Talk:Homeopathy

Systematic bias

This article devotes undue weight to the magical gibberish explaining how homeopathy is alleged to "work" and throughout takes the tone that homeopathy is just "controversial" or "non-mainstream." In fact, homeopathy does not work, and the only open question is whether its practitioners are delusional or are in fact con artists fully aware of what they are doing. The medical tone used throughout is inappropriate, as homeopathy has nothing to do with medicine. The article should instead be devoted to sociological and legal explanations of why homeopathy, as the voodoo/fraud phenomenon, and its proponents continue to exist.

Remember, by attempting to "tell both sides of the story" or treat something "neutrally" when all the real evidence is in fact on one side, you introduce horrible bias. Pretending that there is an equal body of evidence for the "homeopathy works" side gives vastly more credit to that position than it deserves. "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true."

Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

POV lead

I tried to neutralize the lead by eliminating WTAs, to give proper attribution to the statements -which are now in very bad shape- and to give a better picture of the practical status of Homeopathy in practice. It was immediately reverted. Thus, I've placed a POV tag on the article till the problems can be worked out. Please take my edits as a suggestion. There is no need to write the lead in a POV manner, as the same content can be conveyed without breaking NPOV, ATT and WTA. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific please. What WTAs? What is not properly attributed? Specifically? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, your first edit (in this round) started with this edit summary:

• "Writing in a neutral tone without WTAs, without changing meaning."

Well, it did change the meaning. It happened when you changed this:

• "This process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, is claimed to remove any negative side-effects of the treatment, and to retain some therapeutic powers." [emphasis added]

to this:

• "This process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, is called potentization. It is intended to remove any negative side-effects of the treatment, while retaining therapeutic powers,..." [emphasis added]

Your edit introduced a subtle change that makes assumptions of fact about matters that are not proven fact and that defy logic. It changed a presentation of what homeopaths actually claim happens (thus presenting - but not advocating - the pro-homeopathic POV), to a statement of what they intend that left the statement with their assumption that two things actually are true and happen i.e. that negative side-effects really are removed, and that there even exist therapeutic powers. Neither one is proven to be true at all, and therefore should not be presented as if they are. It ends up not only presenting the pro-homeopathy POV, it assumes it is true, which is selling and advocating homeopathy, both forbidden by NPOV. It would be a different matter if those matters were obvious facts unequivocally proven by science to be true. Then it could be stated without any modifying terms, since uncontroversial statements don't need qualifiers or even special documentation or references. Then common sense rules our editing. Things (like homeopathy) that defy common sense, as well as physical reality and possibility (based on present knowledge and evidence) must be accompanied by modifiers.

I AGF and don't think you consciously intended to do this, but your beliefs and biases in favor of homeopathy (and the paranormal) are so strong that it's pretty hard for you to avoid. (Welcome to the club. You're not the only one who suffers from myopia at times, but you don't seem to understand it.) This is quite natural, but considering your track record of constantly doing this, which is abundantly documented in all the disputes you have gotten into, you should consider editing other types of articles (where you have no particular opinion either way). -- Fyslee / talk 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

With the specific example Fyslee spells out about (claim v. intended), I have to say that I see MartinPhi's point entirely. Please read WP:WTA#Claim. The sentence as it is written with "claim" does feel a bit weaselly and seems to suggest that Homeopaths aren't being truthful about the effects of potenization. Quite the opposite, homeopaths certainly do believe the truth about the effects of potentization. Regardless of whether you believe or dismiss homeopathy, homeopaths do believe in it and thus in their minds they are being truthful about the intent of potentization. Thus, I think "intended" is a much better word to use than "claim". Remember, just because someone is intending something, does not make that effect certain. Thus, by using "intended" we are not saying that the effects of potentization are real, but rather that the effects are merely intended to happen by homeopaths (but with intent there is a possibility that it may or may not happen).

With that and other POV issues MartinPhi alludes to, I think his addition of a POV tag to the article is certainly justified and should not be reverted until this discussion has settled. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The POV tag is justified. But I really like the approach I see now to dealing with POV. docboat 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I can support a specific and narrow change from "claim" to "intend" in the passage described by Fyslee. Skinwalker 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Please feel free to implement when you feel we are ready. MartinPhi, might I suggest going through each WTA issue and specify how you feel it could be better as we have done above. Small steps, everyone. Small steps. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of "intended" does seem to be sufficiently ambiguous as to be interpreted as possible advocacy of the belief. Several alternate options exist, e.g.; "the process...is believed by homeopaths to...", "the process...is seen by homeopaths as a means to..." etc. - LuckyLouie 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. Your propositions may solve the problem. If we don't do something (if "claim" is changed to "intend"), it will leave readers with the impression that such things actually are true and happen. That would be misleading. The first one does it fine, while the second still leaves the door open. This works: "the process...is believed by homeopaths to..." That states the pro-homeopathy POV clearly. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional narrowing of discussion to a forced choice ("claimed" or "intended" - choose one!") is never a good thing, and "...said by homeopaths to..." may be another viable option in this case. - LuckyLouie 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood you. I thought we were trying to try out different wordings to try and find one we could agree on and I provided my opinion. Apparently that was not your intention. Whatever. -- Fyslee / talk 06:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't misunderstand, you got it right, we are both in agreement. I was just trying to give you some more options. Sorry for the inscrutable comment. It's late ; ) - LuckyLouie 06:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Late for you, early for me....;-) It's alright. We just have (at least) two jobs here: We need to make sure that the pro-homeopathy POV is clearly expressed so readers understand the POV. At the same time - because that POV makes a number of false assumptions - we need to protect readers from deception. Such assumptions do cause real, unnecessary, and preventable deaths. Readers need to be prevented from coming away with the impression that those assumptions are true. That's where the scientific/skeptical POV is expressed. Both POV are required for the article to be balanced and NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What are some alternatives we can use to "claim" or "intend"? It seems both are considered loaded terms. I can think of a few...

• "hypothesize" bad due to connection with scientific method
• "postulate" again, ascribes scientific investigation
• "posit" may not be the best english
• "allege" may also be loaded
• "attest" does not imply bad faith by homeopaths, yet does not imply efficacy either
• "imply" perhaps not accurate, as it is explicitly claimed and not implied
• "signify" <--- this is my favorite, lmao </silly>

I'm open to considering changes to the lead, but I concur with Fyslee and others that we need to balance the objectively false assumptions behind homeopathic theory with a neutral description of the topic. We cannot cross the line into a sympathetic point of view, which Martin's edits were clearly designed to accomplish. Skinwalker 13:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, speaking as an allopathic physician, I need to tell you that the #3 (#4 depending on sources) cause of death in the USA with 120,000 annual deaths is "properly prescribed medication which has been properly administered" and accounts for 6% of all UK hospital admissions, 0.15% of which end fatally. Damned if I can find the sources just now, but google will no doubt answer. Now how about deaths due to homeopathy? And what, I ask you, does the presence of an article on homeopathy, written from the POV of homeopaths, have to do with free choice of the individual? Surely, as a darwinian, we need to allow people to make informed (if silly) choices about their own health? The ones who demand an antibiotic for a viral sore throat are just as ill-informed as a cancer sufferer who chooses to ignore chemotherapy in preference to a homeopathic remedy. Now as for deception: heavy stuff. If you want to call homeopathy a "deception", that is fine. You will, of course, be able to assert the fact of deception clearly? The fact that you dispute any efficacy is fine too. But you have absolutely no duty to protect readers from deception. Your task on this encyclopaedia is to provide information. This point is important - please read it closely: It is the duty of each rational person to take responsibility for their own health and well-being. It is not the responsibility of others to force their concept of right and wrong on anyone else. I cite the example of Jehovah's Witnesses, people that have caused me extreme distress when watching helplessly when they exsanguinate. I can quote an understanding of "blood" in the biblical sense as pertaining to eating animal sacrifice, not transfusion. And it is irrelevant. It is the right of an individual to take the steps that s/he feels right. So with this article. Your POV concerning a lack of efficacy must not be allowed to detract from the topic at hand. Anyway, just a few thoughts from the sharp end of medicine. docboat 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the word contend? is that not more neutral? thanks Peter morrell 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I like contend as well. Anyone else? Skinwalker 14:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contend is better than claim. Not perfect. But definitely an improvement. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9310601

1: Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43 INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

I think the phrase "Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design.[15][16][17][18. is not accurate and should be modified in order to include the results of the meta analysis published in the Lancet. You could also include the observation that " there is insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."

BTW I did not see this study in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New article

Maybe folks can decide if they would like to include this new article [1] Jeanette Winterson, In Defence of Homeopathy, The Guardian, 13 November 2007 thanks Peter morrell 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article, but nothing new. We have a journalist writing her opinion. She does cite some sources, which may make them citable. I guess it all depends on what part of the article someone wishes to use and why. -- Fyslee / talk 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Heavy on anecdotal evidence, not much on either description or scientific analysis. No visible notability of the source. I don't think it helps us. --Art Carlson 08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And this one justifies homeopathy through... nanoparticles? That's a new one. We can use as Winterson's opinion, but I don't think her opinion is that notable. Skinwalker 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, whatever's sexy this week. Give me some time and I'll cook up an explanation based on the giant magnetoresistance. --Art Carlson 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was uncalled for. This is a serious topic, not a plaything for the amusement of those who are determined to push POV. docboat 13:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please lighten up. I gave serious consideration to whether I needed to add a smiley or a pre-emptive apology to prevent hurt feelings. I decided the participants were mature enough not to take it as a personal attack. I guess I was wrong. You might not like my joke, but I think accusing me of POV pushing in the article is "uncalled for". You have to admit, anyone trying to explain homeopathy with nanoparticles either hasn't thought the idea through or doesn't have a clue. Physicists have known for decades that nanoparticles have different properties from bulk material, and they have known for centuries that sufficiently small particles remain suspended indefinitely. And nanoparticles are diluted out of existence even faster than molecules are. Is that serious enough? --Art Carlson 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an additional problem using that article to support claims in Wikipedia:

From the article: "Bulk material should have constant physical properties, regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is not the case."

From Wikipeda: Nanoparticle: "A bulk material should have constant physical properties regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is often not the case." (Text added 08:34, 8 October 2005 by Dancarney.

We end up with slightly circular citations, I think. — BillC ^talk 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! I think we're treating this with the appropriate level of seriousness. Skinwalker 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, possibly, if you are treating things with a level of seriousness which is appropriate for you. But it bodes ill for the article if the main editors on a topic are both antipathetic to the topic and lighthearted in their approach. Don't you agree? But I shall lighten up and try to see the funny side. docboat 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of physical models proposed, including Bénard cells, vibrations, etc. We don't have instruments that I'm aware can prove which physical model is correct at this time, but we do know by the first law of thermodynamics that all energy is conserved, and we do know from quantum mechanics that particles and waves are physically interchangable. The atomic limit is not a real limit in physics. Whig 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, these have little relevance in (bio)chemistry. A molecule can only react with another molecule if both are actually, physically present. The statistical "randomness" of the quantum domain cancels out at a remarkably low level; chemical substances really do behave according to quite mechanical rules. --FOo 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, but you fail to take into account the fact that homeopaths treat substances that are absent as if they were present. (Don't try to figure out the (lack of) logic in that one. It will drive you mad....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 06:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quantum chemistry relates to interactions at the submolecular level. Whig 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it still deals with the interactions and electronic structure of atoms and molecules that are actually present in the substance in question. Quantum chemistry does not deal with suspected left-over waveforms from molecules that previously shared a beaker with the substance but are no longer present. It does not propose that absent or nonexistent molecules influence chemical reactions. As such it has zero relevance to homeopathy. --FOo 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy does not fit into the standard theories of chemistry. It is nonetheless physically plausible, according to cited physicists, and has medicinal effect, according to cited medical doctors. Whig 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On its own terms, homeopathy is energetic medicine, that is to say, it is not presumed to be chemical in operation any more than X-rays. Whig 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Winterson is an author, not a scientist. I read this and knew it would come up here - not relevant in the slightest. Her opinion is no more valid than mine (probably less). Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a much better follow-up in today's Guardian (16th November 2007) which explains evidence-based medicine and how it applies to homeopathy. Unlike Winterson's mumbo-jumbo this one actually contains some useful information. WombatDeath 11:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can specify what useful info it contains? it reads as usual like one long boring uninformed flow of anti homeopathy rhetoric. the usual blather. what facts? what new info? in actual fact it's crap ...nothing new in that Peter morrell 12:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I've told you already: "explains evidence-based medicine and how it applies to homeopathy". I didn't say that it was new information, since that depends on the knowledge of the reader; I said that it was useful. If you want more, I was personally enlightened by the description of the clinical research database (having been previously unaware of it) as a mechanism to counter publication bias.

On a related note, it is rather perplexing that you reject an article on scientific testing as 'uninformed' and 'crap' while supporting another consisting of voodoo and anecdotal evidence. What information, exactly, is offered by Winterson that you feel should be used in this article? WombatDeath 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Although both are highly rhetorical and unsourced (except the Lancet version of Goldacre's article), I also found Goldacre much meatier than Winterson. I think he does a good job of summing up the arguments against homeopathy in a systematic way. Although you might question whether the experiment has been done "time and time again", I thought his description of a "model trial for homeopathy" was exactly what homeopaths say we need more of. --Art Carlson 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead length

This has crept up quite a bit since this version, and the chief culprit appears to be the quite unnecessary elaboration on the potentisation process which don't really belong in the intro. That, and a considerably harsher and more sceptical tone (reinforced, as always in cases like this, with reference-spamming). I don't see that these changes have improved the article. Chris Cunningham 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you provide a handful of specific examples of sentences or paragraphs, and highlight ways in which the wording or content ought to be improved? Antelan ^talk 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a link to an old version which I believe contained all the good bits and less of the bad bits. It's not a case of improving the language, it's a case of omitting those parts which have been added which are best left to the article body. Chris Cunningham 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This article can never reach FA status unless the lead accurately summarizes the entire article. This article is fairly large and thus the lead will in turn be fairly large. This is not a problem or concern. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This casual dismissal of my concerns isn't particularly constructive. The standard inclusionist no-fact-is-too-trivial approach to writing introductions is not conductive to creating FA articles either. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, this edit is a good example of the problem. That's just a dumping of three random facts in the lead. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just removed this section:

"Although at many of the higher dilutions have no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain, homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some memory of the diluted substance to remain, and that this imprint has therapeutic effects on the body. "

It seem to be too specific for the intro. Maky be these references can be placed in the body of the article? David D. (Talk) 07:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In many articles, such a statement might be seen as overly specific. In this article, however, I don't agree. Something to that extent should be in the intro because that is, in a very distilled form, the essence of the controversy. It is a crucial contention over which homeopathy and the mainstream disagree. Antelan ^talk 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But is this article about the controversy or about homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a crucial aspect of homeopathy: the potentisation process through which remedies are prepared. Is it duplicated elsewhere in the article or does it have to be in the lead? thanks Peter morrell 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Potentiation is still in the lead. I just removed the argument about whether there are any molecules left or not and whether water can memorize the molecules. Does this not seem a little too specific for an intro. It should definitely be in the article though. David D. (Talk) 07:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you shorten the lead, as long as it contains all of the relevant info that the article does and properly summarizes it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

You should all be aware that a notice has been placed here: page

diff ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be in the lead

The lead in articles must perfectly summarize all relevant aspects of the article itself. This means that if a subsection exists then it is probably relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Here are somethings that MUST be mentioned in the lead to properly summarize this article:

• More details on how dilutions of homeopathy are contrary to the laws of chemistry and physics.
• Mention of Veterinary homeopathy.
• More details on provings and treatments.
• More elaboration on the statics of use and legal issues relating to homeopathy.

Unless these things are mentioned in the lead and properly summarized then this article isn't going to reach FA status. We can't just shorten the lead to it's bare minimum with an article this size and expect it to accurately summarize it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeating this enough doesn't make it true. The article's lead is an introduction to it, and need not be an absolutely comprehensive summary of all facts contained within. The assertion that the article isn't going to reach FA without such devotion to complete coverage is not backed up by evidence, and it's not like the parties disputing this haven't been involved in getting articles to FA themselves in the past. My primary concern is to make Wikipedia accessible and readable, rather than an unordered aggregation of facts.

The perfect example is the veterinary thing. This kind of trivia barely belongs in the article in the first place because it should be obvious to literally any reader that this is transferrable from any medical practice; a single paragraph noting it is worth including if it's well-written, but the lead cannot be expected to devote a line of summary to every single paragraph in the article if it is to stay on message. Chris Cunningham 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Please see WP:LEAD. The lead section needs to be a summary of the article, this means a complete summary. A lead must be able to stand alone and still give a comprehensive overview of the entire subject. For instance if someone were to read JUST the lead and not the article as a whole, they should be able to get a summary of the entire article just by reading the lead and know the most relevant information about the topic in question. Veterinary medicine actually isn't transferable from any medical practice and it's quite relevant to the topic of homeopathy, this means that it needs to be mentioned somewhat in the lead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read WP:LEAD. Your absolutism is not backed up by anything in it, and indeed the use of the word "important" in the following excerpt contradicts it:

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article

"Accessible" is just as important as "summary" in the lead guidelines.

While "Veterinary medicine actually isn't transferable from any medical practice", the banal statement that "when homoeopathy is applied to animals, it is known as veterinary homoeopathy" does not reveal to the reader any more than a dictionary definition of the word "veterinary" does. Chris Cunningham 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to explain some details about animal homeopathy in the lead. When nominated for FA, this article will be opposed by people saying that the lead doesn't accurately summarize the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A basic misunderstanding is that "the article's lead is an introduction to it." It is far more. Normal articles (elsewhere) may have an introduction, but here at Wikipedia we use a WP:LEAD, which substitutes for an introduction, but isn't identical to it. In fact the use of a subheading called "Introduction" is eschewed here. We just don't use it. The lead functions as a comprehensive summary making reading of the article (in a certain sense) superfluous except for those who wish to get the full details and references. Otherwise a reading of the lead should tell them all the salient points of the article, but not the finer details. -- Fyslee / talk 18:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And the lead has the same relative WP:WEIGHT and tone, as the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be telling us what homeopathy is from a neutral point of view. Does anyone disagree with this? How can the phrase "Homepaths contend...." be considered neutral? It's a repetitive theme in the intro of this article, and makes it a boring narrative to read, typical of all controversial article on wikipedia. Basically, it reads from the very beginning like an attack article (yawn). As a reader I want to know what homeopaths claim without an inserted criticism after each one. I want to see a coherent criticism as a separate narrative. I see no reason why the first paragraph cannot be about homeopathy and the second paragraph an outline of the controversies. More detailed rebuttals are appropriate in the body of the article but not in the opening paragraphs, unless you want to call the article criticisms of homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The neutral point of view includes criticism. All views must be represented with their due weight. You seem to confuse NPOV with sympathetic point of view, which wikipedia consciously rejected early in its history. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did i ever suggest removing all criticism? On the other hand, ALL criticism is not neutral. Also, I have never suggested we need to be sympathetic to homeopathy, but to have a critcism after each point and to write "homeopaths contend..." for each claim is not neutral. Why can't controversial articles be written in a way that is interesting? Why are critics afraid to allow a simple description of homoepathic concepts without inserting rebuttals after each claim? David D. (Talk) 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but what criticisms here are undue weight? What significant pro-homeopathy views are we omitting? Is this a point of style rather than substance? Keep in mind that the criticisms should not be segregated to critical sections lest we create itra-article content forks.Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It nothing to do with undue weight. Put as many critcisim in as you like. I'm arguing the article is unbalanced. To counter every sentence describing homeopathic claims makes the article look like a hatchet job. Why not just have a bullet list of claims with the rebuttals indented. That is how it currently reads. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would different words be more neutral than "contend"? We necessarily do this when talking about the views of a minority. For example, the article on Joseph Smith, Jr. is not unbalanced because is says that "Smith's records indicate" and "it is believed" that he saw angels, talked to God, ect. These are equally necessary qualifications here when talking about the views of those who believe, essentially, that water has memory. You're right that "contend" is a very adversarial word and has the wrong tone. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word contend used once. But it is used in every other sentence. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is the first time I've read a lead that comes across as a heavily researched criticism section. Honestly, there is way too much bashing going on in there, and it sounds like it has been written by someone with a vendetta against all homeopathists. Short of writing 'DEATH TO HOMEOPATHY', it puts off all interest to read the article, which is one of the most important functions of a lead in the first place.

Wikidudeman has a point in saying that the lead needs to present a stand-alone introduction to all the important points raised in the article. But IMHO there is definately a line that can be crossed, and this lead is way over the top. Instead of giving us so much detailed criticism, it is perfectly fine to give a summary of the kinds of critique homeopathy has recieved - without going into the details of that critque. Save that kind of stuff for the article itself. That's my take on the WP:LEAD guideline. Peace. Aryaman (☼) 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what i have been trying to articulate. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We take an approach in the lead that is little different than that of other comparable pages on pseudoscience - take a look at the lead of intelligent design, for example. There are certainly stylistic things (e.g. contend vs. other synonyms of claim or believe) that can be compromised on, but criticism should not be moved out of the lead. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a strawman. At no point have i said there should be no criticism in the lead. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion #1

With regards to this sentence in the lead:

Homeopaths contend that this process of serial dilutions, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, removes any negative side-effects of the treatment and retains therapeutic powers...

What if we rewrote it as such?:

According to homeopathic theory, this process of serial dilutions, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, removes any negative side-effects of the treatment and retains therapeutic powers...

That gets rid of at least one use of "contend" anyhow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word theory is ambiguous and only correct if you mean to use it in the loosest sense of the word, I'd suggest "homeopathic ideas" or just "according to homeopaths". Tim Vickers 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if I agree or understand what you mean by the use of theory being ambiguous. My thought is that regardless of Homeopathy being science or pseudoscience, that the usage of the word theory is correct. Despite that feeling, I am okay with your suggest of just "according to homeopaths". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm fine with that option. Read the article on theories to see what I meant - the word has several meanings. Tim Vickers 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By replacing "contends" with "according to homeopathic theory", I think Levine is going in the right direction. The use of the word theory can be misunderstood, but Tim's suggestions should help. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion #2

My widely unpopular edit was changing the following sentence:

Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy, which homeopaths contend acts by treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. "

to:

Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy aimed at treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. "

But I guess that was regard as not critical enough at it was reverted back. David D. (Talk) 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is much better but I never like the word "aimed" used in that sense. It's a personal feeling, but it sounds kind of country bumpkin-ish to me. However, that being said, your idea is right on. It takes out the contentiousness but leaves in the theoretical ambiguity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My main point is to remove the negative homeopaths contend. Anything suitable that substitutes for aimed and keep the meaning intact is fine with me. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I get your point, I agree that it's superfluous. The word is overused throughout, and has a negative tone. I think the substance is good, but the language is excessive. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we're on the same wavelength. Articles should be enjoyable to read, even if you are an opponent of the theories discussed. David D. (Talk) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article in the British Homeopathic journal

Just a quote from H Walach's "Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy" in the British Homoeopathic journal Volume 89, Issue 3, July 2000, Pages 127-140. doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0413

...With this story the eminent scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem ends his work `The Jewish mysticism'.1 It describes the fading of the Chassidic tradition and introduces the image of dilution, in this case the dilution of magic rituals: although the original ritual is diluted and only the story of it remains, it is effective. The same is true for homeopathy, as those believe who have their own experience. Although the original substance is diluted, it is still in some way `present' and effective. This presence, I will contend in this paper, is a magical, not a causal presence, like the one described in the text by Scholem. Magical presence and effects are wrought by signs, not by causes. In this sense, homeopathy is effective in a non-local way: it acts by magically activating connectedness. It uses a system of signs to bring about this action. I propose to use Jung's model of synchronicity, or, in more general terms, a general model of acausal effects, in order to understand this action. I will turn to explain how the scientifically obscene word `magic' can be understood in an inoffensive way. Then Jung's concept of synchronicity will be elucidated and set into a wider frame of a possible general class of acausal effects. At last homeopathy will be exemplified as one phenomenon falling under this category. Before I set out, I will make plausible why such an approach is called for by interpreting the empirical database for homeopathy. I will use some concepts at the beginning loosely and clarify them in due course.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the point people are trying to make is that there isn't any need to be afraid of Homeopathy- and that's what the extreme negativity indicates. The reader knows this. The reader will be much more sympathetic to Homeopathy if we keep on bashing it. And the harder we bash it, but more sympathetic the reader will be. Because guess what? Most people are turned off by allopathic medicine. That's why alternatives are so popular. Adam, you and the other bashers here are doing more to promote Homeopathy than any promoter of the therapy. You are promoting Homeopathy. Learn the psychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, ye cannae be serious. Tim Vickers 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I swear. I'll send you the PDF if you want. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet its one of these hoax papers like the Sokal affair. Tim Vickers 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We cite the author 4 times in the article on the pro-homeopathy side. If it is, it's one the Faculty of Homeopaths like. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice editing, Adam. You're making it much more neutral. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't cite this guy, this is just gibberish. Tim Vickers 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He's one of the people that did studies that showed homeopathy has an effect. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But come on, this is just crazy - the text makes no sense whatsoever. We can't cite this junk to show anything apart from saying that the man's ideas are insane. Tim Vickers 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This says something about the so-called "reliability" (in the normal, non-wiki sense) of the sources that find positive results. Could we use it as an example of what types of sources find positive results? (A whole new section with several examples.) That might involve some details about what kinds of zany ideas he holds.... Nope. That would get us too far afield into (truthful) OR and POV editorializing. We shouldn't do that here, but it could be tempting on a website...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Sorry if I was a bit obstinate before: I didn't like the lead much, I just disliked most of the suggested changes more. However, like a lot of things on Wikipedia, once all the dead wood started to be trimmed out, a lot of bluntness that seemed necessary turned out to just be props used to try and balance a faulty structure.

Basically, this is an article written by committee. We should be able to smooth out the flow a lot better than it is. But what I think we're looking at is a rather cackhanded attempt - of which I was no doubt part - to balance out sections that poor writing made too supportive of homeopathy by simply injecting criticism. So, we need to improve the writing as a whole.

Of course, there's a lot of notable criticism, and this should still be included in appropriate sections, not just in the criticism section. But - though we have to play it by ear - if we improve the tone, the criticism'll probably simplify and come together into short, coherent paragraphs summing up thoughts on the homeopathic belief, instead of forcing itself into the middle of the explanation of the homeopathic belief. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good principles (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The revised lead is crap. In no way does it neutrally describe this article. It is still far too heavily critical. IMO what do you expect from an anti-homeopath? Peter morrell 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The current lead doesn't summarize the article properly. It's missing relevant information that the article dedicates entire paragraphs and sections to. This is unacceptable. The "Prevalence and legal trends" (Very relevant material) is totally missing from the lead. The mention of Veterinary homeopathy is totally missing from the lead. There is no elaboration of the history in the lead. No real mention of the history at all actually. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

it is much worse than that; it is the worst hatchet job I have seen on WP conducted by 2 folks who should know better one of whom wants to become an arb com admin,[2] which beggars belief with such puny and prejudicial editorial "skills" apology for misusing the word skills. Peter morrell 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing a decent lead for this article should not be so hard for so many intelligent people. It has 6 major sections, as far as I can tell. Whoever is in charge of each those sections (if you guys have your editing team worked out at all) needs to write a 1-2 sentence summary on their respective section. Pool them together here on the talk page, discuss them to make sure that folks agree on the content of and weighting in each, and then stitch them together in a NPOV narrative, polishing as seen necessary. If the content in the article itself is good, the lead should pretty much follow of its own accord. Aryaman (☼) 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on rewriting the lead over and over just to have my information removed. I've explained what the lead needs and until we come to agreement that a "lead" is a "summary" as WP:Lead states then I won't bother adding new info the lead over and over. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask the participants in this discussion to remember our goal here is to produce a thorough, detailed, neutrally-presented article. Constructive, specific criticism is welcomed, and is the best route to our shared goal. I applaud and thank the editors who are engaging in calm, polite debate about the merits of this article.

Any editors who might consider attacking other editors' views or integrity – instead of discussing the merits of their contributions – are strongly cautioned that such an approach is both unhelpful and unwelcome, and may be met with a suspension of editing privileges. If tempted to make such remarks, I recommend stepping back and having a nice cup of tea, instead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, Will you fix the lead for us? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting anyone's skills here, but I don't think giving the lead to any one person is going to solve the problem. Properly organized collaboration is the key, IMHO. Aryaman (☼) 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve. I have this talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed that things were getting a bit heated. I've asked a few editors specifically to tone down their rhetoric (and backed that request with my admin powers, in the unfortunate event the use of those powers becomes necessary), but I've no intention of imposing content decisions from on high. I think there's productive discussion going on, and I'd much prefer to nurture that discussion than make any sort of attempt to short-circuit it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't exclude you from being able to improve content of articles. From an outside editor it might seem like productive discussion is going on but this is just a never ending cycle and little actually gets permanently done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with this new version of the lead as well, it fails to summarise the article. However, Adam's idea of removing repetition and condensing sections of the article are a good one. Tim Vickers 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely glad to see the repetition gone. Now we need a descritpion of homeopathy that is not sprinkled with critiques. Preferably a section that introduces the history and concepts (this does not mean no criticism at all in the lead). David D. (Talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

We need to summarise the article. How about three paragraphs following the sections of the article.

Text of proposal

1. History and General Philosophy

   Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of complementary and alternative medicine first used in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[1] Building on this work, later homeopaths such as James Tyler Kent expanded the practices of homeopathy: although Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art remains in wide use today. The legal status of homeopathy varies from country to country, but homeopathic remedies are not tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs. Usage is also variable and ranges from only 2% of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year,[4][5] to India, where homeopathy now forms part of traditional medicine and is used by approximately 15% of the population.[PMID 16177471]

2. Development of remedies and Treatments

   Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[3] Hahnemann proposed that this process aroused and enhanced "spirit-like medicinal powers held within a drug".[4] Sets of remedies used in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, with practitioners selecting treatments according to consultations that try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological state of the patient.

3. Medical and scientific analysis and criticism

   The ideas of homeopathy seem scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[5][6] Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[9][10][11][12] Meta-analyses of many clinical trials have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design.[14][15][16][17] This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused, in the words of a recent medical review, "...homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[13] Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, with a few homeopaths even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures such as vaccination and anti-malarial drugs.[18][19][20][21][22]

Please comment below. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any further comments and suggestions for improvement, or are people generally happy with this current draft? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK everybody, I've compacted the resolved issues, this consensus version of the lead has now been placed in the article. Further feedback is welcome and please continue to suggest improvements below. I have to say how impressed I have been with this successful co-operation, it is the most productive and focussed discussion I have seen on this talk page. Thank you all very much. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussion on section 1

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section needs to give a little more detail on the history. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Expanded. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) What (prejudicial?) purpose does the 2% thing have? why just confine this to Britain and the US, when homeopathy is much more prevalent in France, Germany, India and Pakistan? needs fresh cites anyway, thanks Peter morrell 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Added note on number of homeopaths in India, but if you have a reliable source on actual prevalence of use in the Indian population that would be better. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Regarding India...two new news articles of possible interest:[3] [4] might contain data or useful material. Peter morrell 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Found a 2005 article dealing with homeopathy as part of Indian traditional medicine that gave a percentage prevalence. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I don't see why you say Organon still in use. What purpose does this statement serve? just to show that homeopathy has 'stood still?' Not so, many things happened after the Organon (which you do not state) and also which Organon? 1810 Organon 1 or 1833 Organon 5? which one? The statement is in fact another hatchet job, a hopeless oversimplification, which is of course what you guys want. The tone of the rewrite throughout is still anti through and through. It still lacks neutrality and balance. IMO Peter morrell 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Write a better one-sentence summary of the post-Hahnemann history of homeopathy and we can substitute it in. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "Despite being one of the better-known forms of alternative medicine, the legal status of homeopathy varies from country to country." doesn't seem to actually say anything. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC) It says that although it's well known, It's usage and legal status are varied. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC) That was a bit woolly, how is the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC) The second sentence has been bugging me a bit: "The ideas and practice of homeopathy have not undergone any radical changes over the past two hundred years, with Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art remaining in wide use today. " I'm not sure why, possibly because it is stating the obvious. How about the following change? "Even today Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art is widely used as a reference for homeopathic treatment. " This seems a little more neutral. IMO. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I just read Peter's comment abve re: this sentence. i have to say i didn't see this as a hatchet job, more a testement to Hahnemann's influence and impact on homeopathic treatments. Nevertheless, given Peter's worries, the second sentence could possibly read as: "Even today, many of the ideas layed out in Hahnemann most famous textbook, The Organon of the Healing Art, are widely used for homeopathic treatment." Peter, if you hate this sentence now is your chance to get what you'd prefer. David D. (Talk) 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC) As I said before, it depends on the motivation behind the inclusion of this sentence...what function does it serve? It sounds OK as it is but it stops short of saying very much about the core issue. In the late 19th century, for example, one of the critiques levelled against homeopathy was that it was fossilised, had stood still, resisted all change and had turned inwards (see W G Rothstein: American Physicians in the 19th Century - From Sects to Science; and H L Coulter Divided Legacy, 4 vols; who address this point as also does Kaufman, Homeopathy: the Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy) but from the homeopathic side this was a big misapprehension. In their view Hahnemann had found the absolute therapeutic truth, a new method and a new materia medica and the tools to treat all sickness, so why look elsehwere? why use other books when the Organon contains everything, an entire distillation of all homeopathic knowledge? That is why they appeared to resist change, to look inwards and not to use microscopes or require laboratories, etc. Thus, this brief comment seems redolent with that same dismissive & contemptuous attitude towards a system of medicine that regards itself, as it still does even today, as a complete medical system that does not need allopathy, that has cut itself free from mixed drugs in strong doses. Do you follow? that was my point. How you encapsulate that in this hopeless diatribe of an article I know not. Personal attack removed Forsure, it is a hatchet job, the whole goddam article. Peter morrell 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback Peter, what do you think of the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) The 'new version' of what, Tim? where is this new version, this Babylon, to which you refer? thanks Peter morrell 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Babylon is presently in the first paragraph of the draft above. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC) It's OK; however, it is not true that homeopathic drugs are not regulated; they are regulated in Germany and France, Belgium too, I believe, and so are controlled drugs like Opium, LSD and Cannabis sativa in the UK, even when used in potency. Such drugs can only be prescribed by a physician or a registered homeopath. I have no cites for that but maybe you can find some. Peter morrell 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Great! What I was trying to say is that homeopathic remedies are not regulated as drugs i.e. they don't have to undergo the same clinical trials as conventional drugs. I tried for a better phrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Well, that is only true up to a point. You would have to consult a homeopathic pharmacist. Aconite, Belladonna and Nux vomica are deadly poisons in their origianl state and are certainly regulated as controlled drugs, likewise Opium tincture (Laudanum) and Cannabis tincture. Such tinctures are deadly in their pristine state and are certainly controlled in law. Many drugs as herbal extracts are controlled in most countries if they are lethal. Homeopathic pharmacies have to be licensed in the UK as manufacturers and/or dealers in homeopathic stock. Many of them start off as tinctures or as stock solutions which are then potentised over time. No country is that legally lax to allow such drugs to be collected and prepared by just anybody! I don't know what the lwas are but they certainly exist. Peter morrell 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Well yes, but the remedies are not required by law to be put through clinical trials and are not regulated in the same way as conventional drugs. The regulation of mother tinctures is a separate issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, Tim, that is correct! except for potencies of 'controlled drugs' like Opium and Cannabis, etc as mentioned before. You should check that all allopathic drugs are subjected to clinical trials; I'm not sure that is strictly true. There are many drugs in use I think which have not been subjected to trials, mainly because they have been in use for 30-40 years already. Aspirin and Paracetamol are good exmaples. There must be many such drugs in common use which are just not questioned. So, if your point is to show that homeopathy 'lags behind' conventional medicine in its quality controls, for example, then you had better get the facts even tighter. Peter morrell 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) All drugs must be proved safe and effective, PubMed contains 137 clinical trials on aspirin and analgesia and 434 on the same topic with paracetamol eg 1977 review. The same laws are not applied to homeopathic remedies - clinical and toxicological trials are not required by law before a remedy can be sold to the public. Those are the facts, but how you interpret them depends on your POV. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Yes OK, but no, I think you missed the point. New drugs now are indeed trialled but it is simply untrue to claim that all drugs in common were trialled BEFORE they were introduced. This is a relatively recent procedure. Paracetamol and Aspirin were in use for decades before they were trialled and I am sure there are many other examples. It is no use citing drugs that were trialled AFTER their general use in medicine as that does not show the POV you seem so keen to push. In any case, clinical trials are not just to show efficacy but also to identify possible harmful side-effects, so this dual function of trials is not transferrable to homeopathic drugs, although some homeopaths (e.g. Vithoulkas) reckon provings should be done against placebo, which other homeopaths regard as daft. Does this clarify? thanks Peter morrell 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Perfectly, clear. You think it would be incorrect to say "have not been tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs." but that it is correct to say "are not tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs." since this second statement refers to current legal requirements, rather than the much looser laws on drugs that applied in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Stating the facts is not POV Peter and saying that homeopathic remedies are not regulated in the same way as conventional drugs is a plain statement of fact. If you are still unhappy with this, how would you describe the regulation of homeopathic remedies in one sentence? Make a suggestion and let's consider it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks, yes the latter sentence seems fine to me. cheers Peter morrell 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC) With respect to the last part of this statement about the prevalence of use, doesn't this violate some Wikipedia standard. Does it matter if 97% of people believe in Homeopathy? Does that make it any more or less valid? I think this violates NPOV. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I don't think simply noting prevalence has any implication that the thing itself is correct, after all, we note the murder rate in various places without this being seen as an act of approval towards murderers, or an article on Catholicism could note what percentage of various nationalities believes, without making any judgement or implication on whether the tenets of this religion are correct. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) And comparing it to how many people "believe" in Catholicism makes me feel better. User:Filll once looked up a bunch of polls on what Americans believe--like 50% believed in Alien abduction and the such. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of lead paragraph 1

Please comment here: suggestion

Researsh on the memory of water has found no or very little evidence to explain how homeopathy might work. Add more references

[5] [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussion on section 2

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not happy with the non-neutral term 'homeopathic belief;' we did have contend before, which is MUCH more NPOV. can we restore that? thank you. Not happy with the phrase 'Hahnemann wrote' maybe he proposed or documented a belief? just a few ideas. Peter morrell 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Adopted suggestions, replaced "contend" with "believe" as per discussion in section above. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC) What discussion above? No explanation is given for this change. Believe is POV contend is more NPOV. Please explain this change. Peter morrell 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Amusingly enough, diff it was removed because people thought it was pejorative and carried a negative implication! Tim Vickers (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Peter, I'm surprised you'd think contend is more NPOV. That sounds like a very defensive word in that context. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Some parts seem to unduly accept homeopathic beliefs as fact. e.g. "Homeopathy aims to treat disease..." - The words "aims to treat" seems to imply that it works at least some of the time. Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Not really, I could say that Margaret Thatcher aimed to fly to the moon on a broomstick, but that would not imply that it could happen. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I disagree, this seems to suggest hope rather than fact. Besides, it could be considered to work some of the time due to placebo effect. It all depends on your definition of work. This is vague enough that it should suit all. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "These substances are administered in heavily diluted formulations" - this sentence spends a lot of words to say something that could be said in a couple adjectives. Should be recombined with the previous sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC) That was a bit wordy, I've condensed it a bit. "Hahnemann proposed" - why not just "said"? Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC) We could say "wrote", but proposed seems to describe it more succinctly than "hypothesised" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Proposed is better than said. Although I could go with wrote. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "Homeopathy employs substances that cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are diluted in a process of serial dilution..." How about "Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that in undiluted form cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are then diluted in a ......"? This shows the progression of developing remedies. -- Fyslee / talk 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC) OK, that is better than my wording. Added Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of lead paragraph 2

Please comment here:

Archived discussion on section 3

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tim, this is much more along the lines of what i was thinking. Section one and two give a nice introduction that flows and is interesting. It comments that this is controversial but does not belabor the point. The last section is a fair rebutal that brings balance to the article for any reader who was unaware there was controversy. David D. (Talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC) We need a section on the Legal status and statistics. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Added to first paragraph. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I just wanted to commend Tim Vickers and others here for this big step forward towards real collaboration. If you guys (and gals?) keep it up, I'm sure a lead will emerge which will (a) tie in with the structure of the article, (b) present a balanced summary of the contents of the article, and (c) reflect a true consensus among the contributing editors. Good work, everyone. =) Aryaman (☼) 19:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, I agree, well done Tim good work; so far so good. Peter morrell 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Are the statistics really so important that they must be in the second sentence? Adam Cuerden talk 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Well they could go in the second paragraph, but that seemed the logical place for them. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Looks very good, Tim. Hal peridol (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I like almost everything, but this statement "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" has always offended my understanding of science. I just don't know how something can be "opposed" to scientific knowledge. I've tried rewording, which stayed, until someone rewords it, then it gets weaseled. As it is here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC) That's a direct quote of the second source link we decided last time we discussed this that simply paraphrasing the sources was the best way to approach this, since that gives the least possibility of introducing bias. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC) The fact that it's a direct quote can actually make it more POV. This language ("The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible, are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge, and have been characterised as a form of magical thinking") is simply not neutral, not the kind of language that a neutral-type source would use to speak of a system that still has serious followers. It is more POV than the language of the source itself! (see source). Friarslantern (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC) You're falling into the "some say the earth is round; others say it is flat" misperception of NPOV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC) No I'm not. The number of serious, educated people to whom homeopathy is plausible, including MD's, is small, but significant. The number of serious educated people who believe the earth is flat is almost imperceptible. We're not discussing the current lead, but the draft above. See section 3 of the draft. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC) The one above that says "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" ? OK, well, the same problem. With issues of controversy, it is not WP that should be telling me that a given controversial topic is scientifically implausible. It is WP's job to tell me that (ie the consensus among scientists is that...., or some such language). You would not read this in a serious journal, newspaper, or encyclopedia. Indeed, even the souce cited, in its abstract, uses the language "many pharmacists feel that the homeopathic system of medicine is based on unscientific theories that lack supporting evidence" -- and this is directed toward pharmacists (who are presumably more science-minded than the general WP-reading public)! The first mention of a topic's controversy sets the tone for the whole article. Friarslantern (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC) You would indeed read these comments in serious journals since these are the sources the phrases were taken from: "This is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories." link "Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use." link The phrasing in this part of the article tries to stay as closely as possible to reliable sources such as these. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC) That's fine -- so put it in quotes. Note the MORE neutral tone of the very article you cite, however. Friarslantern (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Certainly a bit more neutral with seems scientifically implausible rather than the definitive are scientifically implausible. And both note the widespread use despite Homeopathy's scientific shortcomings. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Tim, you're a basic science researcher, so you know better than I. It just sounds weird. BTW, it is precisely neutral. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Prevalence is discussed in the first paragraph, but I'm fine with "seems" rather than "are", which was how I originally phrased it, before it was "edited ruthlessly" Tim Vickers (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Spiritual vs. pscyhological Not happy with the word spiritual in the bit about consultation. Maybe 'psychological or psycho-social condition of the patient' would be more accurate. Spiritual is too woolly and New Age for a start and also what does it refer to? it is inaccurate. Homeopaths have no more idea than the rest of us what this term means. It has no intrinsic meaning within homeopathy. It kind of suggest religious belief which plays no part in homeopathy or in homeopathic consultation. just a few thoughts. thanks Peter morrell 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Do homeopaths do a spiritual consult, or is it just psychological? If so, that's the word for what it is. It's not the same as psychological or psycho-social, which look at functioning of the psyche but not at, let's say, one's meta-analysis of the psyche: perceived meaning of life, role of one's ethics, and metaphysical beliefs, if any. If homeopaths give a spiritual evaluation, then that's the word for what they give, I'd say. Friarslantern (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC) They talk to the patient and LISTEN to a complete overview of their medical conditions and their likes and dislikes, and their mental habits, inclinations and moods, sleep pattern, menstrual patterns if any, personality...quite frankly this is NOT spiritual. How does that sound? It's quite simply the wrong word. Peter morrell 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I'd agree that what you describe isn't exactly the spiritual. They might call it constitutional, which could be the most fitting word here, I dunno, but it's meaning is obscure to many.... Friarslantern (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC) "Psychological" seems fine, good suggestion Peter. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC) How can you make a psychological assessment without being a psychologist or psychiatrist? They're based on science. I'd accept something like "holistic" assessment, which fits with the whole pseudoscience of this practice, while accurately describing what this practice thinks it's doing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC) That's why I wrote "try to assess" rather than just "assess", they certainly attempt to do this, but whether it is achieved is debatable. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC) you don't get it yet; NO assessment is made at all, no judgement, no evaluation, no comment! just collect the symptoms of every aspect build a full picture mental and physical, and find the most similar remedy. I would suggest you might study the subject a litle first? I don't edit articles on biochemistry because they're slightly beyond my specialism. Same applies. thank you Peter morrell 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC) If you collect data on something, you are still assessing its state and evaluating it. If you give remedy X to people with blonde hair and remedy Y to people with red hair, looking at a person and deciding on the colour of their hair is an assessment of hair colour. This seems a perfectly accurate way of expressing what happens, what would you suggest instead? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Its very hard to give examples of how this works in practice; it really is non-evaluative. Homeopaths take shortcuts such as Belladonna is no use unless there is a red face and high fever, they are usually delirious; the Pulsatilla child cries and laughs easily, they are clingy and insecure; the Natrum mur is averse to criticism, cannot urinate in company; no Nux vomica patient has a mild disposition, they are almost invariably angry dynamic people; Arsenicum has a fear of death and they know it is coming, they adjust pictures until they are hanging right; Aconite is for anything affected by strong dry cold winds; Lachesis types are always jealous and bleed/bruise easily; Lycopodium and Silica fear failure and speaking in public but once they get started make excellent speakers; Mercury is for very odd people with very odd habits; etc etc; these are not evaluations they are merely observations of associations between remedy symptoms and people symptoms. The 'pscyhology' in homeopathy means the type of person in front of you, what they are like, mild, angry, sad, whatever. Does this clarify? I do think psychological is a better word than spiritual but it is not used in any deep technical sense as Orangemarlin suggested. I hope this makes it clearer. thanks Peter morrell 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC) OK, what to you think the rewording "...consultations that try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological state of the patient."? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I agree, Tim, this is a much more suitable re-phrasing. thanks Peter morrell 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC) or "...consultations that try to produce a picture of the patient's character and constitution." Well, at least these contain the meaning of what we're getting at.... don't know if they're colloquial enough not to disrupt the style & flow here. Friarslantern (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I don't like "character" since that always carries the implication of "moral character" - ie he is a man of character. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC) "...a picture of the patient's personality and physical makeup." Friarslantern (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Personality doesn't include important aspects such as how they are feeling - stress, anxiety etc. "Physical makeup" is a little strange as well, to the chemist in me it recalls elemental analysis, but also sounds like you might be counting limbs and measuring BMI. What exactly is your concern about how it it currently phrased? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Actually, I'm fine with it :-) .... I was working from Peter's problems with it. And there should be no problem with using "psychological" -- the legal distinction that homeopaths are not licensed to evaluate psychology is just that, a legal distinction, not a relevant distinction for an encyclopedia that (I hope) aims to be colloquial. Friarslantern (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with the user Tim Vickers that paraphrasing “the sources is the best way …since that gives the least possibility of introducing bias”. I think this could be added in the 3rd paragraph. This is exactly what the studies say: One of the six meta analysis concluded that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” not without its own critisim from homeopaths. [7] [8] Another meta-analyses concluded that the effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence. [9] Four metanalyses have shown that homeopathy is more effective than placebo or that the evidence of clinical trials is positive but they found insufficent and/ or unconvining evidence that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single condition because of the unknwon role of publication bias and the low methodological quality of the trials. [10] [11] [12] [13] Proposing that we give equal weight to a publication in "The Lancet" versus a publication in the obscure Swiss alternative medicine journal "Forschende Komplementärmedizin" is simply absurd. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of lead paragraph 3

Please comment here:

This is a basic homeopathic objection, which was not included before.

Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology. [14]

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Compare the credibility of the already in use “Your Skeptical Guide to Homeopathic History, Theories, and Current Practices Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D” website with this study [16] which ….was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the 'Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’ Peter F. Matthiessen, (Chair of Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke (Germany).

But lets not argue about that now.

Even without this source I think what I suggested ( look above again ) could be used since it gives the least possibility of introducing bias as you said. I think it is very neutral and no one would object. "Meta-analyses of many clinical trials have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design" is not what the studies say.

This is more neutral" One of the six meta analysis concluded that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” not without its own critisim from homeopaths. [17] [18] Four metanalyses have shown that homeopathy is more effective than placebo or that the evidence of clinical trials is positive but they found insufficent and/ or unconvining evidence that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single condition because of the unknwon role of publication bias and the low methodological quality of the trials. [19]

[20] [21] [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian article

[23]

Refers to this Lancet article:

[24] helpfully copied byt the author here

Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy articles in the news

While Ezine Articles is not a RS (and blacklisted as a source here), there still may be some interesting stuff here:

• Chiropractic is Responsible for the Rebirth of Homeopathy in America

The history of homeopathy begins with the discoveries of its founder Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician. Hahnemann's first comments about the general applicability of the law of similars came in ...

http://Ezine Articles.com/?Chiropractic-is-Responsible-for-the-Rebirth-of-Homeopathy-in-America&id=346168 (space in hyperlink needs to be removed for it to function)

Other sources (HIV/AIDS and homeopathy):

• Homeopathy under attack

InTheNews.co.uk - London,UK

The decision to host a symposium about homeopathy's role in the treatmentof HIV/Aids has provoked a fierce attack from a leading academic. ...

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/finance/pharmaceutical/homeopathy-under-attack-$1167450.htm

• Homeopathy to treat HIV/AIDS criticised by British doctors

Newstrack India - Delhi,India By NI Wire Nov 17:

A proposed Homeopathy's function in the treatment ofHIV/AIDS has become an object of remonstration. The seminar was to beorganised by ...

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/1527

The last one includes statements made by Indian doctors which should result in delicensure and criminal prosecution for endangering lives. They are dangerous deceptions and untrue. Any research that supports their claims must be seriously flawed. -- Fyslee / talk 16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... is the preponderance of evidence really that great, or are you going with your scientific instinct here? This article can't be too bad -- note the text of the final paragraph!!! Look a little familiar? Friarslantern (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that does show that what we are doing is important. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NIH / NCCAM

Ok, I make no claim to be a great writer, so please tweak what I just added, but this article absolutely does not have NPOV. The NIH has on their site a list of studies that did show that some homeopathic remedies have statistically significant difference--Yet the very page that shows that at the NIH was referenced in this article as *only* showing that some studies are not valid. True, the NIH site has those invalidations...but it lists the ones that showed significance as well. That should be reflected in the opening paragraphs of this article. So, again, my lame attempt to point that out obviously needs rewording, but at least some balance of that fact makes it a bit more NPOV I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somewherepurple (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment is in relation to this edit and this link. NCCAM is itself said to be less-than-neutral, but putting that aside I still think the edit's language goes too far. Most studies show no statistically-significant link. Even NCCAM is unafraid to say homeopathy is controversial "largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics)." (emphasis added) Cool Hand Luke 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Such studies MUST be included rather than removed purely for the sake of balance. I see the addition made in the night has been rvtd can we please discuss the inclusion of these positive studies? to ensure NPOV they must be included... thank you Peter morrell 12:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if it's not a good-quality metaanalysis, it shouldn't go in. Random crap from complementary medicine journals is no good. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What you call 'random crap' from alt med jnls is not OK but random crap from skeptic websites is OK, is that it? is that your policy? if so then this article, solely controlled by folks like you, will never reach NPOV. Take your pick. You cannot seriosuly have a policy of excluding refs solely because they might be positive studies, which is what you seem keen to do in every edit you do to this article. thank you Peter morrell 13:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to use altmed journals to say that science supports homeopathy. That's not the same as using a skeptical site to say "Homeopathy has been criticised for..." Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In my own field of medicine, reputable journals - such as the British Medical Journal - have often printed articles which have been heavily criticised for unbalanced statistics, unacceptable conclusions, and biased study conditions. Statisticians regularly slate the medical community for publishing poor quality. But as these are allopathic and accepted, it hardly merits attention. Because they are "normal", these studies stand. Think of the "butter is good - no! Butter is bad" debates etc etc. When you then discount journals because you do not like their stance, then you compound the errors. I would reconsider your basic premise, if I were you, Adam. docboat (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

However, there are reputable journals and unreputable journals, and, combined with the nature of the statistical test used to check whether something is better than placebo, there's bound to be some studies that say it's better than placebo. Combine this with publication bias, and there really is no call for using single studies that show very small effects to try and claim that homeopathy is supported. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is that there are studies which show an effect, and it is simply not on that these are discounted on the basis of your personal bias. Can you agree on that point? docboat (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While we editors should keep factors like statistics and publication bias in mind, we are in no position to quantitatively evaluate them to conclude whether the sum of the studies is inconsistent with a homeopathic effect, inconsistent with only a placebo effect, or consistent with both (i.e. undecided). That's what the metastudies are for, and we should only report their conclusions, sticking as closely as possible to their language. Since there are several metastudies published, we can try to sort them according to reputability of the journals. If we can't come to a consensus on that point we could use impact factors. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC):

Agreed, but Peter is arguing that non-metaanalysis single studies should be given equal weight... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that at all. In fact, all I am saying is that SOME mention should be made of positive studies. They exist. Anyone reading this article would think there are NONE. That is POV. hope that clarifies. Yes they should be mentioned but I did not say they should be given equal weight. I will give you some quotes from one later and then you can see what you think. cheers Peter morrell 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not get started quoting from individual studies, there are just too many of them. Can't we instead use the summaries from the metastudies, which describe the studies as a whole? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

magical thinking

This is one of the most common criticisms of homeopathy, so surely it should appear in the article? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

References:

Walach, H (July 2000). "Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy". British Homoeopathic journal. 89 (3): 127–140. doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0413.

[25]

[26]

[27]

However, none of these are very prominent or reliable sources, compared with the high-impact peer-reviewed journals used to source the other statements in this section of the lead. Surely if we just confine ourselves to reporting what the best journals in the scientific mainstream say about homeopathy, we make the statements in the lead more authoritative? Tim Vickers 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If we did, yes, but we don't: All that statistical information about usage isn't from major journals, and we also use a university source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? I simply don't understand the objection in the edit summary, since notability is far from always a requirement for references, while verifiability and reliability are. Those happen to be good sources and are a good addition to that part of the lead. (Keep in mind that Adam's edit summary isn't part of the edit.) The edit itself is quite dry and a matter of fact statement about existing skeptical opinions, backed up by references. I just don't get it, and I haven't even been enjoying a glass of wine! -- Fyslee / talk 06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The notability requirement is not on the reference, it is on the statement. If there's reason to believe that homeopathy is commonly seen as being magic then I'm fine with the refs, but I don't think there is. To my knowledge it is generally portrayed as being (pseudo)scientific in nature. Furthermore, the statement in question is mentioned only in passing in the article body. No need to stuff it into the intro too. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a criticism I have seen in the mainstream scientific literature. Has this statement been made in any papers that have been published in reputable scientific journals? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are raising the bar for inclusion of this type of information to an unreasonable level. Scientific information should preferably be backed up with good scientific references, while critical opinions are more commonly found in skeptical literature, newspaper articles, journal aricles (like "Time Magazine"), V & RS websites, etc.. The sources must still be from V & RS, but don't necessarily have to meet the notability requirements for other types of information or the quality requirements for the nitty gritty details involved in specific scientific claims. Let's keep these distinctions in mind, otherwise we are creating a straw man situation. -- Fyslee / talk 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If critical information in the lead is restricted to the scientific mainstream, then this also excludes the stranger publications in fringe journals on such topics as quantum entanglement of people and water memory. There can be no justification in insisting on good-quality sources for scientific discussion of possible mechanisms of such topics unless we are equally stringent on other scientific topics, such as if homopathy is magical thinking. However, if this is indeed a common criticism, then it should be noted in the meta-analyses and academic reviews that we cite in the reminder of this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. don't believe this was intended to be raising the bar so much as an innocent inquiry. That said, the bar for inclusion in an article seeking FA status should certainly be higher than "this was mentioned in an acceptable resource", insofar as it pertains to non-notable information. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I guess I'm not expressing myself very well, but I strongly disagree with you on this one. You are using an apples and oranges situation here which has often been used as a straw man argument by fringe editors to shoot down perfectly good opinions from good sources, opinions which are rarely if ever uttered in actual scientific research articles. They do what you are doing, and requiring that such statements (even in articles unrelated to science) be sourced only from double blind research, which is an obvious fallacy and generally nearly impossible. Research is research, and opinion is opinion. They still require backing from V & RS, just different types of sources. I am still nonplussed to see you using an argument that fringe editors often use. -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case. Why not try explaining what the problem is, rather than trying to tar an editor by association with unspecified "fringe editors"? Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim is far from fringe. He is a scientist and I was just surprised to see him using an argument I have seen used by fringe editors. That's all. This plays into their hands and they can use it as justification for more attempts to use invalid arguments to demand sourcing that is clearly not of the right type for subjects not to be found in such literature, i.e. skeptical opinions and dialogue in scientific research studies where the facts discussed are more likely to be about the molecular composition of whatever, rather than the personal opinions of the researcher regarding the wars in the trenches between science and nonsense. Such opinions are found coming from scientists who are writing in skeptical journals, interviews in the press, and on various skeptical websites. Two different types of information coming from two different types of sources, all from scientists who consider homeopathy to be nonsense and highly improbable, and all from sources that in their own right are considered to be V & RS. We use apple judges to judge apples, and orange judges to judge oranges, and the two don't always meet very often. -- Fyslee / talk 09:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to this criticism being included, but I haven't seen enough evidence that this is a notable enough criticism for it to be included in the lead. We have a good number of reliable, reputable sources on this topic, if they do not mention "magical thinking" as one of the major criticisms, then it probably isn't something we need to put in the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems to me that if we're gonna be all academic here that it is not mainstream medicine or physical science that covers the area of "magic". Nor should newspaper editors or skeptic websites be the source (unless they have degrees suited for it).... wouldn't anthropology be the appropriate field? Science, seems to me, can say "This is not scientific". But to comment on the metaphysical nature of homeopathy or not, one should turn to the experts in metaphysics, not science. Thinking of changing my name to "FringeEditor", Friarslantern (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference stuffing in intro

Para 3 of the intro is massively over-referenced. There's no requirement to add inline refs to the summary as well as to the article body statements. We certainly don't need twenty-three references in the lead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. My personal preference - and it's just mine! - is that WP:LEAD's contain no references at all, keeping them clean and easier to read. Since the lead must reflect well-referenced article content, there is no requirement at present that the lead include a single reference, since the lead refers to article content that is already referenced. If anything in the lead doesn't do that, then it should be removed (preferably to the talk page), the article brought into conformity with that information, and then the item may possibly be added back into the lead. This is all a matter of taste since there is no rule against having references in the lead. I just think it makes the lead look cluttered. IMHO. If editors here (preferably a significant number) decide to follow a reference-free-lead format, then we can do it and in the future refer new editors to that decision as binding. Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia being what it is, if a new consensus at a later time changes that decision, it will all have been a waste of time, but then 90% of what happens here is wasted time because there is not attempt to protect good content or even Featured Articles. If you want to start an RfC here proposing a "Reference-free-lead" format, you will have my vote. -- Fyslee / talk 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly agree with removing all the intro ref tags (they should all be duplicated in-article anyway). As for consensus changing: this seems to work in general on Wikipedia. It's much less effort to defend an existing, well-discussed position than to change it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vast majority

Wow – still heady from my first edit on this main page. Orange, I reverted your reverts to this original sentence which began The ideas of homeopathy appear to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge., changed back to The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. and which I changed to The vast majority of scientists regard the ideas of homeopathy as scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

Now then, let us look closely at the facts. Do 100% of scientists regards homeopathy as scientifically implausible? No. 100% of scientists do not regard homeopathy as scientifically implausible, but the vast majority do. So my change is accurate. Can you accept that? But you justified your revert on this statement: This "vast majority" thing shows up way too often. Now it may not be to your taste, but reverting an accurate statement requires more than just a sense of “it has been said too often”, don't you agree?

You went on to say: This "vast majority" thing shows up way too often. It's not like scientists take votes. And they don't have "opinions." If you, like me, have been to medical and scientific meetings, you would hear plenty of opinions – science thrives on opinions – and as for voting, well there are plenty of examples where votes are taken and a consensus looked for. Statistical reference volumes will tell you precisely why the opinions and prejudices of the observer will confuse and confound a statistical analysis. But again, I assume you know all this.

What I find confusing is how you can call the wording I chose “POV”? The wording I chose is IMHO both NPOV and accurate – certainly more accurate that imputing to all scientists an opinion that not all scientists hold true. Can you agree on that? docboat (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references on what percentage of scientists regard homeopathy as implausible? If not, we can't make any statement on this in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course not - but how many % would constitute "vast" in the first place? 1%? 25%? Both would fit. Your wording is also good. docboat (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to say 'vast majority,' 'most' would suffice. Most scientists do believe homeopathy is implausible. However, implausibility in itself is not that strong a thing. For example, it is implausible, on the basis of experiental knowledge and expectation, that steel ships could float or that aeroplanes can fly, but they do. 'Most scientists' is a better phrasing than 'vast majority' IMHO. thanks Peter morrell 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, actually your use of steel ships and aeroplanes not flying as "implausible" scientifically is just not correct. Though I am not an physicist, I do understand the physics that allow a steel boat to float (simply, it displaces water that weighs more than the steel), and a plane flies, because of the differential air pressure above and below the wing. Neither are implausible, except to non-scientists. Not only do I believe most or a vast majority of scientists find Homeopathy implausible, I would bet pretty much 100% do (similar to the number of scientists who accept that the theory of Evolution describes how human beings have an opposable thumb. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vast majority is correct in this situation. I can see why some would not want the term to be used though. Homeopathy is often dressed up in white coats to give a sensible impression. Phloem (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real doubt among any of us that by far the vast majority find homeopathy implausible. If I am not mistaken, the problem that Tim is getting at is more one of making claims without firm backing. That is sometimes more difficult than we would like, especially with matters of common knowledge. It can be hard to find modern scientific research devoted to proving the earth is round. It is common knowledge and thus the question of proof is ignored as being a common fact. We can avoid this problem (until scientific academies feel it necessary to say "You're kidding! Are there still people who believe that crap? Maybe we should take a vote and speak up, just to clear the air." Until then we can ignore counting votes and just stick to the plain use of the falsifiable statement: "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge." That's an obvious fact without any serious textbooks which contradict it. If anyone can come up with some serious scientific works on basic science that contradict it, then we can discuss it. Until then we can't use OR or a crystal ball. -- Fyslee / talk 07:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you read what I said: For example, it is implausible, on the basis of experiential knowledge and expectation, that steel ships could float or that aeroplanes can fly, but they do. This has nothing directly to do with science theory, it is about experience and expectation which is not quite the same thing. I repeat: on the basis of experiential knowledge and expectation, it is indeed implausible that steel ships could float or that aeroplanes can fly, but they do. It is nothing to do with physics. It is to do with expectation based on everyday experience. On that basis it was indeed felt implausible, indeed laughable, that steel ships would ever float or that aeroplanes could ever fly. Check the history you will find that is exactly what folks thought. Why did they think that? because of expectation based upon their previous experience. Peter morrell 07:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, this god of the gaps kinda stuff is all nice and philosophical, but there is nothing even remotely controversial about the fact that the vast majority of scientists reject the purported mechanism of homeopathy. I like how NCCAM put it: homeopathy's "key concepts do not follow the laws of science." Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how we're talking specifically about homeopathy being scientifically implausible, but Peter insists on interpreting the matter with regard to "experiential knowledge and expectation," whatever that means. Anyway I don't see how it's implausible that steel ships could float. Some old Greek guy even figured out the quantitative principle a couple thousand years or so ago. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not very complicated or abstract. What I started out to say was that based upon the experience and expectation of SCIENTISTS homeopathy looks pretty improbable, BUT based on the direct experience of folks with little or no prior expectation, homeopathy is just like any other thing. If you bring to the experience no a priori theoretical baggage at all then there is no special expectation of success or of failure. The analogy with ships and planes is again simply the basis of prior experience. An alleged mechanism only comes into it because that is what science deals in. Homeopathy does not deal in mechanisms, it deals in direct experience of empirical facts: the remedy works or it does not, the patient gets better or not as the case may be. Homeopathy is not primarily a theoretical system of knowledge, which is what you seem to assume, it is primarily a medical method, an empirical system, period. I still think most scientists is neater than vast majority, but its not such a big deal. Peter morrell 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What utter anti-scientific garbage. Electricity is "implausible" from "the direct experience of folks with little or no prior expectation". This is an encyclopaedia, not a guidebook for the 21st Century written for people thawed out from the last ice age. In a medical article, the term "implausible" should be taken to mean "considered implausible by the contemporary academic mainstream" in all cases. The sentence should read "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible", and even the "scientifically" qualifier is of disputable importance. Pulling punches is counterproductive here. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to get offensive it was just a perfectly genial discussion. What makes your POV so special? Peter morrell 08:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anti-scientific would be accurate in this situation. Garbage is a reasonable label if it were to describe whether something should be included in or excluded from a science category. It would probably sound offensive to someone who believed in homeopathy though. I think it would be sensible to avoid such language as homeopathy is within a belief field rather than an evidence or reality field. I think this should be a guideline for communicating with all proponents of any religion or belief based following. Phloem (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, thank you Phloem, well said! Friarslantern (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and as such gives much more WP:WEIGHT to the contemporary experts in the fields of medicine and science who are fairly clear in their disputes with this pseudoscience. There is no reason to pussyfoot around this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. WP is a mainstream encyclopedia: not an encyclopedia strictly from a scientific point of view. Part of homeopathic theory is metaphysical (vitalism - the magical part), and part of it claims scientific backing. Just so we're clear about the pussyfooting going on here. Friarslantern (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The source says: seems scientifically implausible; thus I changed it back to say that. We can only say what the sources say - no more, no less. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks from "scientifically implausible." My thinking is there are two good reasons for this: 1) It's such a small, generic juxtaposition of words that it doesn't have to be marked as a quote and wouldn't be considered as plagiarism otherwise. 2) Putting quotation marks around the terms may lead the reader to infer a bias - that the author does not take scientific plausibility seriously. — NRen2k5 14:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More than a few

In the lead it says that a few homeopaths are opposed to vaccination and anti-malarial drugs. I would say it is more than a few. Not most and not all, but I would say many homeopaths oppose vaccinations but maybe only a few oppose anti-malarial drugs. Maybe this sentence needs changing and a cite adding. For example, Tinus Smits is a prominent Dutch MD homeopath with a website and he opposes vaccines. How close to actual homeopathic views do you want the article to be? Peter morrell 09:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation. Several surveys demonstrate this quite clearly. When all homoeopaths listed in the telephone directory of Sydney, Australia were questioned about their attitude regarding immunisation, 83% did not recommend this procedure [31]. A similar but larger study was carried out in Austria [28]. All 230 Austrian homoeopaths received a postal questionnaire which was returned by 117. Only 28% of these rated immunisation as an important preventive measure. Our own group has recently conducted a survey of all 45 homoeopaths within our local area of the U.K. [11]. The response rate was 51%. Seven of the ten physician homoeopaths but none of the 13 lay homoeopaths recommended immunisation.

-E. Ernst, The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine

We say what the scientific journals say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No we don't say what the scientific jnls say. 83% is very clearly a lot more than 'a few!' 72% is a lot more than 'a few.' The sentence is clearly incorrect. Many homeopaths oppose vaccination is a more accurate statement of the situation. Peter morrell 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's only Austria. Admittedly, homeopathic resistance is important - the article later says "One study from the U.K. demonstrates homoeopathy to be the most prevalent reason for non-compliance with immunisation [30]" - but if the results vary by country, it's hard to be so definite. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK that's true but even with 23 cites in the lead we could still more accurately say many homeopaths oppose vaccination [24] [25] [26] and add those studies you have alluded to. How does that sound? It seems we either want accuracy or we don't. thanks Peter morrell 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...and the Tinus Smits [27] [28] can be added too. Peter morrell 10:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any independent documentation that this person actually has finished his MD? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to the criticism

If I were curious about homeopaths' responses to the criticism they've received, where would I find it in this article? Do they have a response (does anyone know)? Friarslantern (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopaths are used to the criticism, and it has been looked at in the journals of homeopathic societies. Criticism falls into two categories. First off the pure scientific buffs who cannot see any evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, and push that POV constantly. Then there are those for whom the topic of anti-homeopathy reaches a religious fervour, and the opposition becomes less scientific and more emotional. Those in the second group are discounted as unserious. Those in the first group are of two types. Those that can not see any chance of showing the efficacy of homeopathy by any means, and those that are prepared to have an open mind - usually based on the concepts arrived at by citing theories of energetic medicine, that is to say, theories based on an understanding (or lack thereof) of the quantum theory of mechanics. For those in the first group there can be no understanding - it is a constant, sometime virulent opposition. For those in the second group, and understanding can be arrived at - maybe not an agreement, that would take most people too far, but an understanding that there may be "something" that people find useful. In the National Health Service in the UK you find hospitals which use homeopathy side by side with allopathic medicine, using homeopathy in preference. You might consider searching them out (St. Johns Hospital in Glasgow?? My memory is rusty) for information. docboat (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...Has this been discussed here before (reaction to the criticism)? Friarslantern (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Google, WikiNews, specialist websites etc would be the best place. Wikipedia is here to describe the subject matter. It isn't a replacement for the news media. We should not be reporting people's claims; we should be waiting until there is reasonable consensus as to truths, and document those. Far too many Wikipedia articles try to teach the controversy instead of concentrating on the subject matter itself. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone is interested in homeopathy enough to endeavour to read most or all of this here article, they're going to read about the scientific criticism of homeopathy. And many, perhaps most, will wonder how in the world do homeopaths, who are offering a controlled, prepared substance as remedy for illnesses, react to the scientific criticism -- it's not just technical criticism, but rather it's based on seemingly common sense ideas: if there IS no substance in the sugar pellet I'm eating, how in the world can it make me better? That's basic. WP would be foolish not to attempt to say something -- assuming there are reliable sources reporting it -- about how homeopaths respond to this criticism. I don't know, and I want to. I read the article and couldn't find anything to the effect. And criticism, and it's response (unless you're suggesting it be a separate article) are part of the subject. Friarslantern (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What Brian said above is broadly correct about folks who OPPOSE homeopathy but what has been asked for is the response of homeopaths towards the views of such critics. This was covered extensively in the 19th century ad nauseam, but will not snuff out this type of tail-chasing argument. In brief, homeopaths either give up trying to explain how their remedies work or spend some time on this issue. I am in the former category and I suspect the vast majority of homeopaths don't really care tuppence how they work and fall back on the obvious efficacy of their remedies and the predictable nature of their use in clinical practice. Even the 'memory of water' idea is not universally supported within homeopathy as it is just another theory. Homeopaths, from Hahnemann onwards, have tended to despise theories and reside mostly in the pragmatic empirical field of curing folks of their sickness. Personally, I dont see how potentisation will EVER be explained through so-called rational science, not because it is magic, religion or belief, as the anti-homeopaths constantly mouth, but simply because we have no conceptual tools with which to describe it. It defies all logic and common sense derived from 'normal science.' All homeopaths can point to in the last analysis is their clinical work and that requires no religion or belief, it just is. does this suffice? Peter morrell 07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right that most homeopathic practitioners and patients don't care too much about the scientific criticism. They are not scientists, they don't think like scientists, they aren't trained to do science, and there is certainly something to be said for leaving science to be done by real scientists. This is true to a large extent of conventional medical practice as well. I would like to take you up on your idea that potensation will never be explained because we lack the conceptual tools. If there was a single experiment that definitively showed an effect of high potensation, it would provide Ph.D. theses for an entire generation. How does the strength of the effect look as a function of the dilution. Does it reach a plateau, or peak, or oscillate? How does it depend on the dilution steps? Is 10C the same as 20D, what about dilution in steps of 1.5:1 or 1000000:1? How does the strength depend on the succussion step? How many thumps are needed, with what acceleration? Is it true that mint will destroy the properties created by potensation? Which of the zillions of known substances have this effect, what do they have in common, and how much of each substance is needed. Conceptual tools here or there, when you get done answering all the questions like these that occur to you, you would have so much to think about that you are bound to be able to take a crack at an explanation. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do your homework, Peter. There is nothing pragmatic or empirical about any experience suggesting that homoeopathy works. It is a perfect example of researcher bias; taking the customers (I hesitate to call any of those who are swindled by homoeopaths "patients") who get better, or even see no effect as successes, and ignoring those whose condition worses or even who die, rather than counting them as failures. Double blind tests have shown and will always show that homoeopathy is completely ineffective. They rely on placebo effect and the customers' perceptions. Ever heard the joke "You can suffer with a cold for half a week, or lick it with [Product X] in 3 days" ? — NRen2k5 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read this? INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):824.

[29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They also state - "Although neither publication bias nor poor-quality trials alone seem to explain our findings, we cannot be sure that combinations of these factors or others still unaccounted for might have led to an erroneous result." ie, this is very bad data and when you look at the better data the effect gets smaller, as you would expect for a placebo effect. Since any genuine effect, if it does exist, is tiny compared to the sources of error, we can't completely exclude either a tiny effect, a small error unaccounted for, or a small error in our efforts of offset the large errors. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. They stated clearly their conclusion. If you don’t agree with the Lancet just publish your own study - don’t change their conclusions. I wrote exactly what they stated and you reverted it. This is clearly POV.

No, that is a direct quote of the discussion of their paper. The same authors in a later more detailed analysis of the data published in the 1997 Lancet meta-analysis concluded: "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." see ref Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

...."seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results" is not the same with what you wrote.” Less promising” does not mean something negative or dismissive. Why don’t you write what the meta analyses state exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.244.22 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As a small addendum to the comments above it seems likely that those homeopaths who strive to find explanations for it probably do so (at least in part) to try and find a bridge of conciliation with mainstream science and mainstream medicine. Overwhelmingly these tend to be MD homeopaths. Those who 'don't give a damn' about science and have abandoned any attempt to explain it tend to be non-MD homeopaths. However, I would add that it probably is desirable for homeopathy to be explained but the mechanism is so elusive after so many attempts to find one. The alternative view that many homeopaths adhere to is that all such studies have been flawed and that scientists are only interested in trying to disprove it ratehr than approach the issue neutrally. I can't say whether that is a justified view or not as I have not studied the issue of mechanisms myself in any great depth having focused mostly upon the practice, history and sociology of the subject. Hopefully these comments will be helpful to Friarslantern who first asked about this matter. thanks (PS. Sorry, Art, I have to go out now so will come back to your points later!) Peter morrell 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Several points flow from Art's post. I shall deal with them in turn.

• I don't think homeopaths necessarily hate scientists or dont think like them, it is more a case of being distrustful of the underlying motives of scientists to simply dis homeopathy at every turn. They do not trust them and regard their motives with suspicion. They think they are more liable to try to disprove homeopathy than to study it neutrally. A more complex issue arises regarding the reductionist view of science vs. the more holistic view of homeopathy, BUT even having said that, it should be possible to design studies that demonstrate the validity of homeopathic treatment and it baffles and disappoints homeopaths (to put it mildly) that what they themselves observe every single day with patients in their clinics and consulting rooms is never repeated in these trials. This leads them to suppose that these trials are somehow fundamentally flawed or even innately biased. Does this suffice on this point?
• regarding proof of potentisation, this is precisely what Benveniste tried to do and was roundly hammered within the scientific community for doing so. He did find that the activity of potencies (to stimulate the degranulation of lymphocytes in vitro) do oscillate or plateau off as you suggest but this finding is not congruent with the clinical experience of homeopaths. What homeopaths find is that when you give say 6c 3 times in a few hours it has a good effect but then its action fades and you have to repeat it more often or go to 12c or 30c when its action is then more sustained. When that eventually fades in power you give a 200c and that holds the case for longer, maybe several days or a week, say; in due course that too will fade and at that point several things can be done. For example, many homeopaths simply wait at that point for the case to settle, maybe several days or even weeks, until the symptoms reappear. Eventually one tends to keep going higher in potency and the action of the M, 10M and higher potencies is more powerful and more sustained but also more subtle. I think this fairly summarises the clinical experiences of most homeopaths regarding the observed behaviour of potentised remedies.
• according to the Bell and Roy studies (you will have to track them down in google scholar or someplace), Benveniste was right and they have repeated his experiments several times and got the same or similar results. But they say scientists are no longer interested perhaps because they believe Benveniste was sufficiently discredited to make them bored about that topic and no longer look at it with any interest or credibility.
• regarding the shaking and trituration, well you can read about that in several places and there is a film about it on the Tinus Smits website which you can watch; it lasts about 16 minutes. Successive generations of homeopaths have believed that it is the succussion and grinding that brings out the hidden medicinal powers of the remedy and NOT the dilution. That is the predominant view. Take it or leave it. I don't know why.
• regarding the number of shakes and thumps, Hahnemann experimented endlessly with potentisation scales and methods and you can read his own writings about that. They are quite extensive and he settled on different methods at different times. Sorry, but no way could I summarise them all here.
• yes mint, menthol and camphor do supposedly counteract the remedies as also do heat, strong sunlight, coffee and magnetic fields. This is well documented. However, I don't think many homeopaths stick rigidly to the 'no coffee and no peppermint toothpaste' rule which some homeopaths regard as sacrosanct. I never drink coffee and so I cannot say from direct experience if it neutralises remedies or not. However, many homeopaths do say it does.
• What I meant by the 'lack of conceptual tools' simply means we are talking about properties of substances in extreme dilution that defy the usual laws of chemistry, and principally because of that fact, most scientists and doctors reject homeopathy in toto as delusional and rooted solely in religious belief. You tell me, Art: what are the conceptual tools in chemistry that enable us to interpret potentisation? quite simply, there are none! Without you being more specific, I simply cannot answer this point. thanks Peter morrell 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for explanation of potency metrics

When this article was in the sandbox, I got Peter to carefully explain EXACTLY what the potency measures meant, and wrote this up. I propose to expand this, potentially as a subsiduary daughter article to this one (or as a footnote, but I am not sure there is room). I feel this would be an extremely valuable contribution because in my surveys of the online literature, I have never seen this well described anywhere. It can be something that WP can really use to set WP apart; the one source that completely and clearly explains what exactly the potencies in homeopathy mean. Comments?--Filll (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A daughter article would be preferred as this section of this article is way too long and boring as it stands, and any thought of extending it further would be opposed by many. My ten pennorth. Peter morrell 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a side box? Like on W. S. Gilbert? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a daughter article on potentisation (can't recall the exact title) so that's where it should go. Peter morrell 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that got redirected to Homeopathy at some stage. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No daughter article is needed. The info can be explained in a single small paragraph if done right and can be put somewhere so that it doesn't get in the way of the flow of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Filll had something quite longer and more ambitious in mind than a short para! Peter morrell 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about something more extensive and complete, as Peter suggests. What I propose to do is to collect some of that information (hopefully it is not yet deleted Wikidudeman?) and try to format it into a presentable form. Then we can see how long it is, how much it overlaps what we have in this article already, and where we might put it; an infobox, a footnote, a subsiduary daughter article, or wherever. My goal would be to make a reference article that anyone studying homeopathy could look at to understand in very full and complete detail any and all of the metrics used to measure potency in homeopathy, as well as the mathematics involved. My anticipation (which ScienceApologist and a few others also felt) is that this would be a very valuable contribution and one of the places where Wikipedia can make a unique and extremely important piece. This is one of the most confusing and irritating areas for someone from mainstream science who is trying to investigate homeopathy, and with a very small amount of effort, we can write some text that will clear this up forever and make it available to everyone.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Somehow or other ALL the refs have been screwed up how why? dunno...can someone fix this? thanks Peter morrell 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. What about the potentisation daughter article, do you know what it is called? thanks Peter morrell 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pov tag justified in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing external sites

I think you overdid the deletions, WDM, slightly, principally because some of those were good and some were dubious, OK fair enough, BUT some had been there a harmlessly for a fair while and had consensus approval, so why not justify what you removed and why? just a helpful suggestion so as to clear it up. thank you Peter morrell 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Edit wars solve nothing and will not improve the article; after a nightly 'orgy' of same maybe it is time for folks to bring their issues to the talk page so their views can be discussed and perhaps a consensus might be reached, thanks Peter morrell 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I've been trying for months to get Mr. Ullman to discuss issues about his biographical article without fruition. I don't think he reads talk pages. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to love it. Has he accused you of stalking him yet? David D. (Talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Using chemical notation

"a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"

I think that that number should be changed to 10⁶⁰. --200.69.215.69 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. That comment was by me. --W2bh (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exponentiaal notation, but I think it's better to spell it out - most people won't realise how big 10⁶⁰ is Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you spell it out like that, is just reads like a bunch of zeroes, and it doesn't make any sense. You don't have a meaningful relation laymen can understand. On the other hand, "This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth" does provide an understandable relation. --W2bh (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even spelling it out does not help. An analogy is far better. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you give it in numerals and covert molecules of water to a volume or mass of water then the numbers will become a bit more understandable. Metric tonnes might be the best option for units. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead + Neutral point of View ?

If you disagree with what the meta analyses state please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone reverts edits please explain why.I thought this was the way to work here. thanks

U didnot make any edit war. I did not revert anything. User OrangeMarlin reverted the edits.

The lead summarises, it should not consist of a long list of quotations. Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead is not neutral though. Studies dont state that. The homeopathic objections? This is what I wrote.

"Reasearchers in 1991 had concluded” that at the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias..This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy”.

Another metanalysis (1997) concluded “that the results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo but there was insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.” . However the same researchers (2000) “concluded that in the ( above ) study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”

Another one concluded that “The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing”. INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy”

Other meta analyses found “that there is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.”

Homeopaths argue that “Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored”. They say that “The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."