for people with the same doubt)

The patients take small doses, one or three times a day. The frequency and potency is tailored to each pacient, the homeopaths recommend what they see fitting for a particular person according to his specific symptoms. Homeopathy guides give general guidelines and advice on how to determine the adequate dose for each individual pacient. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The remedies are not usually drunk, by the way: they're administered in the form of sugar pills onto which the liquid preparation has been dripped and allowed to evaporate. So not only does it involve the memory of water, it also seems frequently to rely on the hearsay evidence of lactose. Brunton (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that's correct. I believe they are quite often administered as a water-alcohol solution. I am not even sure that the pills are more standard, although they may be. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user: The above is actually a question on the basic philosophy of Homeopathy: Homeopathy is using water as a medium to store vibrations which is transferred onto the small balls. These vibrations are informations to be interpreted by the body, which will induce the healing process on the appropriate level: body, soul, mind. Low dilution=physical problems, high dilution=mental problems. These remedies use the energy of the patient for the healing process, therefore, results can vary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.254.188 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming is vibrateing?Geni 12:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A load of bouncing WP:BALLS? Guy (Help!) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but is that a physical vibration? Because surely any such 'memory' would be affected by the temperature and handling of the "solution". And if it is made into tablets, where is the vibration memory held then? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is documentable that some followers of Homeopathy believe this vibration transfer leads to spiritual healing, it should be documented in the article. Let the facts speak to how useful Homeopathy is in a modern age. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Anonymous reply 1/21/09 Regarding the ability of water to take on information of substances - perhaps look into Emoto's water crystal photos. The idea seems to be water is able to be imprinted (the implications for our bodies and thoughts are huge). Homeopathic remedies aren't really "dilutions" they are a mix of serial dilution combined with "succussion" or forceful jolting of the mix whereby the physical information is transmitted and transmuted into a subtle energy form. Materialist have a hard time envisioning this kind of process. Yet they also have a hard time envisioning their own minds or how such a "thing" can direct their hands to type.... I'm a bit shocked by the hostility of this article towards Homeopathy, being able to get away with labeling it "quackery" (based on one reference!) Meanwhile, we are bombarded with mainstream medical/quack pharmaceutical cures nightly on TV. And we all have heard horror stories of phony science in the name of profit and reputation (ie modern corporate medicine). There seems many basic points left out relating to philosophy (no mention at all in Wikipedia of Hering's Law of Cure! And this seems to me a major basis for modern diagnostic medicine...). SO, according to Emoto water is much more subtle and amazing, and instantaneous than we think as a vehicle for vibrations/information. In Homeopathy very little of these minute "doses" are needed. In practice they are recommend to be given only once and let act for a long time. Theoretically you could even get the dose from dreaming about it...I'm serious, why not? (this isn't an orthodox opinion, I've never heard a Homeopath state it ,as I just made it up). If you question the whole notion of "vibrations" you need to study what physical matter is made of. Welcome to the modern world - materialism is no longer solid. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.109.55 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are intended for communication regarding the article and how best to improve it, not on speculation about the article's subject. Furthermore, any contribution to Wikipedia has to conform with our policies at WP:V,WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Stating that things are true, without actually providing any reliable sources to back one up (and when contradicted by some fairly reliable sources as provided by the article) is not acting in a manner that is particularly conducive to encyclopedia building. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can hold such a conversation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I notice this article has had a pov tag since June, but I don't see any discussion here about disputes. Can we remove it, or is there any dispute? --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has improved somewhat, but the tag is still justified. If you compare this article with the one in Encyclopedia Britannica you will see that EB mostly explains what homeopathy is, and Wikipedia mostly explains why it is stupid. Homeopathy's principles have been obsolete since scientific progress that happened a few years after Hahnemann invented it. But that doesn't imply that plausibility discussions, together with unrelated criticism, must dominate the article. I don't see any reason why this article needs to be more negative in overall tone than the article on Nazi eugenics, other than that this article is about something less evil.

In the atmosphere that prevails at this article, lack of discussion is a symptom of exhaustion, not of consensus. That said, I would personally agree with downgrading to a POV intro tag, because the problem is mostly one of the lede. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Much discussion may be found in the archives of the talk page above. The matter is still unresolved as Hans says. I still find the entire article reeks of POV and so the current tag saves us from tagging numerous sections individually. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It would actually help if you pointed out or tagged the specific parts you have a problem with. Verbal chat 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler and Colonel; the Pov tag should stay. "In Encyclopedia Britannica you will see that EB mostly explains what homeopathy is, and Wikipedia mostly explains why it is stupid." Notable homeopaths opinions in reliable sources about the way homeopathy is evaluated have been removed - I dont know why. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230 --JeanandJane (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we need an NPOV tag, it does not need to be any more realistic than it currently is. I've just read the article and had some difficulty establishing the supposed problem, other than that there is a lot of "he-said-she-said" style narrative. We (correctly) note that double-blind clinical trials do not support homeopathy, that the supposed mechanism by which it works has no provable existence in fact, and that the few trials which supposedly show benefit fail the test of reproducibility; this is a great improvement over most descriptions of homeopathy on the web, which skate over these awkward facts or rely almost exclusively on the claims of proponents. And I had no idea that the C scale dilutions were so much weaker than the allowable levels of arsenic pollution in drinking water, a most interesting fact. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I fully support the removal of the NPOV tag, per SW and JzG. Verbal chat 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless editors are able to spell out exactly which sentences are POV, the tag is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is therefore disruptive. We cannot have a constructive conversation if you can't be specific. Skinwalker (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• That would be fine, absent concrete ongoing discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any ongoing dispute on this talk page. Perhaps it is older than 30 days and has been archived - in which case it is not "ongoing". Anyway, if anyone has any specific problems with the page, I would suggest either starting a discussion here, or actually making the changes to the page. And simply not liking what the article says is not grounds for calling it "POV". --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that to read 'unless anyone starts a concrete discussion of points that have not already been discussed ad nauseum an this talkpage'. Removing the tag is fine by me right now. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked a specific question here and I didn't get a response.Notable homeopaths opinions in reliable sources about the way homeopathy is evaluated have been removed. Why? Dont you think that in an article on homeopathy the homeopath's opinion (on such a central and controversial issue) should be included since it is appearing in a good source? Myabe I m wrong, I dont know. Not a very friendly atmosphere here... Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Homeopaths say they are being treated unfairly and that The Lancet is a biased, unreliable source"? That's, uh. Well, it's something. And not useful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I observe that the NPOV tag has been removed with the edit summary, "For this to remain, we need specific, credible claims of how this violates policyt just a geneneral statement that it', n.)". This is not acceptable since the issues causing the tag to be placed have not been resolved and there is no consensus for this removal here. As stated above, particulars may be read in the archives of this talk page and, to assist, I have just been back through a couple to provide links:

• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 37#Problems with the lead
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 37#Recent changes to the lead
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#NPOV tag
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#neutrality of tone
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#POV tag
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#Apart from quackery in the lead...

Since these discussions are unresolved, I am replacing the tag now. Moreover, note that the particulars discussed above focus upon the lede. Similar issues arise throughout the article. I might, if time permits, catalogue some of the more egregious examples but we have enough specifics for now. The objective is an article which stands comparison with the dispassionate accounts to be found at such reputable sources as the NHS and the NIH but we currently fall short of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted. Other than dyed in the wool homeopathy fans saying this article is teh suck because it doubts the scientific basis for this wonderful thing, I fail to see what actionable neutrality issues currently exist. Sure, some homeopaths don't like what it says, but that is not a Wikipedia neutrality dispute, it's a homeopathy versus science dispute. And most of the debates you link seem to be along the same lines: someone identifies that there is still no specific actionable detail as to what, precisely, needs to change, and you assert that it's still disputed. Most of those claiming NPOV violation seem to be redlinked WP:SPAs anyway, and we are entitled to give less weight to their opinions particularly when thay are unspecific. What, specifically needs to change? You think we need to obscure the fact that "water memory" is pseudoscience? You think we need to rewrite the article to be more like other sites which have no WP:NPOV policy? Or is it just that you want it to be less grounded in reality? There is absolutely no credible mechanism by which solutions at this dilution can possibly have any effect whatsoever, and that is probably the single most important fact in the article. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the tag without resolving the issues nor obtaining consensus here is not proper dispute resolution as specified by the tag. Since this article is subject to specific sanctions forbidding over-bold actions and edit warring, it seems that the matter requires enforcement. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • CW, when ever this subject comes up, you imply that you don't have enough time, for example, just above you say "I might, if time permits, catalogue some of the more egregious examples". However, you always seem to find enough time to revert war over the tag, and argue on the talk page. Your involvement with this article has achieved very little, and unless you conduct improves, I'm going to issue a temporary ban. PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is your complaint - that I am talking too much or too little? I have provided six detailed links and two good sources above. Who else has done as much in this section? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • OTOH, perhaps CW will re-purpose the time it takes to complain about the tag and instead use that time to identify the wording changes he thinks most necessary to achieve neutrality. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the linked discussions above where we were going through the lede in some detail. Those discussions and activity were not concluded. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• By definition, if the discussion is in the archives, it is no longer active. If you'd like to begin debate over an issue, please start a new section here (with a link to the previous discussion as background) and explain a specific change you would like to see made. (EhJJ)^TALK 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it, these archives are automated and move sections off the talk page regardless of whether they are resolved or not. Certainly the tag was not removed as a result of such a resolution. It is only now that we have editors claiming that the tag should be removed on the technical grounds that there is no active discussion. But the passage of time is not adequate reason to remove such tags. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I agree with LeadSongDog. CW, your time would be better spent making realistic suggestions on how the phrasing of the lede could be improved, instead of arguing over the tag. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked a specific question twice and no one answered including the administrators who issue bans and blocks and the same time edit the article. I think the tag should stay.Maybe someone who is not involved should tag it.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression the comment by Consumed Crustacean was in response to your question. Regardless, if you want to propose an improvement to the article, then go ahead. Finally, I think your possibly confused as to the distinction between involved and uninvolved admins - have a look at WP:UNINVOLVED. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an answer: The question was "Dont you think that in an article on homeopathy the homeopath's opinion (on such a central and controversial issue) should be included since it is appearing in a good source? and the answer " Homeopaths say they are being treated unfairly and that The Lancet is a biased, unreliable source"? "That's, uh. Well, it's something. And not useful." Is this an answer? --JeanandJane (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

--JeanandJane (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that one of the top three medical journals is a biased, unreliable source stretches credulity to the snapping point. The only way that such an obviously WP:FRINGE viewpoint could be included, with appropriate weight is if it was being discussed as part of a section on Homeopathy rejection of science or similar. We have WP:NPOV (particularly WP:UNDUE), WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience as our major policies and guidelines related to this article's treatment of points of views. For the POV tag to remain, there's going to have to be an arguement that shows it does not follow those guidelines and policies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about them - homeopaths - It is their opinion, they explained it and it must be presented since it is published in a good source. You could write "homeopaths say or claim" so it is not undue weight. This is the way is presented in all reliable sources. The lancet ( you can define its impact - fairly) published ....this...and homeopaths say, claim....that.... or whatever verb you want to use.

Not doing so it is a violation of Neutral Point of View.

I might disagree or agree with homeopaths but my opinion does not count. --JeanandJane (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's about homeopathy, which is not the same thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My being an administrator is absolutely irrelevant here. Admins are normal editors with extra tools. I have not threatened to, nor actually used those tools in this case, and I generally prefer avoiding the use of them in anything pseudoscience-related to avoid any potential issues. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

* Why has the start of this section been rewritten by User:EhJJ? I'm not understanding the point of this but my impression is that he is rewriting other editors' comments in his own words. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• My goal is to compress this discussion into something that can be quickly reviewed, thereby allowing future editors to avoid repeating the same discussion. I'm waiting for the second-half of this discussion to end before I add concluding remarks. You'll see exactly what I mean in a bit. I hope I have properly reflected people's comments in-so-far as they contribute to the goal of resolving the use of the POV tag. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Concluding remarks? I fear that you are over-reaching. As a spot check, I have just compared my first remark with your summary. You have omitted two distinct points which I made - firstly that I supported the comments made by Hans Adler and secondly that I contented that a single NPOV tag covering the entire article spared us the nuisance of numerous tags for individual instances and sections. By summarising the points which seem to you important, you filter and distort our comments. This is an unusual practise and, while it may have merit, a needed pre-requisite is obtaining the consent of all editors in advance that you are accepted as an honest broker. We see elsewhere other editors such as Elonka applying such controlling techniques with some success but considerable squealing. Please state your intentions in more detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides all these is Homeopathy a fringe belief ? ["It's all about something you can find on every high street in Britain: homeopathy. Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief.http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml"] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanandJane (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming that the above statement is not by Orangemarlin below. In short: Yes. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and various Arbcom rulings that have said that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is expected to present mainstream scientific thought. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish everyone would indent properly. This section is a mess to read. Nevertheless, the article was POV about 18 months ago. It's quite fine now. Homeopathy is quackery, it is fringe, and there is no evidence that it works. Unless there is some credible and reliable evidence otherwise, this article is NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Concrete lede problems

Concrete problems with the lede have been asked for. Here is the rough structure of the lede:

• One paragraph explaining what homeopathy is.
• One paragraph explaining why it can't work.
• One paragraph about its prevalence.

The information density of the second paragraph is a lot lower than that of the first paragraph, going into much more detail. I realise that this is because of the fighting on this page, but the result contributes to a biased lede. A single sentence (such as: "There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo.") would be sufficient. The worst thing here is the last sentence of the second paragraph. While I have no doubt that homeopaths' explanations for homeopathy's perceived efficacy are pseudoscience, I think more guarded language would be appropriate when talking about homeopathy (which is mostly a method, which is not exactly the same as the rationale behind it). But most importantly, dropping the word "quackery" here is gratuitous, insulting and simply unjustified in what should be a "concise overview of the article".

The information density of the third paragraph is even worse. Again I understand how it happened: There is a lack of trustworthy sources discussing the prevalence of homeopathy on a high level. But the effect is a paragraph of advocacy for homeopathy (introduced by a strangely misplaced sentence of criticism), trying (rather awkwardly, IMO) to be a counterweight to the second paragraph.

It's not easy to translate this situation into specific tags, since all individual sentences (except for the quackery one) are actually OK and the problem is one of inappropriate weight. I would be happy with the lede if the last two paragraphs were condensed into one that is about as short as the first. E.g.:

There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo, and large parts of the theory behind homeopathy as well as some notable attempts to justify it are pseudoscience. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions, although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics. Both the popularity of homeopathy and the way it is treated in legislation show strong geographical and temporal variation.

--Hans Adler (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009

Why ias it necessary for the criticism paragraph from the lead of a very widely criticised technique to have equal length to the paragraphs setting out the fringe view? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. But for another rhetorical question: Why is it necessary for it to be extremely long rather than concise? --Hans Adler (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the alternative is reducing the fringe view even more so it's shorter than the mainstream view, which would have its own problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the first paragraph, because it explains a fringe view in a neutral way, would have to be reduced if the debunking following it doesn't take enough space? I don't think that's correct. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Concise is good, but there is more than just placebo that should be mentioned. The fact that homeopathic principles are contradicted by scientific principles discovered after the invention of homeopathy needs to be explicated so that readers know exactly what the context is for any discussion of "efficacy". In particular, descriptions of the lack of logic behind serial dilutions and the law of similars need to be made up front. Another point is that it is a common trope in discussions of pseudoscience, being perhaps the most commonly employed bit of pseudoscientific nonsense in many countries. That's at least four separate points that I think belong in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SA. Good point. But there are other things they should be added.--JeanandJane (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

However "lack of logic" is not accurate here. We dont even have a theory which is incosistent. Lack of a plausible mechanism maybe. --JeanandJane (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

These are good points, although I don't think they all have to be discussed individually in the lede. I'll try to cram them into my proposal anyway. I am not sure how you counted your 4 points, so I make it 5: 1. principles are contradicted, 2. serial dilutions unlogical, 3. law of similars unlogical, 4. common trope, 5. most commonly employed pseudoscience.

Homeopathy played an important role in the history of medicine, even though its principles were soon refuted by advances in science. There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo, and notable attempts to explain or justify extreme serial dilutions or the law of similars are pseudoscience. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions, although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics. Both the popularity of homeopathy and the way it is treated in legislation show strong geographical and temporal variation.

I think this takes care of 1-3, and 5 is at least hinted at (to the extent it is true – I am sure there are many countries where homeopathy is basically not used, or other pseudosciences are more prominent). 4 is probably true in many western countries. Do you have a RS for this? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimal Discussion on Lower Dilutions

The text reads

"Not all homeopaths advocate extremely high dilutions. Many of the early homeopaths were originally doctors and generally tended to use lower dilutions such as "3X" or "6X", rarely going beyond "12X". The split between lower and higher dilutions followed ideological lines with the former stressing pathology and a strong link to conventional medicine, while the latter emphasised vital force, miasms and a spiritual interpretation of disease"

There is very little discussion positive or negative, on homeopathic 'remedies' that contain diluted solute. The criticism is focused on the higher dilutions containing no solute. Seems like there should be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.178.109 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's not very much use, and that's still pretty small quantities: 6X is one part per million - and remember that only a single drop of the diluted remedy is generally taken - and 12X in a trillion, far below any detectable level. In any case, as far as I'm aware, there's been no good-quality, replicated studies demonstrating the lower-potency remedies work anyway: The Law of Similars is not an actual medical law. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not exact. This contains 2 % Urtica D2 (=2X), for example, making a total dilution of 1:5000. The typical amount taken is also more like 10 drops several times a day. When quickly researching this I also found an apparently ayurvedic preparation that is marketed as homeopathy: [1]. It's Adhatoda vasica D2; 5-10 drops to be taken up to 12 times a day. That makes up to about 100 drops of something diluted 1:100, i.e. one drop of the original substance! We are doing our readers a big disservice if we make the impression that homeopathy is always extremely diluted and therefore, a fortiori, harmless. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I used google translator[2][3] and those calculations look correct. I added one sentence to the end of the "Dilution and succussion" section, maybe it can be expanded with sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't think under "Coverage in the mainstream press" is a good place. Moreover, your formulation implies that "most homeopathic products" are "extremely diluted". This may well be true, and I am sure it's true in some countries for regulatory or other reasons. But I am not sure (as in: I just don't know) if it's correct in general, and it would be nice to have a source. (It's also not clear what the metric is supposed to be: number of registered homeopathic preparations, or sold units/market volume). --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ooops, wrong section, moved under "Dilution and succussion". About what percentage of products are extremely diluted or not, yeah, a source would be good. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy as PS: Universities drop “pseudo-science” degrees "in subjects that are not science"

Here we have the reaction to the successful objections from the scientific community. The universities are money making institutions, but they also have to think about their credibility:

Universities drop degree courses in alternative medicine

"Universities are increasingly turning their backs on homoeopathy and complementary medicine amid opposition from the scientific community to “pseudo-science” degrees.

The University of Salford has stopped offering undergraduate degrees in the subjects, and the University of Westminster announced yesterday that it plans to strengthen the “science base” content of its courses after an internal review which examined their scientific credibility.

Both universities are following the lead of the University of Central Lancashire, which last year stopped recruiting new students to its undergraduate degree in homoeopathic medicine.

The decisions by Salford and Westminster open a new chapter in the fierce debate about the place of awarding of Bachelor of Science degrees in subjects that are not science."

-- Fyslee (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAC

I think that it may be time to start taking this towards FA. We finally have a relatively stable article, and now have a chance to begin working on making it clearer, and moving it towards quality content.

A good first step might be to run this as a good article, then open a peer review.

If there aren't any (reasonable) objections, I'll do this in 24 hours. The article will probably need some more work, but it's time that we pulled other experienced Wikipedians in to review it, not just us regulars. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but it is already listed as a good article. Click "show" under archives and other info. Skinwalker (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thought it managed to lose that in the old edit wars. Well, then, let's open a peer review. If it's already a GA, that shouldn't be controversial. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting more exposure to editors who don't actively look for the topic sounds like an excellent plan to me. I am looking forward to the featured article, but I am sure it will take a long time to get there. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. It really needs a good copyedit, but if both sides can agree on someone neutral to do the copyedit - I mean a full copyedit, with ability to rearrange things, improve flow, and so on - We at least have the sources in place, and general agreement as to what should be included, and that's a big start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article and decided that I didn't have time to give it a proper review. However, I did make the time to review the lead; please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3 #Review of the lead by Eubulides. From what I saw in the lead it appears that considerable work will be needed to bring the article up to FA quality. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's impressive. I understand why you stopped after the lede. Thanks! --Hans Adler (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I tried something per Eusebius here, though it turned out a bit specific, and I'm not sure if it's actually an improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's better than before, in that it is a better lead into and summary of the article, but the caption is way too long and is more than a little browbeating (plus it's citing an algebra textbook? isn't that a bit snarky?). Also, on my browser (Firefox) the "1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000" is so long that it is cropped and I can't read it. A better caption would be "This homeopathic preparation has one part Marsh Labrador Tea diluted with 10³⁰ parts water." Eubulides (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Except we don't know it's water; more likely pure alcohol in all stages but the last few. If this is even a liquid – I am not familiar with this type of container. Couldn't it be pills? --Hans Adler (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, then how about this caption instead?

"This homeopathic preparation contains the herb marsh Labrador tea diluted by a factor of 10³⁰, so that it almost certainly contains no molecules of the original herb."

The last phrase captures the central notion that it's not the molecules of the original substance that make it a homeopathic preparation. (And a minor point: the "marsh" and "tea" shouldn't be capitalized.) Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder. One problem is that we talk about the dilution problem a lot - it comes up in almost all reliable sources, so it's not entirely unjustified, but I'm worried that adding an image with a caption about it may well be going too far. On the other hand, a lower dilution is less typical, at least based on the sources we have. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As the one who keeps insisting on this talk page that low dilutions exist, I have no problem with the image and caption. There is no doubt that high dilutions are a typical feature of homeopathy. I am more concerned about misleading text that confirms (implicitly or explicitly) the prejudice that all homeopathic preparations are of this kind. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're alright with it, it seems fine to me. Maybe we should put the arnica in later, just to show a low(er) dilution. (Or we could talk about the rather horrifying "1X" written on this deadly nightshade infusion - please tell me that doesn't mean what I think it does?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a good find! I would be quite surprised if homeopaths gave 10% belladonna tincture to patients. More likely either 1X here means something like 1 drop per day, and the dilution is indicated on the other label. Or this tincture was used by pharmacists, who prepared the final dilution from it. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, how much belladonna would be in the 1X preparation would depend on how much belladonna there was in the Mother Tincture. I haven't managed to find any indication of the concentrations of MTs (possibly this is not considered important?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunton (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See an example from 1854 on how to prepare a Belladona tincture: 4 dried leaves of Belladona disolved in 2 imperial pints (1.1 L) of diluted alcohol, macerate fourteen days, filter thought a paper. Dose, 10 to 30 drops[4]. Question: how many molecules of the active principle are finally taken by the pacient? :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but suspect I'd rather have it homeopathically diluted first. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Enric. Doesn't look as if there would be much in an MT based on that preparation. In any case, it's quite possible that, as Hans suggests, the 1X preparation was used by pharmacists to prepare further dilutions rather than administered directly. For example, it appears that Boiron ship mother tinctures to pharmacists, who then prepare remedies from them; I don't have a direct reference for this, but it is mentioned on this page. (sorry - forgot to sign my last contribution). Brunton (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second the motion of keeping the current lead image, but with the revised caption mentioned above; and to also put in the Arnica image (with the lower dilution) in the body of the article. I suggest putting the Arnica in Homeopathy #Dilution and succussion, after the table, as it will help illustrate the table. The caption could be something like "The homeopathic preparation Arnica D 6 contains extract of Arnica montana diluted by a factor of one million." Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

History expansion

Remember my attempt to expand the history of homeopathy and how it finished? I'm giving it another try, making smaller additions. Please don't make wholesome reversions and please remember what editing in this page should look like.

Some sections may look unbalanced in comparison to others because they haven't been expanded yet, I'll try to avoid that but please have patience. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a minor change to the wording of your last edit which (I hope) doesn't alter the meaning you intended. Brunton (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's good, thanks for the edit :) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

not NPOV

this article ain't NPOV and so the Tag should remain on the article. 122.167.21.180

Would you care to be more specific ?--McSly (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is an attack piece, just look at Citizendium which is also based on 'collaborative editing' and is really NPOV. 122.167.21.180

You mean the Citizendium piece written by banned user Dana Ullman, banned for his ridiculous over-promotion of homeopathy. Yeah, removing the tag. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Dana, but Citizendium is not promoting Homeopathy.

This article here is an attack piece. What's wrong in having a small Tag on top of this article stating it ain't NPOV, see the articles on Chiropractic, Osteopathy and Naturopathy, don't htey also have those tags? 122.167.21.180

The "attack piece" comment is not a specific criticism, and as such it does not support the presence of a POV tag. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the Citizendium article is not a reliable source on homeopathy; but even if it were, "just look at Citizendium" would not suffice as a specific criticism of Homeopathy. The presence of tags on other articles is not that relevant as to whether a tag should be present here. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, simply put, NPOV means reflecting the views of the majority of the experts and reliable sources on a topic. Most doctors and scientists see homeopathy as a surprisingly complicated form of placebo, so this is the view this article has to take. People often confuse a neutral point of view with a sympathetic point of view, but that is a long way from the truth. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, I wonder if you have different yard-sticks for Chiropractic and Homeopathy. I'm going to make this article more NPOV, I hope you're going to allow it and not Ban me. 122.167.21.180

Chiropractic? That rings a bell. 122.167.21.180, are you associated with any participants in those looooong discussions on Talk:Chiropractic a few months ago? It seems like only yesterday, no? But anyway, to answer your question, no, I don't use a different yardstick for Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim, can you tell me how many homeopaths there are, posting here, for you to get an NPOV? Looking at the archives, I see that only those who are pro-homeopathy get banned from here. 122.167.21.180

Tim, Professional Qualifications are necessary to practise Homeopathy, so why do you delete that addition calling them weasel words? How do we get an NPOV then? 122.167.21.180

There are a large number of situations where qualifications of any sort are not in fact required.Geni 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that homeopaths are generally supportive of homeopathy isn't a relevant consideration for deciding the balance of the article. After all, advocates of the hollow earth are supportive of that idea, but we apply NOPV by looking at the views of the experts in the relevant field - in that case geologists. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede still not NPOV, please comment on proposal

Somehow I managed to edit the article without noticing that the NPOV tag was gone. Now there is an edit war about it. Apparently the issues with the article expire if they are not repeated once a weak or so.

I intend to tag the lede with POV-intro for the reasons stated under #Concrete lede problems. In particular:

• Too much lede space is devoted to debunking homeopathy in comparison to other, equally notable aspects of it.
• The lede uses the offensive and inappropriate word "quackery" gratuitously, even giving a reasonable sounding explanation of why it is used. I am reasonably sure that putting the following into the lede of Barack Obama would lead to my being immediately, and deservedly, blocked: "The African origin of his father, and his attendance of a Muslim school as a child, have caused him to be regarded as a nigger or terrorist."

I am not tagging the sentence as improper synthesis, although I strongly suspect that the source for "quackery" does not actually say it applies the word to homeopathy for the reasons that our lede states. But as in the Obama example, the sentence would be improper even if a reliable source made the connection in exactly this way.

Under #Concrete lede problems I also made a concrete proposal for a new lede. Three established editors (Shoemaker's Holidy, Enric and ScienceApologist) made one critical comment each. If I go just by these comments, it looks like there should be consensus for my proposal to replace the last two paragraphs by the following:

Homeopathy played an important role in the history of medicine, even though its principles were soon refuted by advances in science. There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo, and notable attempts to explain or justify extreme serial dilutions or the law of similars are pseudoscience. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions, although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics. Both the popularity of homeopathy and the way it is treated in legislation show strong geographical and temporal variation.

It can probably be improved, and of course appropriate sources would have to be identified. But currently I have no idea what other editors think about this proposal because nobody comments anymore. Instead the NPOV tag was removed without fixing the article first. That's quite frustrating and looks a bit like an abuse of the status quo. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the proposal. It deemphasizes the present state of homeopathy, making it sound far too strongly as though it's a simple historical footnote. Your Obama analogy makes no sense whatsoever; while the efficacy of Homeopathy is probably the most crucial and widely discussed feature of the topic (notably amongst reliable sources), accusations of Obama links to terrorism are nowhere near that level, especially when verifiability is actually taken into consideration. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

Your "historical footnote" objection makes sense; I am not sure how to fix that.

Discussion of efficacy is of course very notable. Use of the word "quackery" is not. As far as peer-reviewed sources go, we have the absurd Nigerian article (which we are no longer citing, for good reasons), and the "quackery with a difference" article. The justified criticism of homeopathy and its foundations is clearly a coatrack for using this highly offensive word. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the rather dubious "Homeopathy played an important role in the history of medicine". Had homeopathy never existed, medicine today would be....pretty much exactly the same as it is. - Nunh-huh 06:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know homeopathy gets quite a bit of space in regular books that give an overview over the history of Western medicine. I did not mean to imply that it has had an effect on today's medicine. This may or may not be the case. (E.g. homeopaths stressed the importance of hygiene long before it became standard for regular doctors to wash their hands before operating a patient. This is one of the reasons for homeopathy's initial success in killing less patients.) I am open to reformulations that are less likely to be read as saying homeopathy had a lasting impact. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For homeopathy to have played a "role" in the history of Western medicine you would have to show that the alleged importance of hygiene within homeopathy directly influenced the development of hygienic practices within Western Medicine, as well of, of course, reliable sources documenting the existance of hygenic practices within homeopathy predating such practices within Western medicine.JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing "quackery" from the lede to Homeopathy makes about as much sense as removing "murder" from the lede to Charles Manson. Please review the discussion at Category_talk:Pseudoscience from the days around 10 October 2008.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC

Your first sentence is absurd. Homeopathy has not been convicted of quackery in any reasonable sense of the word, and "murder" is not a derogatory word. The pointer in your second sentence is ridiculously vague. You could at least have mentioned the topic of the discussion you want me to review. Are you perhaps referring to Category talk:Pseudoscience#Homeopathy a Pseudoscience?? There is nothing relevant there. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the proposal either. As stated, it is rather dubious that homeopathy played an important role in history and I think any lede on a contemporary topic should definitely start with an assessment of the current state of affairs instead of history. Furthermore many critics of homeopathy will be quick to point out that the only reason homeopathic treatments are safe is because they lack any active ingredients. The current lede states this "Common homeopathic preparations are often indistinguishable from the pure diluent because the purported medicinal compound is diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product" and I think this perspective is necessary in any discussion about the safety of homeopathy.

The Obama analogy is not fair as there is no reliable evidence Obama is a terrorist, unlike the many negative trials examining the effectiveness of homeopathy. Furthermore, there is no reason a lede cannot contain critical information as long as it is verifiable. Maybe you should compare the homeopathy lede to the Adolf Hitler lede which states "He was appointed chancellor in 1933, and quickly established a totalitarian and fascist dictatorship... His forces committed numerous atrocities during the war, including the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians[3] including the now controvesial genocide of an estimated six million Jews, a crime known as the Holocaust." The differences between this and the Obama lede is these statements have reliable sources to back them up as do the statements about homeopathy.

Also I reject the notion that the use of the word "quakery" is gratuitous as the lede itself explains why this term is used "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[13] and its use of remedies without active ingredients..."JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The proposed replacement would make the lead way too short.
• The proposed replacement has no sources, which makes it hard to review it in detail. That being said, I share some of the skepticism noted above about some of the claims made in the proposed replacement.
• Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3 #Review of the lead by Eubulides for a detailed review of the lead and suggestions for improving it. One of those suggestions has been acted upon, but many problems remain.

Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for not taking your comments into account. I wrote the proposal before your peer review, and I only repeated it here to draw attention to the POV problem. (In retrospect it wasn't the best way of proceeding.) We are currently driving homeopathy-friendly readers away in the second lede paragraph, instead of educating them. The sources are not there because in the climate of this article it makes no sense to source a statement before there is at least a rough agreement. Even then it's likely the statement changes dozens of times, many of these changes making it necessary to look for new sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec: this was written before I saw Eubulides' comment) This is getting ridiculous. From quackery:

Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe unproven or fraudulent medical practices.

A lot of people are defending use of the word, but so far nobody has answered the following two questions:

1. The term 'quackery' is ambiguous. We only have sources for "unproven", but use it to justify a word that can also mean "fraudulent". Why is this necessary? Are there no other, less ambiguous, words left to describe the situation?
2. The term 'quackery' is derogatory. What's a derogatory word doing in the lede as a factual description of the article subject?

--Hans Adler (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some people regard the prescription of treatments with no active ingredients as fraud. I will, however, concede that we cannot that fraud implies a deliberate attempt to deceive and we cannot ascertain whether or not homoeopaths actually believe their treatments work so fraud/quackery may be an inappropriate description. I think it is probably sufficient to say that homeopathy has been described as pseudoscience and the reference to quackery is probably unnecessary.JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes James, the intent to commmit fraud is difficult (sometimes even impossible) to prove, but in any case it is far less important than the diversion to placebos of patients who would otherwise get effective diagnosis and treatment. It's not just money, it is that peoples' lives are being endangered. That is why quackery matters and why it belongs in the lede. Otherwise, it would just be a quaint little low-stakes game, separating fools from their money for a few drops of alcohol or magic sugar pills. Now, wp does not wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but neither should it perpetrate them. Failing to highlight this danger is tantamount to telling sick people they don't need real medical care. If there are other word options to highlight the danger as succinctly, I'd be interested.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hans, quackery can involve fraud, but not necessarily. Most quacks and promoters of quackery are believers in their favorite delusions. The word is a legitimate description, is often used regarding homeopathy. If you were to ask medical scientists and skeptics to name three of the most classic and popular forms of quackery, homeopathy would likely top the list. We couldn't give a hoot as to whether it's derogatory or not. That is not a legitimate reason for deleting it. Wikipedia is uncensored. We use the whole dictionary here. Get used to it. We could use the word "murderers" for those who prescribe homeopathic potions for pay, but "quack" is good enough. This perpetual attack on the use of the word reeks of meatpuppetry for the indef banned Dr.Jhingaadey. It needs to stop. Hans and others keep getting the same response, and Albert Einstein's quote comes to mind: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This is simply disruptive, and it needs to stop. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.