Talk:Arsenicum album

This article is within the scope of the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I've changed 'remedy' into 'substance' for no sources of the effectiveness of this 'remedy' were cited. Furthermore, the encyclopedic value of this article is disputable.

This article seems to be full of POV-pushers

I've just found this article, and wouldn't you know that I find many of the most frequent anti-homeopathy editors here. Hello everyone! This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too. This article deserves better than where it is now...let's try to maintain the good wiki-spirit in this process. My apology if I'm sounding a bit arrogant or paternalistic, but coming to this article fresh, I can't help but feel that the editors here are asleep at the wheel (and seem to be proud to be asleep). Eeeeks. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than jumping in and calling people "POV pushers" (which is insulting), and referring to "anti" editors and "pro" editors, can't you just try and open a friendly dialogue and Assume Good Faith. I think you've been reminded of this before. This isn't going to get editors already here open to your point of view (you know, the "POV" that you're "pushing", in your words)--88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a helpful addition to the understanding of homeopathy, especially since "placebo effect" cannot be attributed to the mice. I've corrected the reference formatting by adding {{reflist}}. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, the placebo effect is complex. If the vet or other people around the animals know which ones are getting the verum and which one the placebo, the animals can react to the (unconsciously signaled) expectations. (More likely to play a role with horses or dogs than with mice.) If the vet or technicians evaluating the improvement of the animals are aware of who's who, then their evaluations can be influenced by their own expectations. (Whereby the subjective element for some measures is greater than for others.) There is no excuse for not blinding a study at anything above the pilot level, and the results reported from a non-blinded study should always be treated with caution. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

88, you're right: maintaining good faith is so important to wikipedia. Perhaps then, you and other editors who have worked on this article can show good faith by explaining why this article asserted that there was "no" research testing this medicinal substance. "No research" is a very precise and absolute assertion. I find that it is interesting that certain editors are very good and fast in inserting references to anti-homeopathic literature but ignore and even delete references to good research published in high impact journals when the results are positive. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Defies logic

If a patient is suffering from arsenic poisoning, because they are being exposed, via the water you drink, to arsenic, in the amount of X per day, how is giving dx, where dx is an additional but infinitesimal amount of arsenic, for a total of X+dx, going to "remedy" the arsenic poisoning? It doesn't. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WnEo46h4A, which discuss homeopathic dillution. I will be adding this to the article. TableManners^C·U·T 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source (without the video):

• Williams, Nathan (2002-11-26) Homeopathy: The Test, Horizon (BBC) Retrieved on 2007-01-26 (transcript)

youtube is probably not the best reference, but the BBC is per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press. TableManners^C·U·T 08:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there TableManners. I have no problem with people being skeptical of homeopathy, though I do not yet understand people's skepticism of the primary principle of homeopathy: the principle of similars. I'm a little confused why you don't see the logic to the homeopathic principle of similars (treating like with like). I assume that you know something about and have respect for vaccinations and conventional allergy treatments, two of the few methods within conventional medical care that work by augmenting immune response...and what a coincidence, they utilize that principle of similars. In addition to the logic to using the homeopathic principle of similars is the body of animal and human clinical trials that have been conducted, have been posted here, and have been deleted by people who follow my contributions. Hopefully, you will help me maintain this information here, and perhaps, you can help refine the information so that it incorporates info about the semi-blinding aspect to some studies and the size numbers. As for the BBC's "test" of homeopathy, I suggest that you do some simple reading about the validity of that test. It was supposed to be a "repeat" of the work of biochemistry professor M. Ennis, but clearly, it wasn't: [1] It wasn't until late 2003 (over a year AFTER the BBC had conducted their trial) that Ennis was shown the protocol that was used, and she was shocked to discover that there was little similarity between her trial and the one that was created by a "medical technologist" at Guys Hospital who had never conducted or published reseach on basophils (yeah, it was THAT bad!). Here's some more info about the BBC's and the 20/20 "tv experiments": [2] There is more depth and breadth to homeopathic research than you may realize. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, why do you keep repeating this same arguments when it's been explained to you that they aren't valid on other pages? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ullman's studies

[3] is by homeopathic manufacturer Boiron, published in a minor journal, and which says in the abstract that it's a pilot study ("This pilot study was conducted on 20 males and 19 females of village Dasdiya") where over a third its subjects dropped out. As such, it does not pass WP:RS.

The second article's site is not working at present. However, The New Scientist article and related piece have some oddities, but the one unrelated scientist interviewed says that he is "extremely skeptical". I'm sure w ecould track down response letters.

The third one is claimed to be in a "major journal" (J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987.)

Unfortunately, the journal "Human Toxicology" does not seem to actually exist, and an online search for the title ([4]) comes up with no reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your objections. I also disagree with your selective quoting. The article actually stated:

"Although Gescher told New Scientist he is "extremely sceptical", he adds that the study is interesting."

Remember, consensus is an inherent part of the Wikipedia editing process. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Human Toxicology does exist. Not every publication is online (yet).

(2) Just because a homeopathic manufacturer such as Boiron has sponsored research does not make it invalid. Who do you think does the research on new medical drugs before they are marketed? Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As per point (1), in may exist, but it's certainly not a "major" journal, as the text explicitly claimed, as major journals, indeed, almost all minor journals, are indexed and so on so that researchers can find relevant articles. Per point (2) - To some extent, yes, however, strong regulatory binding does mitigate this, as does recent moves to force pharmaceutical companies to announce all trials when they start, so that the ones they don't publish can be known and inquired into. No such restrictions apply to Boiron, as far as I am aware, making their studies far more doubtful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is claimed that Human Toxicology is a major, high impact journal. So major and high impact that u+c

It's been 5 years since the New Scientist article. What has happened since? Any follow up? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened since the New Scientist's article 5 years ago? Did you not see the info about the HUMAN clinical trials that not only showed some clinical results but also showed significant objectively measured changes in various lab measurements. It is very challenging to do such human trials, and these researchers were impressively sensitive to the ethical issues involved in the use of placeboes in treatment, though they did have a placebo group in their studies (it was simply smaller than the treatment group). In referene to Adam C's statement above, I hope that people are seeing that he consistently provides partial information that only supports his point of view. I sincerely hope that we all make an effort to avoid the obvious truncating of quotes. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a self-described pilot study run by the same group as the mouse study. We can mention it briefly, but that's about it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The section about "Claims of efficacy" now has provided undue weight to the fringe-minority belief that this substance does something. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address this just. I'm not entirely happy with the study that is currently still there being included. It doesn't prove anything, and the conclusions are so weak--RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting properly sourced scientific data, without reaching a consensus with your fellow editors, is not the best way to edit Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). Using "fringe-minority belief" as justification is simply not acceptable. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to reconsider the AGF notice you have on your userpage. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Linde metaanalysis

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Linde et al, Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy, J Clin Epidemiol Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 631–636, 1999, doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7

Since Linde et al. have rejected the findings of their metaanalysis after further study, I believe the results from it should be considered superseded. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam...in THIS case, you are mixed up on the various meta-analyses that this team has published. You're confusing their clinical meta-analysis published in the Lancet (1997) with the one I cite here (1995) which is their meta-analysis on environmental toxicology studies (animal research, not human). The meta-analysis to which I referenced here was published in a major toxicology journal. If you think that I'm wrong (though I'm not), please provide verification. My advice is: slow down a bit. You're getting sloppy (we all get sloppy when we do too much). Also, I deleted the reference to the Shang review because it didn't have any direct research on Arsenicum album (remember: THIS is the subject of this article). Dana Ullman ^Talk 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Dana, but the 1994 (not 1995) study is being misused here all the same. Here's a quote from that article:

"As with clinical studies, the overall quality of toxicology research using SAD preparations is low. The majority of studies either could not be reevaluated by the reviewers or were of such low quality that their likelihood of validity is doubtful. The number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology"

You've ignored the findings of Linde et al, and instead reported the bits of data that suit your point of view. Hesperian 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, you're right...it is 1994, not 1995. Thanx. My writing pointed out that most of the 105 publications used in this meta-analysis were of low quality. I prefer to simply ignore low quality studies and instead only focus on the high quality one (this is not "cherry picking"). There are 9 points that are a part of the abstract to this meta-analysis. #6: "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects" (I reported this, and it was deleted) Point #7 says: "Four of 5 outcomes meeting quality and comparability criteria for meta-analysis showe positive effects from SAD (serial agitated dilutions) preparations. Point #8: Average percent protection over control in these preparations was 19.7% (this research was published in a leading toxicology journal; the authors are highly respected physicians who specialize in analyzing research design; this information is RS and V).

By the way, Hesperian's quote above continues and says: "Our indepednet analysis of high quality studies and meta-analysis of comparable experiemnts did show some surprising findings. First, experiments using the 'high' dilution range had higher quality evaluations than experiments in lower dilution ranges, making their validity more likely. Second, our reevaluation of results form these studies using the raw data showed that over 70% had positive effects. Finally, the meta-analysis also demonstrated positive effects for preparations in which no effect is expected when the data form multiple studies was combined. These studies provide the strongest evidence that 'solution'effects may indeed occur." My previous writing in this article provided this summary, but it has been deleted several times. I am concerned that Hesparian chose to truncate the quote above. I will assume good faith, and you can show good faith by you summarizing this body of information for this article. Is that reasonable? Let's be reasonable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to note one other important fact here which I also previously wrote in the article (but that was deleted): Of the high quality studies, 27 were found to show "a high degree of evidence for activity. In contrast, only 13 sutides were found showing no effective in these dilution ranges." Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation in first paragraph

Friends, the statement "rare reports of arsenic poisoning from poorly-prepared homeopathic treatments have been reported" needs to be striked. First, it is a report from India with such a low dose of arsenic that it would be illegal to have in the U.S. or any European country. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a V RS backed statement, perhaps it could use some rephrasing? —Whig (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be V and RS, but it needs to be significantly changed or deleted because it suggests that a medicine that is impossible to buy or get in the US and Europe has undue weight. See, I'm learning Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the V and RS statement because it shouldn't happen where you live sounds a bit like suppression of information. That doesn't tend to go down well on wikipedia. How about just adding a bit of context, if required? Then again, the statement is factual and this is a real scientific paper, and it is clearly notable that some (incorrectly) high doses are toxic --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This "V and RS" statement is a reference to a 1X potency, and yet, in the US, the OTC dose of this medicine is a 6X. Although I recommend deleting reference to this statement, I'm open to keeping it if there is adequate consensus, but you need to mention that this patient's experience took place in India with a 1X dose, and the American and European laws do not allow the over-the-counter sale of such toxic doses. In fact, the lowest potencies allowed of this medicine are 1,000,000 more dilute than the dose in this statement. Because my editing tends to be reverted, often without comment, can I ask you to make this change? Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the information you've provided, but we need a source for the legal levels --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An important study was deleted

The below statement was deleted without comment. This is a RS (the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field): Another animal study testing various homeopathic doses of arsenic on mice was published in a leading toxicology journal and showed statistically significant effects.

Based on the paragraph above that describes one more study, it seems a little funny (and inaccurate) to refer to all three studies as "preliminary." As for the mechanism of action, it wasn't until somewhat recently that we began to understand how aspirin works...and this didn't influence its acceptability. The reference to the "mechanism of action" has no place here. This article should emphasize what is known, not necessarily what is unknown (if we were to say what we don't know about something, then most of each article would discuss the various things we don't know. Further, this is an article about Arsenicum album, not the entire field of homeopathy. The reference #3, #6, and #7 and the partial sentence connected to it have no place here.

Here's what is presently written with my recommended changes (I suggest that we add the above study after reference #5): Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album;[4][5] however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect.[3][6][7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, among other things, says we cannot delete the mainstream view. No large-scale trials of the remedy itself have been done. However, there is strong consensus on homeopathy as a whole, and we can't weight small trials, at least one of which i s self-described as a pilot study, over large-scale analyses of the purported mechanism by which they would work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the study you advocate is from an obscure journal that is not available online, is not pubmed indexed, and which only gets 7 google hits under its title: [5], all seven of which are the exact same opinion piece which cites the article at the end. Calling this a "major study" being unfairly ignored is hyperbole of the most excessive sort; indeed, it's not even clear from the online sources if this is, indeed, on Arsenicum album or on some other arsenic-containing remedy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the description of that study in that opinion piece, which is similar to wording you have previously used, two questions: #1. Is this opinion piece your source for discovering this study, or are you the one who informed Mr. King of it for his opinion piece? #2 If not, then how are you aware of such an obscure article? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Adam...please remember that not everything that is available online, and how you searched came up with much fewer references than when I just searched under Google Scholar using: Cazin "Human toxicology". It is referenced in several journal articles and in several books published by leading medical/scientific publishers. Further, this study in this respected journal was a part of the Linde meta-analysis (1994). This study was recognized by Linde et al as one of the high-quality studies, even though I didn't find it via Google as cited in this article (but I have a copy of it, and I not only see it there, it is highlighted by the authors). By the way, I previously erred. The "new" name of this journal is "Human and Veterinary Toxicology". Let's be fair, especially nowadays. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that not everything is available online, but such low numbers of references to it - your method gives 20, and none of them look particularly impressive - does seem to limit what claims can be made about its importance to somewhat less than what you are making it out to be. A search for "Human and Veterinary Toxicology" stops at #14, although it suggests that there are really about 365.

In short, it becomes somewhat difficult to consider this study notable unless you can provide some really good reason why. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasons that the Cazin (1987) study is notable is that it was published in one of the leading journals in toxicology. It was conducted at a major French university and department of pharmacology. It showed a statistically significant result. It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial." It has had several replications that have confirms its results. It has V, RS, and 3rd party confirmation...it has them all. At this point, it is your responsibility to assert why it should not be in there. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying it's a leading journal of Toxicology, without offering any evidence to that effect, and it is missing most of the trappings of a major journal - pubmed indexing, actual mentions in the literature online. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports lists 76 journals in the "toxicology" category. It doesn't list journals entitled "Human Toxicology", nor "Human and Veterinary Toxicology", but it does list a journal named "Veterinary and Human Toxicology". When listed in order of impact factor, H&VT ranks 68th out of 76 journals. Hesperian 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic Clinical Trials Are a Higher Quality Than Conventional Medical Studies (Lancet, 2005)

First of all, the Lancet (2005) article was not a "meta-analysis." It was a comparison of studies (conventional vs. homeopathic). Although many physicians and scientists have reported sharp critique of this study that has no external validity, this article ignores one of its important conclusions. The researchers found that 21 of the homeopathic clinical trials were "high quality," while only 9 of the conventional medical studies were of a similar "high quality." Because people in this article on Arsenicum album include a statement about the quality of homeopathic research, we need to have a statement that a more recent analysis and comparison of homeopathic and conventional studies found that "more than twice as many of the homeopathic studies were of high quality as compared to those testing conventional medicines." Although I suggest that the reference to Lancet and Int'l Journal of Epidemiology articles should be deleted, we should include this observation from the Lancet article if we are going to include them. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You and I must be reading different articles, or I'm just not getting what you're saying. But to quote the Lancet article, the conclude "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." Which means, homeopathy is no different than drinking water. Ooops. It is drinking water. There will NEVER be evidence that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo because 0 molecules of anything can't have any clinical effect. Although drinking that water is probably good for the kidneys and bladder. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)