Talk:Atropa belladonna

Toxicity and medical uses

Belladonna leaves don't cause blisters on contact. Belladonna has been used against back pain together with red pepper capsicum extract in Germany, topically. Toxicity of leaves overstated. Atropine has in fact a very wide therapeutic margin, and fatal poisonings are exceedingly rare. The symptoms of poisoning are however extremely unpleasant and frightening. (Up to 30mg of Atropine are given with suspected nerve gas exposure, by auto-injector. The people are not really by themselves for the next 12 hours, but survive.) Pralidoxime is an antidote against organo-phosphate poisoning, not against atropine. It restores the blocked acetylcholinesterase. Here a few more facts: Belladonna extract has been used as a heart medicine traditionally. A standardized Belladonna root full alkaloid extract has been used against Parkinson's disease traditionally in Germany. (Part of an older pharmacopeia, I believe still in DAB6, in use until the 80s). Just found one was still used until 2003. A combination of Codeine, Belladonna, Aconite, Camphor was used in a cough syrup in the 70s in Germany. (not homeopathic, but in low doses.) The back pain patch ("ABC-Pflaster") I already mentioned. Today it only contains capsicum. Hope it helps to add valuable historical medical uses to the article. Naturopathic medicine has a rich tradition in Germany, but unfortunately now they copy the Americans. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the main things here at Wikipedia is citing information to a reliable source. I know this article lacks verification on a lot of what it contains, but it would be helpful if moving forward, new information such as what you are proposing here, was verified to a reliable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Belladonnysat Buerger: (discontinued 2003) against parkinson's. http://www.epgonline.org/viewdrug.cfm/letter/B/language/lg0017/drugId/DR006823/drugName/Belladonnysat%C2%AE%20B%C3%BCrger The other ones (Cough syrup, back pain patch) to be found in old editions of the German "yellow list" Pralidoxime, Obidoxime as an antidote for nerve gas poisoning: See some emergency medicine website. I'll find for you. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article about "Homburg 680" (look in the long article for the key word), a naturopathic (not homeopathic) belladonna root whole extract. It contained a good dose of atropine, hyoscyamine, hyoscine, as found in belladonna root, in natural proportions. It was used against spasticity, after the brain flu, and for parkinsons. This stuff really worked. It was superseded by synthetic anticholinergics later starting in the 50s. it was even prescribed to Hitler, because his hands were trembling, probably due to parkinson's. (No kidding!)

http://www.bri.ucla.edu/nha/ishn/abs2004.htm 70.137.153.69 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

here a quote:

The "Bulgarian treatment" for Parkinsonism

Paul FOLEY Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia

At the beginning of the 20th century, few avenues remained unexplored in the effort to identify an approach which might at least ameliorate the neurological sequelae of encephalitis epidemica (~1915-1925), particularly the especially common parkinsinoid syndrome. Amongst the more successful--and colorful--approaches was the "Bulgarian treatment", which became popular in Western Europe in the mid-1930s and remained a significant component of antiparkinsonian therapy until the advent of L-DOPA in the 1960s. Originally conceived in the early 1920s by Ivan Raev, a Bulgarian herbal healer, as a complete program which included phytotherapeutic, dietetic and psychotherapeutic components and promoted in a semi-mystical light, the method was brought to Italy in the 1930s, largely as the result of familial connections between the Bulgarian and Italian royal houses. Here the treatment was scientifically examined in clinics established by Queen Elena for this purpose, the essential component ultimately being identified as being the administration of a belladonna root extract. From here the method spread to Germany, other European countries and the United Staes. After a number of controversies regarding the chemical basis of the therapy and the relative merits of belladonna root from Bulgarian and other sources, standardized root extracts (such as "Homburg 680") became the standard means of application in Europe, while defined combinations of the tropane alkaloids presumed to underlie its efficacy (such as "Rabellon") were more popular in English-speaking countries. Both forms of the treatment were ultimately displaced in the 1950s by synthetic anticholinergic agents, as a result of which interest in the factors responsible for the superiority of the Bulgarian method to other solanaceous plant-based therapies waned.

Hope this helps! 70.137.153.69 (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More homeopathy

Science Apologist - I see no reason for your removal of properly sourced material about homeopathic uses of AB. can you explain? --Ludwigs2 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's explained above. Did you read the archives? The point is that there is no assertion of prominence of homeopathy to the subject of this plant. None. Zero. Zilch. Therefore, until someone gives us a source that says, "Atropa belladonna is known by many through their purchase of homeopathic remedies" or "Homeopathic preparations account for x% of the atropa belladonna traded on the commodities market" then we have no justification for including homeopathic use of this plant on this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy which would require such an assertion. If you disagree, you should take it to the policy page which you feel is applicable and discuss it on that talk page or on a corresponding noticeboard. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the hide on my comment which SA felt it was appropriate to do. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SA: I read the discussion, and you seem to have made only two statements on the issue:

Find a source which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant

Inability to provide a reliable source that asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant means we will continue to excise it from the article.

the article lists two sources, and you yourself have provided a third, so I'm not understanding your concern. and it is a matter of established fact that preparations like these are offered for sale, and have been extensively used historically, so (again) I'm not understanding your concern. can you explain? --Ludwigs2 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Those two sources do not assert the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. We need to establish that these preparations are somehow significant in the narrative offerings for this plant. Just offering something for sale is not good enough. I encourage you to explain to me the "extensive" use. That would make me very happy. Also, please show me in the sources where you see that homeopathy is somehow significant in the history of this plant. Either of these claims that you made would be good enough for us to include homeopathy in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, please provide us with a Wikipedia policy which would require such an assertion of prominence. You claim that I am wrong to assert that there is no such policy. Please provide us with a quote from a policy saying otherwise or please discontinue this line of argumentation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

first point - if you're going to do bitchy rollbacks, at least take the time to recover valid fixes, rather than just undoing everything - I swear, someone really ought to take your rollback privileges away; you use them irresponsibly.

that being said... five minutes of poking around gave me this, from Anticholinergic syndrome due to 'Devil's herb': when risks come from the ancient times form the International Journal of Clinical Practic (G. A. Piccillo, et all):

Because of the ‘human body’ shape of its root and its narcotic and poisonous effects, from ancient times this plant, also known as ‘Devil’s herb’, was believed to be an aphrodisiac and to have magic and medical properties. In 1518, Niccolo` Machiavelli wrote the famous Italian tale ‘Mandragola’, underlining the ‘medical’ use of a Mandragora potion for infertility treating.

there were literally hundreds of other peer-reviewed articles that (given the parameters of my search) mention ABs historical use - this is not a contested fact in the scientific community. it would take me longer to search out articles that discuss its use in detail, but I think this is sufficient evidence that the homeopathic use of this drug (in some capacity) is a prominent and notable part of the topic. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, that quotation does not mention homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> SA, the historical use of AB was homeopathic use. please don't argue like a 6 year old. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Homeopathy was not invented in "ancient times". Do you know what homeopathy is? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, and in this particular case, homeopathy with AB is a modern extension of a historical use of the plant, just the same way that clinical use of atropine is a modern extension of the historical use of the plant. word-games aren't going to cut it with me, SA. I really wish I understood what your obsession with this particular phrase it - it seems really innocuous for the amount of attention that you're giving it. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a pariicular system of extreme dilutions. It isn't a "modern extension" because it must undergo specific preparations to be considered "homeopathic". I think you are confusing homeopathy with naturopathy which is a different subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

if that's the way you choose to look at it, then I can resolve this problem right now by changing the word 'homeopathic' to 'naturopathic' in the article. since homeopathy is a subset of naturopathy, that shouldn't be a issue, and your problem disappears. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s... you're well over your reversion on this article for today. I have no interest in seeing you get blocked again, so please don't make me file a report.--Ludwigs2 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Change away! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just that you can buy these pills does not establish notability, especially if the choice of the plant is not related to any real effects of the plant. Of course, Atropa belladonna is an old phytotherapeutic plant that has been used throughout history for its (strong) pharmacological effects. But phytotherapy has nothing to do with the pseudoscience homeopathy. (I even doubt that your supermarket pills have actually anything to do with mainstream homeopathy.) Swamping Wikipedia articles with such trivia puts undue weight on some absolutely non-notable aspects. We simply cannot tolerate a whole paragraph on homeopathy on virtually every plant article for the reasons given above. If at all, this information would belong to the homeopathy article. Cacycle (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the modern use of the plant is an outgrowth of the historical use of the plant, and it's certainly worth noting that that use continues today. even if the 'supermarket' remedies contain no meaningful dosage, they are still leveraging the historical use. while I would agree with you that there shouldn't be any extensive discussion of the naturopathic use of AB in this article, I don't understand how you can say that a common and easily observed fact about the plant doesn't deserve attention at all. I mean, imagine some kid who goes to the grocery store looking for acne cream, finds one that list AB as an ingredient, and then wants to find out what that means. we do want wikipedia to give that information, no? --Ludwigs2 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwig2 here. There really is no reason to hide this extremely well-sourced and pertinent information. Notability does not apply to article contents but rather to the article subject as a whole. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine - you know, I see that error made all the time (in fact, I do it myself...). is there a better terminology that we can use to distinguish notability in the wp:notability sense from notability in the colloquial 'more-or-less-important' sense? --Ludwigs2 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no policy that dictates whether or not information (not a viewpoint) is "significant" enough to be included in an article. Don't click on WP:Significance because that only redirects to WP:Notability. "Prominence" is an interesting concept, but WP:PROMINENCE (a redirect created by ScienceApologist during the course of this dispute) points to WP:WEIGHT which provides us with a guideline on how to present point of views but not necessarily general information. For instance, saying "homeopathy works" or "homeopathy is pseudoscience" are viewpoints. However, saying that AB is an ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not a "point of view". It's just general information. I think where Wikipedia leaves us - in terms of what general information gets added to an article, and what does not - is right here on the article talk page. Meaning, it is up to us - the editors - to make the choice of what information gets presented and what does not. I guess, topicality/relevance plays a significant part in our decision making. Equally so does the use of WP:RS and WP:V. In this case, I feel that the homeopathic use of AB is just as topical/relevant as - say - AB's use in the 1998 fantasy movie Practical Magic. Plus, we have two extremely reliable sources verifying the homeopathic usages of AB. In terms of WP:WEIGHT, the only viewpoint that we are presenting is that science doesn't support the efficacy of the homeopathic usage of AB for various conditions. This meets WP:NPOV perfectly (whereas, if we spent another sentence or two discussing how some feel that it is effective, we may in fact be in violation of WP:WEIGHT). So, in a nutshell, I guess we can use "relevance" or "topicality" to mean 'more-or-less-important' and - through the usages of reliable sources for verification - it is up to us, the editors, to decide what general information gets included and what does not. That said, I may be completely wrong and there may be a guideline out there which totally covers this. If anyone knows of one, please enlighten me! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the following part (I kept the medlineplus reference):

A. belladona is also used as a traditional treatment for acne, boils, and sunburns.<ref name="oxford">{{cite book|last=Vaughan|first=John Griffith|coauthors=Patricia Ann Judd, David Bellamy|title=The Oxford Book of Health Foods|publisher=Oxford University Press|date=2003|pages=59|isbn=0198504594|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mMl9vwVDxigC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22deadly+nightshade%22+homeopathic&source=web&ots=xEccdnf4ox&sig=uQu-JUHbXaEd9Ru5vJAPS9hkk0Y}}</ref><ref name="medline">{{cite web|url=http://mplus.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-belladonna.html|title=Belladonna (Atropa belladonna L. or its variety acuminata Royle ex Lindl)|date=02/01/2008|publisher=Medline Plus|accessdate=2008-06-14}}</ref>

None of the two references supports this statement. The medlineplus ref does not mention any of these symptoms (but is still a valuable reference for other parts of the article). The Google book reference mentions the symptoms (they are actually copied from there), but sais it is a homeopathic treatment (as opposed to a "traditional" treatment). Anyway, the Google book is a poor source as is a too general and completely unreferenced - the whole chapter about A. belladonna consists of twelve sentences. It should not be difficult to find a reliable source for A. belladonna as a homeopathic treatment for these symptoms (if true). If such references could indeed be found, then the re-addition would be be warranted if it is an especially notable homeopathic preparation. Cacycle (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Added similar material from the two references that are supported by the sources. Ward20 (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Medline Plus article homeopathic paragraphs appear to refer to this list of symptoms, "Abnormal menstrual periods, acute infections, acute inflammation, anesthetic, antispasmodic, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, bedwetting, bowel disorders, chicken pox, colds, colitis, conjunctivitis (inflamed eyes), dental conditions, diarrhea, diuretic (use as a "water pill"), diverticulitis, earache, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), eye disorders (dilation of the pupils), fever, flu, glaucoma, gout, hay fever, hemorrhoids, hyperkinesis (excessive motor function), inflammation, kidney stones, measles, motion sickness, mumps, muscle and joint pain, muscle spasms (excessive unintentional muscle movements), nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, organophosphate poisoning, pain from nerve disorders, Parkinson's disease, pancreatitis, peritonitis, rash, scarlet fever, sciatica (back and leg pain), sedative, sore throat, stomach ulcers, teething, toothache, ulcerative colitis, urinary tract disorders (difficulty passing urine), warts, whooping cough", so I used the word various to describe them so as not to bog down the article. Ward20 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ward20, please could you explain why you have re-added the Google book source as a reference. As explained right above, this is in no way a reliable source, it is a book of illustrations with short captions, it is overly general, and it is completely unsourced. As such, it is not more reliable than a random webpage. Moreover, the symptoms it lists are directly contradicted by the other, way more reliable, medlineplus reference.

Also, what constitutes the notability of this specific homeopathic remedy that warrants its inclusion. After all, every natural substance, including every single plant and every single naturally occurring chemical, has, or could be, used to prepare homeopathic preparations, more or less at the discretion of the individual practitioner. I do not think that notability is established from the length of a long and arbitrary symptom list. A reference that shows that it is one of the top-ten homeopathic remedies or that it was one of the first ones used by Hahnemann would suffice. But please remove that particular junk-reference. Cacycle (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's going a bit far to call The Oxford Book of Health Foods a "junk reference". The book has received excellent reviews, and was published by a highly-respected publishing house, Oxford University Press. It was written by a credentialed author, Professor John Griffith Vaughan, who has been praised in third-party sources for both his knowledge of botany, and this book in particular. It seems to meet a lot of "reliable source" criteria. However, if there is disagreement about this, I recommend bringing it up at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions on its suitability. --Elonka 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To verify facts about botany, this reference can fairly be called "not the best" because it's focus seems to be health foods. For facts about common uses, I think it's fine. If this plant is notably used in cosmetics, traditional medicine and homeopathic preparations, I don't have a problem with the article having sections (clearly labeled) that provide this information using this source. It's time to weed my garden because we have Atropa belladonna growing wild. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Book of Health Foods has gone through RSN and was deemed a reliable source for including the short sentence about the homeopathic usage of RSN. There were several other books (homeopathic sources) which were also presented, but I would say that there was no consensus on how those sources could/should be used here. I don't believe that the MedLine source was ever brought to RSN for this issue, but does anyone really have an issue with that source? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I was going to show the show the RSN too. I am using The Oxford Book of Health Foods as one of three sources to support the wording, "Diluted preparations of belladonna in the form of homeopathic preparations have been used for various conditions." Each secondary source lists some symptoms or conditions treated by homeopathic belladonna preparations. Together, they make a stronger case than alone. Since many conditions are listed, it is one of the reasons for the word "various". I believe these sources are sufficient to note the use of belladonna in homeopathic preparations. If you read the third source, A Modern Herbal, Nightshade, Deadly, toward the bottom of the page, it does state Hahnemann used belladonna for scarlet fever. Ward20 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Page ban

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has been banned from this article and its talkpage for one week.[1] If there are any questions, please contact me or any other uninvolved admin, thanks, Elonka 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

There are several statements in this article which have been tagged as needing sources since February. This is more than enough time to allow for the location of sources, per WP:V. Any statements in the article which have been tagged for more than 30 days, may be deleted. --Elonka 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

I am not sure where all of this added attention is coming from, but let me say, "Thanks" to all who have helped shape this article up. A lot of fat trimmed and a lot of much needed references added. That said, I removed the tag requesting more citations. Sure, we could always use more refs, but I don't think the tag is warranted any longer. Nice work, everyone! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The attention is mostly coming from this ANI thread, where ScienceApologist has challenged the ban, and several other editors are weighing in with comments (some helpful, some not) ranging from the ban, to my uninvolved status, to the subject of homeopathy in Wikipedia in general. Anyone else who wishes to participate, is welcome to do so: Wikipedia:ANI#Elonka banning me from Atropa Belladonna. --Elonka 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the advice of you (and many another wise Admin), I am going to steer clear. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I've separated the Medicine and Alternative Medicine sections so that the reader does not become confused between these two different fields. Perhaps this is a suitable compromise for those who wish to include altmed information in this article, and those who think it is not appropriate. Before anyone jumps on me for creating a fork, that section of the article is already broken down into subsections. Creating one more does not seem to harm the flow. Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to jump on you for implementing such a good idea. "Why didn't I think of that?" Thanks, Jehochman. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. I've done some slight editing to clean out some inaccuracies. Then the references frustrated me, so I did a thorough housecleaning of those. I hope no one minds. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals, question

An edit removed attribution to National Institutes of Health. According to the Natural Standard Research Collaboration they prepared the evidence based monograph for the NIH. I think the material should be attributed so the reader knows the authority of the opinion per WP:ASF.

The sentence, "A double-blind study of the effects of homeopathic preparations of belladonna indicate no difference in effect than placebo" was added, sourced by the 2001, 87 subject, Walach study. The wording could be tweaked a bit because this one study does not represent all homeopathic preparations. It only represents one preparation that has statistically no belladonna remaining. A more NPOV wording would be, "A double-blind study of the effects of an ultramolecular homeopathic preparation of belladonna indicates no differences in effect than placebo controls." Another suggested change is to use the much larger and more recent 2003, 253 subject, Brien study that is available to the reader for free. I don't consider the next question a huge issue. Should this sentence be in the article at all? It seems the article already makes it clear to the reader there has been no established efficacy of any of the belladonna homeopathic preparations. Is a primary sourced study of a preparation, that statically contains no belladonna, needed in the article to drive home a subgroup of a point covered by a secondary source that was stated in the previous sentence? Comments? Ward20 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "statistically contains no belladonna" is relevant, as this is true of most homeopathic dilutions (those beyond 12c; 30c is standard) and "ultramolecular" is unneeded - this is standard for homeopathy, and not unusual. It would be nice if there was a reference for the typical dilution. The ones I can find are 30c, 30x, and 200c - certainly beyond ultra-molecular. Irrelevant but interesting: the 200c solution is 170$ - that makes statistically no belladonna very expensive! --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that statistical fact may be relevant. Homeopathic knowledge is fairly obscure in the general public; this is particularly true regarding the public's chemical knowledge of homeopathic dilutions. Mentioning it here certainly takes up no more than a sentence, and fairly summarizes the scientific view of such remedies. Antelan^talk 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill and a bit tangential. If the reader wants to learn more about homeopathy in general, let them click the Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been down this path before. Essentially, there is no belladonna in solution. If you don't like that fact, then remove the whole reference to it's use in homeopathy. If an editor wants to discuss it's use in homeopathy, let's make it clear that it's really not there. If we don't make that clear, then the inference is that it does something useful. Since there are no molecules of belladonna in solution, it can't do anything. I guess it can rehydrate, which is a good thing. And I'm in the wrong business. I could bottle 200cc of water and sell it for $170. If I had only known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that essentially there is no belladonna there. We also all agree that Belladonna was used in the preparation of the "solution". The thing is, this is true for all homeopathic remedies, right? (I am not sure - despite popular misconception around here - I am not a homeopath and to the best of my knowledge I have never taken a homeopathic remedy; come to think of it, I am not sure that I've ever seen a homeopathic remedy up-close). If so, then why repeat it every time homeopathy is mentioned throughout Wikipedia? It is wiser to Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For me as a writer, I want to write to inform the reader. The statistical fact is verifiable, noteworthy, and relevant. It is also interesting to learn. Indeed, explaining this to readers may be what ultimately entices them to click through and learn about homeopathy itself. Antelan^talk 01:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Understand I am coming off of a months-long dispute just trying to get a one sentence mention included (and I am truly glad that there seems to be a consensus supporting this mention now!) and one of the most common arguments against inclusion was that "we don't want to have mini-homeopathic articles floating around Wikipedia". I still don't know what that argument means, but I am timid about giving too much space in this article to homeopathy because of that argument. That said, I think the more knowledge we add, the better article we will have. So just keep it on point and don't make it a tangent into a general discussion into the merits of homeopathy and we should be okay. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if homeopathic uses of this plant merit mention here, then it naturally follows that a brief description of relevant features of those remedies (such as the fact that they likely do not contain any of the plant substance in question) are also relevant. That said, sure, it's completely possible that homeopathic uses of this plant are so insignificant as not to merit mention in this article. That's also fine by me, as I have no predilection either way at this point. Antelan^talk 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Ward20s wording seemed to imply that there may be other homeopathic preparations of belladonna that do contain an active amount of belladonna and thus may have an effect. I dispute this implication, as there is no evidence for homeopathic belladonna (and no, 1x is not a homeopathic preparation). I generally agree with OM and Antelan above. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I spent quite a lot of time combing through PubMed finding articles from PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS (and you don't get anymore "scientific" than that) showing evidence of physical effects of homepathic uses of belladonna, and these were removed from that section and some mealy-mouthed sentences about how it does not have any "proven" effects were substituted. I cited articles that proved it had effects from peer-reviewed journals. Why were these citations removed?Harry53 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Harry Roth

toxicity

the section on toxicity only mentions about eating it, what if it is injected or was used to coat arrowheads like legend has it? --UltraMagnus (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you supply some sources, we can work that info in. Hardyplants (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)