Talk:Homeopathy

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

ideas vs. theories

I made this change. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See theory, the concepts of homeopathy are not theories in the scientific sense, so using this word invites confusion. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind Quackgurus edit. Note that the word has another meaning in the social sciences and normal language than in the natural sciences. In normal languge it can mean something like: not yet proven conjecture or speculation. MaxPont (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; ideas and theories are the same thing, or sufficiently similar not to matter very much. What might be far more useful is an explanation of the entire sentence: The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine. What are these so-called 'fundamental principles of natural science' that homeopathy stands in direct opposition to? Someone might spell them out with citations, so we can see what on earth it refers to. Peter morrell 06:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you are kidding here. How about the lack of proof for water memory, or the saying that "the smaller the dose the bigger the effect". I looked at theory like Tim says, to the scientific meaning. Homeopathic ideas are not capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and they are not testable nor falsifiable. Since the sentence is talking about its scientific pausibility we should be using the scientific meaning --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is a good question. The sentence sounds as if it has a stronger foundation than "Most serious scientists think it's bollocks", which would be a sociological statement. If this foundation exists, then we should explain it to make the sentence more convincing. If it doesn't exist, we should be honest and say something like: "There is near-unanimous agreement in the scientific community that the ideas on which homeopathy is founded cannot be taken seriously". Or whatever is correct. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep to the topic: we were talking about the use of the word "theories" vs "ideas". The sentence talks about science, so we are using the scientific meaning, not the non-scientific one. The article has plenty of sources confirming the incapability of homeopathy ideas to predict future events, thus they fail the criteria for the scientific meaning, thus they are not theories, thus we must either use the word "ideas" or risk mixing meanings and creating inaccuracy. About the foundations of the sentence itself, I answered below to Peter Morrell --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of plausibility is NOT such a bigdeal in science and nor is the lack of a known mechanism -- these are very 'old chestnuts.' In due course they might be sorted out; it's possible. On their own these are 'small beer' and say nothing. They are not in conflict with major principles. So, how is homeopathy in abrogation of the "fundamental principles of natural science?" That is a much bigger claim. How is it so? tell me. Simple question. I cannot see any basis for this claim and it needs to be cited, ideally even better: a quotation. Peter morrell 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, wait a minute there. The sentence already has two references right next to it. Also, homeopathy claims that there is a known mechanism, and this mechanism goes against stablished cientific principles, saying that a non-present substance can have effects, water memory, the smaller the dose the stronger the effect, etc. So, homeopathy *does* go against fundamental principles of natural science. adenda: the sentence "its contradiction of basic scientific principles (...)" is also sourced. The article has plenty of scientific studies showing this. Sorry, but this looks like just POV pushing trying to give sientific legitimacy to science, ignoring the sources on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And about lack of plausibility, it's not a big deal on its own, but here it's not on its own. It's acompanied by several other problems. Leaving it out is taking out a verifiable sourced statement --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you say the incapability of homeopathy ideas to predict future events who says that? how do you know that? what events? what predictions? you just blithely skate over complex issues. Also what are those sources you say in the article that support the contention that homeopathy runs counter to scientific theories...can you give the quotes from those sources? No, this is not POV pushing at all it is an attempt to clarify and hammer out a specific claim made in this article which seems to be unfounded. BTW a true scientist would not be quite so touchy! what's your problem? scientists should welcome rigorous and critical inquiry OF ANY SUBJECT. thank you Peter morrell 13:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

About prediction: tell me a list of facts that homeopathy predicted before modern medicine discovery, since it's homeopathy that has to demonstrate that it is capable of prediction.

About the sources for the sentence that we are discussing, the first source referenced right at the end of the sentence says "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible" on the summary, and the second one says "Homeopathy is a popular but implausible form of medicine. Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos.". I believe that you didn't even read the sources provided to support the sentence before disputing it. Since this moment on I will consider that you are aware that the sentence is properly sourced.Meh, we were discuting about the ideas/theories change and I got somehow centered on pausibility. I need to chill out a bit.

About the sources for how homeopathy runs counter to scientific principles, I'm going to ask you to search the sentence "and its contradiction of basic scientific principles" on the article, and that you check yourself the half a dozen sources that are provided for that sentence, mainly notes 17 to 21, included. The article already provides sources for that statement, and the burden of proving that the sentence is false lays on you, not on me.I searched them myself, and found only one sentence that directly supports the statement, altought it could be on the article body that is reacheable only by payment. Turns out that Fill is right, we need a pair of RS for that exact part of the sentence :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(and the reference to how a true scientist is a bit fallacious since we are all wikipedia editors here, not true scientists, even if we would be so on real life) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The only appropriate thing to do in this case is find a couple of WP:RS that state that homeopathy violates the fundamental principles of science. But I have to agree with Peter, it is much more complicated than it appears at first glance. If you say the smaller the dose, the larger the effect, then in some cases well-verified by science one gets such an effect (an unusual dose-response curve, but this can happen). If you discuss molecules and so on, many of the dilutions do not reach the molecular limit. Even past the molecular limit, it is possible that we could measure some effect (as I have noted repeatedly, the person doing so reliably would win the Nobel Prize however). If you want to discuss the law of similars, many conventional treatments fall under this rubric, such as ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and allergy treatments. What about hormesis? What about the Arndt-Schulz rule ? Remember that too little vitamin A can produce a deficiency disease, and too much vitamin A can be toxic. Same with vitamin D and several other vitamins. Recently questions have been raised about vitamin E. --Filll (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are already sources on the article about how homeopathy would violate fundamental principles of science if it worked. There are on the same paragraph as the sentence that we are discussing, and they are sourced. Also, you are engaging in original research too and discussing the topic itself instead of proposing RS that claim those statements Geeeez, I hate being wrong (see one of the other two striken comments above). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Enric, are you not getting a little too heated? I have to provide sources and diffs for a discussion on the talk page? Me directing you to other WP pages is WP:OR? Me mentioning other examples is WP:OR? If you head down this road, it will not be good, I can assure you. And as anyone experienced on this page can tell you, I am extremely skeptical about homeopathy and even a strident supporter of mainstream science and medicine. So try to give it a rest, ok?--Filll (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are skeptical or not, I was evaluating your statements by themselves. I was just pissed off at Peter. And apparently pissed off because of a misunderstanding :(

About OR, Fill, you see, IMHO, and as far as I know, discussing the law of similars and then making links between the effects of vitamins, hormesis, Arndt-Schulz rule is OR. And IMHO saying that ritalin, vaccinations, hypnotics and allergy treatments all fall under the law of similars is also OR (as far as I know), so I see no problem with accusing you of OR. Citing examples is one thing, and citing several examples and saying that there is a supossed link between them is OR when you are not talking about links supported by secondary sources (and I agree that asking for secondary sources on the talk page is a bit excessive, but some statements are really shouting for a source. Recent questions have been raised about vitamin E? Really? I think I'll ask for a source on that :D ). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well OR does not really count here since this is the talk page. As for vitamin E, do some google searches on vitamin E toxicity. You will find a lot , such as this. A few years back, a study found that smokers who took vitamin E were more likely to die than those who did not.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem would be entering on the discussion of OR that has no chance of entering the article, when the talk page is supossed to be for discussing improvements to the article. For example, this study is really interesting (I don't smoke myself, but I people that does), but probably completely unapplicable to homeopathy unless you apply really big doses of OR to link it to the topic (basically, the study does not deal with homeopathic amounts of vitamin E). Now, if vitamin E had a property relevant to homeopathy then we could beat the theme to death until we get bored until we extract everything possibly useful from it..... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Personally I find most of the ideas that Enric thinks go against fundamental principles very unconvincing, and I believe that they are wrong except for the law of similars in some cases. However, as a mathematician I am very much used to seeing convincing proofs that my intuitions are wrong, and perhaps that makes it a bit easier for me to see the problems with such claims. Neither of you is POV pushing, and framing it that way is not helpful. Enric, for perspective you might want to think about tachyons or Braess's paradox.

Neither tachyon or braess paradoxes are theories, because they fail the definition of theory. They can't be used to predict future outcomes, and they can't be falsified. (they can be proved some day on the future, of course, and then they will become theories) (damn, I just discussed something not related to the article, let's not repeat that again :D ). Yeah, maybe Peter is not POV pushing, but he is most certainly disputing the sentence without checking the sources first, and that annoys me a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed they were theories. My point was that these are two things that might seem, for different reasons, to contradict the very fundamentals of science. If you don't see this, then I haven't chosen my examples well enough. Sorry. About the other point, perhaps more later when I have found out whether I have access to the references myself. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So there is no such thing or could not be such a thing as a Tachyon theory? There could be no theory that involved the Braess Paradox? I would beg to differ before you go around pronouncing what can and cannot be a theory. A theory is just a temporary explanation for data that makes some predictions. Under that definition, tachyons and the Braess paradox could both easily be part of theories. And if you ask me for references and charge me with committing WP:OR for stating this, then we are going to have trouble.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just implied that they were not good examples for this case because they are not (currently) theories by themselves. It seems I didn't interpret them the way that Hans intended. Hans, it's true that there are things that we believe false or imposible today and that tomorrow may become true, but it's also true that there are also lots of things that will keep being false or imposible. That's why that argument is fallacious: we won't know until tomorrow wich arguments will be true tomorrow, and accepting all as true because they may become true someday would be, well, I don't know how to express it, it would be chaotic, negate the usefulness of testing if things work, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statement has two references. (Unfortunately I can't read them, at least not from home.) But we have some editorial discretion. We are under no obligation to make strong claims here (even when found in reliable sources) if we think they are misleading. I don't know whether they are misleading, and most of our readers are in no position to know. It's certainly worth discussing.

It is also interesting to note that this strong claim is repeated in the next sentence, as if to rub it in. Have a look at the German lede (translation) for comparison: "There is no evidence for an effect of extremely small doses of a substance. So-called high potencies arithmetically no longer contain any active ingredient whatsoever. The selective increase of desired effects in the potentization procedure that is presumed by many homeopaths contradicts scientific knowledge." Note the words "desired" and "many homeopaths". That's much more cautious than what we have here. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I assure that the statement are supported by the sources, as you will see as soon as you can read the sources, so I don't think that they are misleading. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources, and what they do on the german wikipedia can be looked at as an example, but it doesn't mean that it's better or worse, or that we have to copy it --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look at the sources if I can get them. And I agree completely with the rest of your comment. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In insects, tiny minuscule doses of pheromones, only a few molecules in a cubic mile of air, can stimulate moths and other insects to find their mate or in the case of flies and mosquitoes to prey, faeces or human blood. These are well documented. Therefore, small doses is not as big an issue as it seems but yes of course 'water memory' is not a well-supported idea/theory it is just a crazy idea that might be proven one day or it might not. But it is only guesswork as many things start off in many fields. Regarding events and predictions then homeopaths would say they can predict events and make reliable clinical decisions about which remedy fits which patient, for example. Unless that is rigorously tested, then who is to say conclusively, and in advance, that they cannot make predictions? Likewise with the miasms: longitudinal studies could be underatken to show if alcoholism, bones disorders, insanity, blindness, deformities like cleft palate, and deafness do indeed shadow a single case of syphilis down a family tree as Hahnemann claimed. So much is still untested and unproven. Unless you are going to make a strong judgement in advance without a shred of evidence, which is not a very scientific way to proceed. Peter morrell 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To be a pedantic entomologist, pheromone detection is nowhere near that acute. That's a common misconception which spread from some poor science in the early studies. Jefffire (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about syphillis being passed down to descendants, our previous knowledge of genetics suggested that such a Lamarckian idea was completely discredited. But more recent investigations are finding that maybe Lamarck was not completely wrong. See Inheritance of acquired characters.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, could I suggest that you focus on the article, instead of debating the subject matter? PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We are doing exactly that! We are discussing a contentious sentence in the lead and whether it is valid. What pray is that if it is not discussing the article? You are welcome to tell us your view on this matter. Peter morrell 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, your discussion on the effect of mosquito pheromones is original research. You don't provide any source supporting the relation between the effect of mosquito pheromones and the effects of homeopathic quantitites. You are objectively not discussing how to improve the article on the topic, you are discussing the topic itself and the validity of the science behind it.

Not to mention that the comparison is dubious, since homeopathic quantities are smaller quantities of substances than the ones released by mosquitoes, and are not pheromones, and are not transported by air, and are supossed to affect human metabolism and not to stimulate the specialized pheromone-sensing organs of mosquitoes which have evolved to detect those amounts anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that homeopathy is implausible I even repeated that above myself, so why are you going back to that? But being implausible does not of itself discredit anything. It is mentioned and repeated in the article "to rub it in" as said above. Second, pheromones are active at 1 part per thousand million (I have just been reading about it and yes I am a zoologist) which is certainly within the range of some homeopathic potencies. Indeed, many other metabolic compounds and drugs with known biological activity are also active at such low concentrations, so we have the science and certainly what you or I believe is irrelevant...these are what you choose to call "the facts." We have simply been discussing the sentence and if/how homeopathy runs counter to accepted scientific principles. Thusfar neither you nor anyone else has answered that point. Please discuss this matter with more amicable humour and less hostility. Lighten up. It's just a genial exchange of ideas. It's not a war. Nobody gets shot. Peter morrell 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "Lack of plausibility is NOT such a bigdeal in science ", hum, I see I have centered too much on the pausability thing. I was talking about the ideas/theories change at the start of the section and wandered far from it.

About the pheromones, on a 15C dilution, you would have one active molecule per every 10 squared to theto the power of 30 molecules, that's 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000 compared to the 1 in 1000000000 (1 thousand million) of the pheromones. (that's from the swimming pool example, btw. If it contains 10 squared toto the power of 32 molecules of 1 15C dilution, and if you need to drink 1% to get one active molecule, then you need to drink 10 squared to the 30 molecules to get an active one). Your statement that other substance work at that concentration is moot since the concentration is way lower than you thought. Now, I think that we can agree that the action of a substance at *those* concentrations would be "directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine".

About the source, I found that on note 21 on the article, the linked paper [1] says It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science. I take this sentence as having the same meaning as the disputed sentence. Note specially that we are talking of concentrations like the 15C that I mentioned before, and that 15C is *way* lower that the concentration you appear to believe that happens on homepathic remedies.

30C is even a lower concentration, 1 active molecule per every 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 molecules (10 squared toto the power of 60). Can we agree that the active molecule still having effect would go against scientific principles, even with no source for it? The ones saying 100c and 200C are so low that it's ridiculous and they only hurt the image of homeopathy (one active molecule per several times as many molecules as the whole known universe has including dark matter and you are still short of molecules, and similar stuff). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok EN, writing as the person who wrote that swimming pool example section (or actually corrected it since it was previously in error), I think you are a bit confused (too many "squares" perhaps). A lot of homeopathic remedies have concentrations of 3X or 6X. These have plenty of molecules of the active ingredient in a typical dose of one of those homeopathic remedies.

Of course, those remedies that are past Avogadro's limit are a different story (that is have less than a single molecule of the active substance in a dose). In those cases, one is presumably relying on either the placebo effect (which is a real effect, and somewhat mysterious) or some structural arrangement in the water (extremely unlikely in my estimation, but there are some who argue that such a thing is measurable, a controversial propostion).

So things are more complicated than your simple analysis. And you have not presented anything that has not been well known for a century or more, and certainly to all of the regular editors and homeopaths here. What has to be done is to word things carefully so we can be as accurate as we can and keep the article as close to NPOV as we can.--Filll (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, you are right, it's "10 to the power of 60", I get confused because the spanish wording is more similar to "10 squared to 60" (10 elevado a 60). Apart from wording, did you find any actual error on my math? If we are going to calculate how many molecules of substance there is on a given 3C or 6C dose, then let's start from the base and let's check the basic assumptions that I used: I assume that a nC dilution would have one molecule of the original substance per every 100ⁿ = 10^2*n molecules of the solvent, so a 6C dilution would have have 1 active molecule for every 10¹² molecules, so one per every 1000000000000 molecules. Is this calculation correct?

(mind you, you are right that we still need RS for that exact statement, even if it's apparently true) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to your answer to my original question: how is homeopathy in contravention of fundamental scientific principles? Much hot air has been vented, but still no answer. thank you Peter morrell 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Meantime here is some data about insect pheromone threshold limits:

• "Maple Furanone (Abhexone) Threshold: 0.003 ppb to 0.00005 ppb" [2]

• "threshold of 10 ppb (6.07 x 10-7 g/m3)." [3]

• "Insect ORNs can determine the odour chemical concentration very quickly andaccurately in the air at the range of ppb."

[4]

These are all within the range of homeopathic potencies. the top one 0.00005 ppb is equivalent to centesimal potency 6 or 7. Insects can clearly detect such concentrations of substances. Therefore, the previous argument espoused here, that homeopathic potencies are incapable of inducing biological effects is not correct. If one type of molecule can induce such effects, then how can we just boldly claim that other such molecules are not capable of doing the same thing? To claim that is not a logical or indeed a neutral evaluation of this matter. Peter morrell 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I work in the field of entomology, many of my colleagues specialise on insect olfaction, I can tell you that a lot of the work claiming to show responses at ridiculously low concentrations is due to a failure to realise that odour plumes do not diffuse perfectly. Pulling up the early dodgy studies isn't going to convince anyone. Jefffire (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is of course an important distinction between very low concentrations and "homeopathic concentrations". I would regard a concentration as homeopathic if it was well below avagadro's constant. Anything above that is just a low concentration, and calling it anything else is equivocation. Jefffire (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are of course welcome to your POV, but most of the early homeopathy was done with potecnies BELOW 12c, so your argument is specious. One can even argue that the entire system of homeopathy prior to about 1830 was FOUNDED ENTIRELY on low potencies such as 3x, 6x and 6c all well below the Avogadro limit. So your talk on this is pretty worthless and proves nothing. Nor are the studies quoted 'old studies' as you wish to claim. Facts are facts according to your science buddies and clearly these 'low concentrations,' as you prefer to call them, have demonstrated significant biological effects. Case proven NOT by homeopaths, but biologists. Peter morrell 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're still convinced that there is a respectable scientific backing to your claim that "only a few molecules in a cubic mile of air" can stimulate an insect then go right ahead and dig up some respectable references for it, we'll be waiting. Jefffire (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's fairly clear that there is a big difference between insect olfaction at a measure of parts per million, and a cold remedy at a dilution of 10^60. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, 'a few molecules per cubic mile of air' MIGHT have been an exaggeration. I had the impression it was something like that from some reading a few years back. However, why not use your knowledge to enhance the encyclopedia? Give us some refs to show what the concentrations are that insects can detect. You say you have the entomological knowledge, so why don't you give us the latest studies and tell us what typical ppbs many insects can detect? That should be easy for you. I will look for some refs as well. It is certainly less than a few ppms and 6x is 1 ppm; 9x is 1 ppb. These are well within the limits of homeopathic potencies. We don't even need to consider 30c remedies. They were not even in use before 1830. Peter morrell 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll cut to the chase on this silly tangent. No-one claims that a low concentration cannot elicit a biological responce. A concentration of 10^-9 could easily elicit any number of responses depending on what it was. Claiming this as evidence that homeopathy doesn't run counter to scientific theories is nonsense, since homeopathy runs concentrations that are vastly greater. Jefffire (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There it is. The fact that homeopathy runs contrary to scientific principles is evident, and the article does provide sources that call homeopathy "pseudoscience" and "quackery", which is not exactly an endorsement of compliance with scientific principles. So, the lack of sources that utter the exact sentence is moot, and striking that part of the sentence on that basis would amount to a disruptive edit given how homeopathy is an article in probation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pity you couldn't use your extensive knowledge of this field to contribute something useful with citations. Here is what I found in just ten minutes (none of it early dodgy studies):

• Science Daily July 1 2006

[5]

• "Action potentials of insect olfactory receptor neurons (ORN) were picked up ... a few ppb (parts per billion) and about 100ppm (parts per million) in air," article dated December 2000

[6]

• "Documented limits of olfactory detection for the dog range from tens of parts per billion to 500 parts per trillion." current

[7]

• "In a test run with Alan, the virtual nose easily detects the difference between plain air, non-explosive DNT and methanol. The machine can smell odors at concentrations as low as 10-20 parts per billion, but the scientists hope to get it down to one part per billion. Then it would rival a real dog's nose," current

[8]

• "researchers have shown that dogs, whose noses can pick up odors in the low parts-per-billion range," New York Times, 17 Jan 2006

[9]

So it is not just insects, it is also dogs! Proven biological activity of molecules at levels of the 9x homeopathic remedy. What more do you need? Peter morrell 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that I explicately say exactly that in my previous message. I'll repeat myself then - "A concentration of 10^-9 could easily elicit any number of responses depending on what it was. Claiming this as evidence that homeopathy doesn't run counter to scientific theories is nonsense, since homeopathy runs concentrations that are vastly greater." Jefffire (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We are getting increasingly confused here. Look, obviously some of the ideas in homeopathy are quite reasonable and well within the support of current science. This includes the ideas of 1X, 3X, 6X or even higher potency remedies (both before 1830, and even some now in current use; consider Zicam for instance). This includes some instances of the method of similars. This includes some of the ideas associated with "proving". This includes some of the ideas associated with the causes of Cholera. This includes some of the ideas associated with holistic treatments. This includes some of the ideas associated with cleanliness. This includes the still mysterious placebo effect.

However, some of the ideas from homeopathy are less well supported. This includes some of the very high potency remedies (potencies beyond 12C). This includes the "general" theory of similars.

Ok so some ideas in homeopathy are reasonable, and supported by science. And some ideas are less reasonable and not supported by current science. So we have to word this very carefully to be accurate. Right?--Filll (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, depending on the reliable sources (still haven't read our current sources yet), I would be very happy to say something stronger about the second kind of ideas than just "less reasonable and not supported". --Hans Adler (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, nowhere in the article does it say that a concentration of 1:billion cannot elicitate a response, it says that the ideas are unsupported by science. Those ideas are: law of similars, miasmas, and increasing effect with dilution, and they remain unsupported. Jefffire (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, I think you are correct. We have to be clear what parts of homeopathy are not supported by science, and what parts are.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a reword from "ideas" to avoid this semantic quagmire. My suggestion:"many key principals". Jefffire (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "many key principles," don't you? Peter morrell 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that change. It looks NPOV enough to me, and actually more neutral than "ideas". I would be happier with "the key principles" since I don't know of any key principle of homeopathic that doesn't contradict science, but, oh well, I don't know in detail all principles of homeopathy anyways. The ones not contradicting science and the reasons/proofs for this can be listed somewhere on the article (out of the lead, if possible, to avoid filling it with stuff, and then making a short mention to them on the lead) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're on the right track here, and obviously there is probably a better wording. The tone and general message looks to be spot on though. Jefffire (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time, what principles does homeopathy contravene? it is not similars or miasms or small doses or provings. Something that has never been investigated by science cannot be construed as negated by it or running counter to its ideas. Even Hahnemann accepted the normal dose law, it was only when he started using drugs as a close match for a person (rather than a 'disease') that he saw weird things happen and so had to reduce his doses to remove the excess activity and aggravation. Miasms have never been investigated, so how do they contravene anything? similars is mostly based on toxicology...you smoke tobacco it makes you dizzy, nauseous and with palpitations. That is a proving. So, no, none of these empirical homeopathic phenomena have even been investigated by science, they just don't believe it, period. Absence of proof is NOT disproof and nor is disbelief. Until they are investigated thoroughly and disproved then I'm sorry but they contravene nothing. Peter morrell 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been done before. Homeopathy, at least in "potencies" beyond Avagadro's limit, violates the principle of atomicity. On the other hand, nothing you describe in your previous paragraph as a "proving" is a homeopathic "proving". In fact, I don't see anything you wrote above, including the reference to Hahnemann, which relates to homeopathy as presently described. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there significant schools of homoeopathy that say that only remedies at less than 12C/24X have any effects? If not, it is a fair comment that homoeopathy contradicts basic scientific principles. Even if such homoeopaths do exist, the vast majority of homoeopaths (including all those I've so far encountered as far as I'm aware) would appear to follow principles that contradict basic science. Brunton (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated all homeopathy before 1830 was using low potencies and yes there are today significant numbers of homeopaths who use only the lower potencies, 3x, 6x, 6c, 12c etc, all below the Avogadro limit. There has been a lot of ill-informed opinion aired but no citations and no reason given why or how homeopathy breaches any scientific principles. The sentence needs modifying to reflect the facts not opinions. But the anti-homeopaths here who control this article just don't want to see any changes made. Peter morrell 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

i) 12C is not below the "Avogadro limit"

ii) Do you have references for these "significant numbers of homeopaths" please?

Brunton (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You've already been answered on this. The fact that lower potency could in theory have a biological effect does not change the fact that many key principles of homeopathy are unsupported by science. Jefffire (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that homeopathy is scientifically implausible, that is an OK statement, but the 'conflict with science' bit needs amending IMO. Ideally that needs doing to reflect the reality of the situation, and also regarding lower potencies still in widespread use that don't abrogate even basic chemistry. Maybe someone can suggest a possible rewording for people to comment on. Peter morrell 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did propose and alternative wording. Jefffire (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Am sorry but I cannot see it. Maybe you would kindly consider repeating it here? The issue has still not been settled. Nobody has given referenced submissions detailing where science has disproved even ONE principle of homeopathy. And not one scientific principle has been listed yet that homeopathy stands in breach of apart from the high potencies, which has already been dealt with. We just seem to be going round in circles getting nowhere. We need a clear rewording for folks to look at and decide on through genuine consensus. thank you Peter morrell 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you did see my proposed reword. You were even so polite as to correct the spelling. Jefffire (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Jeffire is talking about this comment of yours [10]. Also, I don't agree that the high potencies issue has been dealt with. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, right, sorry I must have missed that! No problem changing ideas to key principles but what I think it should say is that neither the alleged 'key principles' of science or those of homoeopathy are demonstrably in conflict EXCEPT for the high potencies. The phrase implausible can be kept as that is correct. I would say something like: Most scientists regard homeopathy as highly improbable and implausible; the usual dose law of chemistry and pharmacology appears to be in conflict with the high potencies, but the lower potencies (below 23x & 12c) are not in breach of that because some natural substances (e.g. some hormones, pheromones, sex attractants in insects, flower scents that attract pollinating animals, odours that dogs can detect, etc) can show significant biological activity even at doses of 1-10 parts per billion (add cites), which is equivalent to 9x or 4c potency. How does that sound now? Peter morrell 15:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And you can also add that significant numbers of homeopaths, especially in continental Europe still use these low potencies below 12c. Peter morrell 15:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lower doses are still demonstrably wrong because homeopaths claim that they has greater effects because of the dilution. The fact that some highly acute systems can respond to such dilutions is frankly irrelevant. Jefffire (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone else can chip in on this one? Please explain how that info about molecules at low dilution is irrelevant, in your view? thanks Peter morrell 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths claim that their remedies have a greater effect because of the dilution. This is the key principle of homeopathy that we are discussing. This principle is in direct contradiction to established scientific theories. I take it that you concede this since you are not discussing it in your edits. We are not discussing whether it is possible for a biological system to respond to very low concentration. It is clear that some can, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Jefffire (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We have touched on this point before but I would not call it a key principle. As I said before the only situation in which a diluted drug becomes so important is towards the patient who needs that remedy. This was Hahnemann's original observation that a person is sensitive to nothing in particular BUT the substance that matches their symptom totality. On that basis I would disagree that homeopaths have made a general law from that, a law that applies to all potencies; rather they believe that a substance only becomes actively therapeutic for the person whose symptom totality it matches. This is why anyone can take a homeopathic remedy and it does nothing. It does nothing for everyone except the person who needs it. This can also be an interpretation of what you mean when you say 'acute systems.' Molecules can be detected and have great power when they match an acute system. That is another way of describing the acute sensitivity to a remedy that certain persons have. So I disagree that the small dilutions of pheromones are irrelevant to this discussion, quite the contray they are superbly relevant as they show that the phenomenona explored in homeopathy are also 'out there' in other realms of nature whereby living systems can acutely recognise a certain molecule at incredibly low dilutions. Therefore, I disagree with your entire line of argument as it is not rooted in a deep understanding of what homeopathy is and how remedies act in patients. Peter morrell 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that dynamisation is not an important part of homeopathy is fringe PoV. Most homeopaths believe it is important. Your belief that insect pheromones are comporable to homeopathic remedies is OR (not to mention [absurd]). Jefffire (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Even for low potencies, the "law of infinitessimals" conflicts with science (incidentally, should we refer to these as "laws"? They barely qualify as hypotheses). Ask any pharmacologist. you can go back as far as Paracelsius on this one. The stuff about insect pheromones and dogs is just irrelevant to homoeopathy. Using this as some sort of analogy is just like Dana Ullman's claim that Darwin's experiments with Drosera and ammonium salts were somehow "homeopathic" simply because they involved low concentrations. Brunton (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy vs. science in the lede

This discussion is way too unfocused. As far as I can tell, the passage in question is this, from the lead:

The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience[17], quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

No one seems to care to much about the original question of whether to use the word "ideas" or "theories" or "principles", nor does anyone object to calling them "implausible". So it's really a question of just these phrases:

... directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine. ... contradiction of basic scientific principles

As near as I can tell, no one is claiming that all the principles of homeopathy contradict basic scientific principles. The principles of similars might be wrong, but there is no fundamental reason it couldn't be right. So what "contradictions" are we discussing? These maybe?

1. The use of doses beyond the Avogadro limit.
2. The idea that higher dilution can result in more effective remedies.

I have my own opinions and comments about both these points, but I would like to first ask the active participants if this is a correct identification of the major issues. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only issue where science and homeopathy diverge is the issue of sub-molecular doses. Homeopathy holds that effectiveness increases with "potency", without positing any limit on this relationship. While medical science does allow for unusual dose-response graphs, there is a definite limit to that relationship, at <1 molecule. This is because medicine is based on biology which is based on organic chemistry - in other words, on chemical reactions. No chemical, no reaction. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for refocusing us. I am happy with your description of the problem.

• 1 has a weak form ("possibly due to the placebo effect") and a strong form ("more effective than placebos"). Weak 1 is absolutely plausible. Strong 1 is severely implausible, but saying that it contradicts the fundamental principles of science is unfair. If we use such a low standard for such a strong statement, then the existence of life contradicts the fundamental principles of science, and therefore proves the existence of God.
• 2 has a weak form ("possibly due to the placebo effect"), an intermediate form ("for some substances there is a range where this holds and is not due to the placebo effect"), and a strong form ("it's generally true for all substances, over the full range up to C1000"). Weak 2 is almost certainly true, intermediate 2 is plausible, and strong 2 is so severely implausible, that I am not sure if it contradicts the fundamental principles of science. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there are no supporters of #2 here except Jefffire and I hope he will reconsider. As Sheffield Steel points out, there are a number of unusual dose-response relationships known to science, so it seems a stretch to find a direct contradiction there. (But a red flag, maybe.) I would like to limit the discussion to #1, if we may, in its strong form: Homeopathy claims that remedies diluted beyond the Avogadro limit can have a specific (beyond placebo) medical effect. This is the fact that we have to say something about, and about which we should reconsider the best formulation. Peter Morrell correctly points out that homeopaths also use remedies that are not so highly diluted, but I doubt that any of them would go so far as to say that ultra-molecular solutions cannot have any effect. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that unusual dose relationships don't exist. I think a lot of my meaning has gotten confused in the ridiculous tangent up above. But it is clear that succession as a method to increase effectiveness of all remedies is unsupported by science. Incidentally "unsupported by science" is a pretty good wording IMO. Jefffire (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wordy and tangential discussions are a good way to obfuscate meaning. I think throwing succussion into the ring has the potential to do that, too. Do you really wish to treat succussion to the same category as ultra-molecular dilutions? Remember that shaking is a standard technique in chemistry when mixing substances, so I don't think you can support it as being in contradiction to basic scientific principles (even though it may be wrong as applied by homeopaths). If we can agree that the biggest problem is ultra-molecular dilutions, then we can give the sentence much more stylistic impact, something like this:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. In particular, the use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its reliance on remedies without molecules, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

Of course, we need to re-examine the sources to make sure we are reporting their statements rather than reading our own ideas into them. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art, what I'm trying to say is that the claim that succession always increases the potency of any given remedy is wrong. It's possible to find specific examples where a lower concentration could produce a greater result, but I'm objecting to the strong claim. Jefffire (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say that homeopathic remedies don't have any potency under any circumstances. And most homeopaths would say that there is an optimum potency to use in any particular case. But can you make a clear statement? Is it OK with you to limit the discussion of contradictions in the lead to ultra-molecular doses, or will you be unhappy unless we mention succussion? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be a more elegant solution to reword the "contradictions" bit to "many of it's key principles are unsupported by science". I think the ultra-molecular stuff would be best left in the main body of the article. What do you think? Jefffire (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Art, you still need to say low potencies are in breach of nothing in science, and maybe mention the well-known biological activity of other tiny dose phenomena as discussed in the fruitful but allegedly "absurd and ridiculous tangent" above. Peter morrell 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, thank you. Jefffire (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about saying "the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted" in the lead and saving a discussion of low potencies for the main text? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted" is much better. It is the weakest spot of homeopathy, but it is so weak that apparently not all homeopaths believe in it. It's fair to attack it, even though this is a bit like using the perpetual virginity of Mary to attack Roman catholics. But at least we should not insinuate without clear evidence that all homeopaths actually believe in sub-Avogadro super-placebo effectiveness. It just might be that many believe in the law of similars and a strong placebo effect. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't truthfully say "many of it's key principles are unsupported by science," unless you say which principles and how they purportedly lack such support and/or add cites to qualify this absurd claim. Peter morrell 10:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an intro, details are in the main space in the section Medical and scientific analysis, and fully cited. Jefffire (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an important point. We should perhaps fix that section before fixing the lede. Currently the discussion under Homeopathy#High dilutions insinuates that the high dilutions are fundamental for homeopathy. This is not made explicit, and it is not referenced. I have no doubt that we can find references for that, but I would expect that we can also find references that play down the importance of high potencies without contradicting it explicitely. That's what I would expect from a homeopath who doesn't believe in them but 1) doesn't want to get into trouble with his more radical colleagues, and 2) doesn't want to spoil a potentially larger placebo effect associated with: "Wow, such a large number. He has never prescribed me such strong stuff before!" --Hans Adler (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that I am only talking about a minor wording issue. 10:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

That's ONE principle (high dilutions) not principles plural. Peter morrell 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your claiming that the law of miasmas and the law of similars are supported by science? Jefffire (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before in the "absurd and ridiculous tangent" lack of proof does not equate to disproof. They have never been investigated by scientists, but obviously a certain judge and jury here has decided in advance in an evidence-free manner that they are disproven. Where is the "science" in that? We should be reporting what is or is not, rather than leading the reader on and suggesting or implying things that have never even been studied. That's OR and POV. Peter morrell 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say "disproof". My prefered wording is "unsupported by science", which encapsulates your view that it is unstudied. Jefffire (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The word unsupported clearly means it lacks support which further implies that it has been investigated and no proof has been found. That is not a correct statement of the facts. A simple rewording is needed. It would be easier to say high potencies are not supported by science and leave it at that but you want your cake and eat it of course. Suggest a more neutral and factual wording. Peter morrell 11:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unsupported" is accurate, factual and neutral. Your view that it intimates disproof is PoV. Jefffire (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say "its key principles are unsupported by science" is fair. Unless anything that one would normally call a key principle of homeopathy has actually been supported by science, which doesn't seem to be the case. (It's not as if there hadn't been any attempts to scientifically prove water memory.) It does have some mild connotations towards "contradict science", but I consider that OK given the Avogadro question. But with any stronger formulation I would insist on spelling out the problematic key principles. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

Allow me to summarize. I see two proposals with different content (not just different wording):

1. Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. In particular, the use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine.[14][15]
2. Many of the key principles of homeopathy are unsupported by science.

The first one makes a strong statement about a single, specific aspect of homeopathy. The second one makes a weak statement about many, unspecified aspects. Both statements are defendable. Which one is more helpful to the reader? Which one is better supported by the sources? I think the first statement is more helpful, but I can live with either one. If we choose to use the second statement, I would want to consider supplying a short list of exactly which principles are meant. (If that is considered an inappropriate level of detail for the lead, it may alternatively be put in the main text, in a footnote, or even spelled out in a hidden comment or on the Talk page.) If I remember previous discussions correctly, there are some voices that will insist on the strong statement here. Is there any editor out there to whom one or the other of these statements is not acceptable at all? --Art Carlson (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I support consensus and object to neither, which seems to be consensus. Peter morrell 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not use both? Jefffire (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The second version doesnt't fit into the position. ("Claims … are unsupported …. … key principles … are unsupported.") Apart from that I am happy with both. But let's be clear that this would mean we are losing the part about characterisations of homeopaths by others. (We had only discussed part of that sentence.) Currently it is too strong to be neutral, but I wouldn't be opposed to a sentence explaining that homeopathy is controversial. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I had intended to retain the sentence, The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its reliance on remedies without molecules, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21], after version 1, 2, or 3, if that's what you are referring to. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Additional contributions to this thread have been moved to #Quackery in the lead.)

Like this? (edit conflict)

3. Several key principles of homeopathy have no scientific support and are indeed scientifically implausible. In particular, the use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine.

I have no objection to that. What about the other editors? One might ask if we should be more succinct in the lead, and I would still like to see those principles enumerated somewhere. I think all three version speak to Peter's objection that the present version makes it sound like homeopathy fundamentally contradicts science in several ways, while there is really only one aspect that does so. (There is still plenty of room for homeopathy to be unscientific in less fundamental ways.) --Art Carlson (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have achieved something between consensus and boredom with this question. I conclude that any of the three proposals is acceptable. My personal preference is #1, so I will proceed to change the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead from this:

The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

to this:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible.[14][15] In particular, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its reliance on remedies without molecules, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

As I recall, at some point we had references directly supporting the "contradiction" language, but I have lost track of them. If someone can dig them out, it would improve the passage and head of quarrels in the future. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Go ahead! Peter morrell 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

controversial edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=next&oldid=201354707 <-- This was a controversial edit. It removed well written text and then added some new text. The original text and the new text have there advantages. I suggest we restore the original text and also add the new information to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how it is controversial? Nobody complained prior to the edit being made and the changes were fully and minutely discussed here beforehand, ad nauseam. Peter morrell 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is controversial because the edit removed quality text. The original meaning is lost. I agree with Jefffire. We can use both. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the previous method conveniently adopted, perhaps you can suggest here what you regard as an improved wording, for people to make comments upon? thanks Peter morrell 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly no problem with further improvements and am eager to see your proposal here. Are you advocating variation 3, or something new? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the current text is a consensus version after an extended discussion over almost a week. You initiated this discussion with your edit, and you had the chance to take part in it. We have toned down some statements and we have made some more precise, both in order to get this article closer to NPOV. In my eyes putting the old POV statements back in would definitely not be an improvement. You will probably find it much easier to convince me (and the other participants in the discussion, I guess) to undo the changes or reinsert removed passages if you give detailed reasons for each passage. Here are the two versions, to facilitate this discussion. Previous text:

The ideastheories behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience, quackery, or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Current text:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. In particular, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and its reliance on remedies without molecules have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience, quackery, or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

--Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC) / 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of the "current version" above is an unsupported controversial statement -- there are many more facts "in particular" such as the lack of double-blind studies confirming effacacy during remedy development, so to include only one is misleading. It has been established that the first sentence of the "previous version" is well-supported by its peer-reviewed sources, so I have reverted. CKCortez (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about a previous consensus that I was not involved in. Can you please give me a pointer to the archive where I can find it? Thanks.

I would like to make clear what the issue is from my point of view. I have no doubt that one can find peer-reviewed sources that make phantastic claims such as "The [i.e. all] theories behind homeopathy are [scientifically implausible and] directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine." But we have editorial discretion to ignore obvious cases of scientists going over board and losing all their caution once they are talking about a fringe topic. Fortunately we are not forced to say that "it has been proved that homeopathy works", just because one or two peer-reviewed publications say so. But the same holds for fringe claims at the other end of the spectrum.

Also, we are talking about the lede. If you think "in particular" is misleading because it can be read as something else than "for example", then in the current constructive atmosphere I don't think anybody will object to changing this. Lack of confirmation in double-blind studies is already addressed in the same paragraph in the two sentences preceding the changed passage.

If you can find real improvements I have personally no problems with trying a BRD style editing mode (although I doubt it's wise to try it). But if you just revert to the previous text I will consider this a serious regression towards an unscientific POV. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: This was in response to an earlier, unedited version of CKCortez' post in which he announced the revert but had not done it yet. He reverted while I wrote my response. [11] --Hans Adler (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the definition of "in particular" is "specifically or especially distinguished from others" but there are several reasons that homeopathy is at odds with science and medicine, the missing molecules from high dilution being only one. In my opinion and in the opinion of the articles cited in that paragraph, that molecules are missing is a lesser issue than the lack of reproducible double-blind studies. Therefore the dilution is not "distinguished," specifically or especially, from those more substantial problems. CKCortez (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quackery in the lead

(This thread is a continuation of the one above ending "after version 1, 2, or 3, if that's what you are referring to".)

Ah, "contradiction of basic scientific principles" replaced by "reliance on remedies without molecules". I had somehow overlooked that, as I am only half following this discussion. Sorry. The only objection that I have to this sentence is that it accuses homeopathy of quackery, although in a weasly way. I.e. it mentions that people do and explains their reasons. I don't consider this neutral. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats attribution, there's nothing "weasely" about it. Jefffire (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what it is exactly, but constructions like "Because of [reasonable reason], certain people call [minority] [expletive]" are obviously not neutral. The problem is that "quackery" has very strong connotations of intentional fraud. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they are neutral. It's an attributed opinion, which is covered here. Jefffire (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To cite the policy: "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." It is a way of expressing statements that we endorse. I believe we have no sources that say there is more intentional fraud against patients in homeopathy than in mainstream medicine. Therefore using the word "quackery" here in this way amounts to name-calling. If you think about similar statements involving the x word, for any reasonable letter x, you will probably see what I mean. I don't want to remove this stuff completely, I only want it worded neutrally. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the following lines would be fair: "Homeopathy is highly controversial. Mainstream scientists often describe it in unfavorable terms such as "placebo therapy", "pseudoscience", or even "quackery". --Hans Adler (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution is in no way a method of expressing opinions we endorse. It would be entirely neutral and acceptable if the conditions were reversed and a homeopath was calling, say, vaccination quackery. All we need is "x said y{source}".

I don't have any objections to the proposed reword (remove to word "even" though), but it could legitimately be argued that it is more PoV. Jefffire (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with all that but agree with Hans that it is perhaps not neutral to say quackery BUT I am not that bothered and hardly feel apoplectic with rage about it, so carry on. Peter morrell 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why I prefer a different wording, but that's mainly because of my agenda: Getting this article to the point where it's factually correct and people from the two opposite backgrounds can read it and think: "It's biased towards the other side, but at least they tried to be neutral." Perhaps I am being a bit oversensitive here, and before anybody concerned actually complains about this point I am certainly not going to insist on it. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, if both sides are irritated with the article I believe that we have reached a NPOV article. MaxPont (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New World Data on Those who "Trust Homeopathy"

Friends, I was alerted to this data from a skeptics' blog, and it provides a rich body of data. For info on the survey, see [12]. For info on the company behind the data, see: [13]. A summary from this report could be: An international market research survey discovered relatively high levels of "trust" in homeopathy worldwide. Specifically, they found that 64% of people in India, 58% of Brazilians, 53% of Chileans, 49% of Saudi Arabians, 49% of United Arab Emirates, 40% of French, 35% of South Africans, 28% of Russians, 27% of Germans, 25% of Argentians, 25% of Hungarians, 18% of Americans, and 15% of British "trust homeopathy."

Before I consider adding this data and reference, I'm bringing it here for discussion. DanaUllman^Talk 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A survey from a marketing and market research company, with no named authors? Importantly, there is no information on the sample size in this survey, no information on how the sample was selected, and no information on how the survey was carried out. This could be discussed in general terms, but I wouldn't trust the precise figures at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Tim, but when you consider that market research companies provide information to large corporations who trust their work and then put their money (often big money) into products based on this research, it seems that large companies consider such research to be "reliable." This market research company is one of the biggies and thus seems to be a reliable source. DanaUllman^Talk 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with this being added if the source is directly specified and it is discussed in generalities, eg A market research survey suggests that homeopathy may be quite popular in India and but much less popular in developed countries such as the USA and Britain. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that if many of the largest corporations in the world consider market research data to be reliable, it would seem that we should simply report this information for what it is: "According to an international market research company". Perhaps something like this can be said: "According to a 2008 survey from an international market research company, a near or greater than majority of people in India, Brazil, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates “trust homeopathy,” and a 25%-40% of the population of people in France, South Africa, Russia, Germany, Argentina, and Hungary also trusted homeopathy. Only 18% of American and 15% of British expressed a trust in homeopathy." DanaUllman^Talk 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantitative data from established market research companies are routinely referenced by most mainstream media. Major corporatations pay 1000s of dollars for these data. Their methods are quite rigorous and and if you contact the company or look carefully at their website I am sure they explain their methodology. MaxPont (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If a secondary source refers to the survey, it should certainly be used. As it stands, it's a primary source with no evaluation or context, so I'd be very hesitant to add it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using primary source data is not against wiki policy; it is commenting on it that is OR. For instance, it would be OR if someone wrote that the data shows a "high degree of trust in homeopathy," while just repeating the data without comment is NPOV. DanaUllman^Talk 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, saying that there is evidence for homeopathy effectivity and then listing a lot of primary sources is also OR. You are just implying the link between the studies and their link towards effectivity instead of saying it straight away, but the link is there --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But no one (!) is suggesting that we place the prevalence information and the evidence of efficacy information in the same sentence or paragraph. Just because this is separate information in two places in this article does not make it OR. Is that what you really suggesting or did I misunderstand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaUllman (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Listing a primary source is bad, because at some point you have to justify its inclusion on the article and its relation to the topic, and that's the point where the editor has to make a link between the topic and the source. That link may be explicit ("xxx is blue because a study once found a blue instance of xxx [ref$ to primary source]") or implicit ("xxx is blue [ref to primary source]"). Sometimes it's necessary to use primary sources because of lack of secondary RS sources of topics that are not very popular or don't have secondary RS sources for a host of reasons. But, if you have secondary RS sources available, you should use those instead of the primary ones. Now, there is like a ton of secondary sources on homeopathy, its effects, etc, so, using a primary source instead would amount to deliberate OR because we are choosing to ignore the secondary sources that already used those primary sources for their creation, and creating instead our own unsupported links.

Again, WP:OR says to use common sense. Now, with dozens of secondary sources to cherry-pick from, why should we go down to thousands of primary sources and then rely on an editor's criterium to actually pick the correct ones and analyze them better than the guys that have spent all that time to write all those secondary sources? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe EN is correct here. We should be mainly drawing on secondary sources. Or at least including them in with the primary sources.--Filll (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, assume we found a reliable primary source that said that 73% of the population thinks that homeo is blatant fraud, would your interpretation of how to interpret WP and exclusion/inclusion bias shift in that case? MaxPont (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not everybody, but I'll answer for myself. If such a reliable primary source was found, then we'd have to wait until it was covered by a secondary source - such as a (respectable) newspaper - before we could use it in the article. Also, to be truly reliable we'd need details on sample size, population details, question sets, ... And regarding marketing firms, they are by their very nature generally unreliable sources. >>Partyoffive (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Well I personally think that any of this sort of material in this sort of detail probably belongs in the subsiduary daughter article on prevalence, if anywhere. I am pretty sure that I can find sources that state that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what homeopathy is, for example. So I am somewhat doubtful about this kind of "data".--Filll (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC) """"I would have to agree with fillis remark regarding placing this material in the prevalence page. this article should not go into things like this is any great detail, so if a source was found that said, for exmaple that most americans did not even know what homopathy was, that source would not going in here but would go in the United States section of Prevalence and legality of homeopathy, which was specifically devised for aht specific purpose. Furthermore, I woudl recommend that this article limit itself to only a general summary and a link to the prevalence article at most with regards to any information that is gone into exhaustive detail here. the reasons for this are threefold. First of all, the size of this article should be considrred, since making it too large and unwieldly will lead to undue havoc and frustration to casual readers of homeopathic related subjects. Second duplication of content is generally unecessary since this PRevlance Article should be linked extensively elsewhere on the Wiki. And thats about it. ~

A comment, I think that the word PREVALENCE is unnecessary abstract and would prefer the word USAGE or something similar as the title of the forked article. MaxPont (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with smithjones that the paragraph in question ought to be moved to the prevalance daughter article. BTW I see no problem with the word 'prevalence,' it is as it says about the prevalence of homeopathy in various countries and I fail to see anything even remotely controversial in using such a word. It is also a darnsight more elegant than the ugly word 'usage!' my ten cents Peter morrell 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Relation of homeopathy to other therapy forms

I noticed that since Prevalence and legality of homeopathy was forked off, the word "allopathy" no longer appears in this article. As it is in some sense the opposite of homeopathy we should really discuss it. When I looked for a good place to put it in, I realised that there is no section discussing the relation of homeopathy to mainstream medicine. I think there are a few things to be said: E.g. that homeopathy branched off before mainstream medicine became scientific; hostility of many homeopaths to some elements of mainstream medicine and pejorative use of the word "allopathy". If we name it more inclusively, we could also move the current subsections on isopathy, tautopathy and flower remedies there. Any thoughts? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you're opening a can of worms, count me out! Though allopathy has a precise origin and meaning, you will have a hard time explaining that and balancing it against those who detest the term as a form of insult, which I don't think it was originally intended to have but which it soon acquired and has had for many decades. Good luck on trying to find consensus on this topic! Peter morrell 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, allopathy has become a sort of "N word" for physicians. Add to this the fact that it's only partly descriptive. A lot of medicine involves amelioration of symptoms or even basic problems, while waiting for the body to fix itself. However, it would be a mistake to assume that scientific medicine focuses mainly or merely on fixing symptoms, signs and numbers. It does a lot of that, true enough, but only as a means to an end, knowing that the body does not operate well when things are out of whack. Or it may be proper end. Is it "allopathic" to give a malnurished person nutrients, or a dehydrated person water? How about a hypoxic person extra oxygen? Is there a homeopathic remedy for the complaint of thirst after working for a while outside, on a hot day? SBHarris 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The term allopathy should be mentioned and explained as a term that homeopaths use to define mainstream Western medicine. Not as a correct definition of medicince. MaxPont (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what I wanted to do, so I think it shouldn't be too controversial. There is something I want to clarify about the history of the word. (I tried to start a discussion at Talk:Allopathic medicine. Please have a look there and comment if you are familiar with the early history of homeopathy, which I am not.) Once I have done that I am planning to make a concrete proposal for a new section as described above. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans, I agree. There needs to be some reference to allopathy in this article. Just as it is good to understand one's own cultural by visiting another culture, a good way to understand homeopathy and allopathy is to acknowledge and differentiate them. By the way, [user:Bryan Hopping] has posted some truly impressive modern RS/NPOV references to the use of the word allopathy here: [14] Clearly, the word allopathy is accepted today by mainstream medical organizations, medical schools, and governmental agencies. DanaUllman^Talk 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On first sight I find the usage examples more convincing than the books. Linguistically speaking, the effect that an originally pejorative word for the majority of physicians gradually becomes more and more neutral is not surprising. The word slowly acquires the connotations that come with the profession. But I am not convinced that we have already reached the stage where the word can be used without offence to a non-negligeable number of people. Personally I think it would be OK, and probably a good thing for stylistic reasons, to use the word freely in homeopathy articles. I can see two reasons why someone would oppose this: Because they think it is offensive, or because they prefer other formulations like "mainstream medicine" or "scientific medicine" that stress the "fringiness" aspect of homeopathy each time they are used. Don't count too much on me if you want to enforce free use of the word in the article: Once somebody can convince me that they are opposing this for the first reason I will stop supporting that. I also think that this is a relatively minor problem compared with some other style and balance problems in the article, and therefore it's probably not worth fighting over. Or do you feel very strongly about this? My point was really that an article on homeopathy is not complete before the word "allopathy" appears at least once. And I am sure that we can find a consensus to achieve that. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes & references

See also - Talk:Homeopathy/Selection of studies

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thankyou