Talk:Homeopathy

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

Bias?

It seems like the intro paragraphs are highly critical of homeopathy. I'm sure criticisms about, but shouldn't they be in the body of the article (which they are), but to focus so heavily on the criticisms in the lead in seems unencyclopedic? After all, its not some fringe practice, it is used widely across Asia, and Europe. Let's not let American bias interfere with the objectivity of the article. Warfwar3 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the extensive discussions of this issue in the talk archives, linked at the top of the page, before deciding to tag the article. Homeopathy is most certainly a fringe practice, and this has nothing to do with pro-American bias. Skinwalker (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is not a US centric position; it is based on homeopathy being a fringe theory (see WP:FRINGE), which is not supported by the scientific evidence. NPOV does not mean presenting all theories without criticism. Criticism needs to be given due weight in the lead, and this does not mean giving equal weight to support and criticism, but rather reflecting the facts and views expressed in reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS). Fences and windows (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am disputing the neutrality, so why do you remove the tag? Let us have a reasonable discussion and find the solution, like grown-ups. You can't dispute the fact that people are disputing the neutrality. And past consensus does not mean it can not change. Wikipedia is not a religion. We should not tolerate dogma. There are many times when a consensus has been reached on a certain article, only for it to be overturned at a later time. Warfwar3 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the body, with all key points presented. Could you please make specific suggestions based on the sources already used or new reliable sources regarding how the article might be improved?

Also, absent specific discussion of how to fix the perceived bias, the POV-tag should be removed. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion in this section comes nowhere close to justify a POV tag. I removed the tag (again). Eubulides (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The current lead is dominated by criticism, which is not NPOV. Also, it does not summarise the article, having been written independently and contains many citations. A better approach would be to throw it away and start again by summarising the structure of the article. Of course, the main body of the article has to be made NPOV first. I shall be restoring the tag until this is done. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The current lead is appropriately weighted, and is heavily cited due to the "bias" accusations which have been thrown around. The POV tag is not justified. We need specific issues, and hopefully ones that haven't already been addressed. (for example, pseudoscience and quackery has been addressed many times and should remain). The lead does summarise the article, and having been written "after" doesn't invalidate that - starting again would allow the same so called "criticism". The lead is POV because it's well sourced?? Verbal chat 08:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the lead is POV because it consists almost entirely of sources that criticize homeopathy, while disparaging sources that support homeopathy. Just take a look at other "professional" encyclopedias and the difference is obvious. The article in general reads like an attack piece. Until we can resolve that, why shouldn't the tag remain? Let's not resort to censorship 96.233.45.165 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding claims of censorship, see Observation #1 here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The most medically reliable sources, third-party reviews of literature, find homeopathy to be ineffective. The core sciences are totally unsupportive of just about everything about homeopathy. The best science available fails to support it. Ergo, per WP:UNDUE, placing any emphasis on it's "useful" applications is inappropriate. So the lead should be mostly unsupportive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Negative proof is practically impossible to obtain, but with homoeopathy, it’s about as close as you can get. Homoeopathy’s efficacy is totally non-existent and its proponents’ explanation of how the imaginary effects work is illogical. This is all scientific fact. Now how about let’s not let homoeopathic bias interfere with the objectivity of the article.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and ideas for improvement

(paraphrased from the Fringe theories noticeboard, by ImperfectlyInformed):

• The lead uses 20 footnotes (some repeat citations) to tell the reader the "it's not scientific".
• There is no discussion of mechanism in the lead.
• Water memory gets only one sentence which doesn't even mention the most relevant mainstream fact, i.e. that water's structure lasts about 1 picosecond, nor any of the proponents' research.
• There is little discussion of how most homeopathic remedies would be expected to have zero molecules of the original substance.
• No mention of scientific investigation into the law of similars.
• No mention of the Bayesian approach where findings are weighted by prior plausibility, which is an argument against any positive findings.
• The article needs more detail on what homeopaths do and how they see the world.(comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris)

Fences and windows (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first few points: The citations were required by the edit warring and accusations of bias made by pro-homeopathy editors; There is no plausible mechanism, so it is hard to discuss and have in the lead, unless we simply state there is no plausible mechanism (plenty of sources for that) - mechanism is also secondary to effect, and there is no evidence of effect - as the article and lead make clear; water memory in the article could be expanded, but it is only one proposed mechanism and has been mostly discredited and abandoned - even by homeopaths - and should be dealt with in its own article. I don't have a problem with water memory research and dilution problems being expanded on. The other points sound like good ideas for expanding the article. Verbal chat 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. One authoritative recent citation, lacking a contradicting recent citation, is as authoritative as 4. I hardly think the ref-bombing changed the edit-warring. Blaming promotional homeopaths for poor-writing and ref-bombing is unconvincing, especially since DanaUllman hasn't been editing for a long while. Whether the proposed mechanisms are plausible or not is irrelevant since this article, like all articles, is an expository encyclopedia article. Proposed mechanisms must be summarized in the lead. Reading over again, perhaps I was a little sharp in my response. II | (t - c) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also should move away from (what I call) "Wikipedia style" writing, which consists of sentences built like those rambling New England houses, where phrases and clauses are strung together, much like additional rooms are gradually added to the original house, with lots of parenthetical statements (like nooks and crannies), which makes it harder to find your way around, and which can cause you to lose your original path as a reader, or as a visitor. Never underestimate the power of the simple declarative sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Verbal chat 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether we need so much detail in the lead as to why homeopathy is criticised by scientists? The lead is a summary, and I'm not sure we need to include all the information about law of mass action etc. right upfront; it does clutter the lead. I agree that most of the info on water memory should be in its own article, but it is a notable suggested mechanism. The weak quantum hypothesis should be explained in more detail as well (along with criticism!). Here's an article on prior beliefs and alternative medicine, which mentions Bayesian reasoning: [1]. Fences and windows (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening up the edit window on this article, it's even more of a pain than I expected. It seems as if the people editing this article wanted to add every single article on homeopathy. For example, 3 articles on Zicam alone, numerous reviews dating from the 1990s to the 2000s. I really don't think this is necessary given that reviews of clinical trials all say the same thing: some trials showed efficacy, some don't, but homeopathy is implausible. Let's just cut the old ones and stick to the new, unless the old ones are shown to be particularly notable. II | (t - c) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been moving slowly in this direction, preferring broad meta-analyses to more narrowly focused ones, more recent reviews to earlier ones, and so on. It's probably best to move slowly given the history of this article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an artifact of the article's past. I don't think most of you were here during the period when Dana Ullman and a dozen other really, really POV-pushing homeopaths were challenging everything, and forcing addition of more and more references to a statement to keep everything from being constantly challenged, and no admins were willing to step in and do a thing to deal with it. The best way I can describe it - and this is going to be dated soon enough as well: imagine five Martinphis all working to push their POV right here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If we were only to use what could be supported by WP:MEDRS reviews, the article could be reduced to an explanation of Homeopathy as a system of faith healing using water and sugar pills as placebos. Perhaps not a bad thing, though certain to meet some opposition.LeadSongDog come howl 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy ain't faith healing. There R innumerable studies to prove it's effective (that's Y it's survived 200+ years), but U guys keep saying it's, 'Fringe Theory'. I C that the articles on Chiropractic, Naturopathy & Osteopathy are proFringe Theory, but this article is an attack piece - every statement is criticised and no defense of the criticism is allowed. I believe Col.Warden and Warfwar3 are right in inserting the POV tag.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All good reviews have found that homeopathy has no clinical effect. The problems of mechanism are even harder to surmount. I hope that those other articles aren't pro fringe - I'll check. Let's keep to the theme of this thread by suggesting improvements, and doing them, rather than arguing about the recent state of the article and tags. I'm sure LSD was joking. Note that faith healing has been around longer than 200 years, and many "studies" also support it. Personally, I'll put my faith in the scientific method and EBM. I think that reduction of citations in the lead is good, but be careful not to lose them and note where they were - I did this before by using named refs, commented out after the first ref. We could also just put a link here to an "over-referenced" version. Verbal chat

Good reviews? I believe they've been cherry picked. I'd like to put up a defense of all the criticism, will y'all let me?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the reviews is that they are not cherry-picked (although homoeopaths often claim that they are). While the recent and much hyped criticisms of the Shang paper have accused the authors of post-hoc cherry-picking in their choice of papers, a response published in Homoeopathy (Homeopathy Volume 98, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 127-128) has made it clear that this is not the case. Ironically, many of the criticisms of the Shang paper from homoeopaths actually do rely on post-hoc selection of papers to make their point. Brunton (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the lead is supposed to summarise points from the article, presumably it doesn't actually need any refs at all as long as the statements used are adequately referenced in the body of the article. Brunton (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as there being "no mention of scientific investigation into the law of similars" in the lead, how much scientific investigation into the law of similars has there been, beyond the sort of studies of efficacy that are already mentioned? Brunton (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a school of thought that says no references should be included in the lead, but on contentious articles this seems to me to lead directly to instability. Certainly, though, we are required to use the lead as a summary of the body without introducing new information; excluding explicit citations might help on that score. We might come to an informal agreement here that any sentence currently citing more than, say, three references should be either rewritten or the references pared to the most reliable. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Brunton is correct in principle: "Since the lead is supposed to summarise points from the article, presumably it doesn't actually need any refs at all as long as the statements used are adequately referenced in the body of the article."

I definitely favor keeping refs to a minimum in the LEAD, but we'll run into problems without a change of policies regarding WP:LEAD and sourcing. Right now it's not clear that a no-refs LEAD would be allowed. A compromise would be to use internal links to sections as refs in the LEAD. Here's my thinking: Since the LEAD must summarize all significant content (and to do that efficiently, everything that deserves a heading should be mentioned very shortly in the LEAD), we could use refs that point to the section which expands on the sentence or phrase in the LEAD which summarizes that section. I think this idea is worth a try. What do you think? If that sounds "clear as mud", just ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started a section on the subject. Please participate there. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Brunton, the url you've posted leads to a skeptics blog, not the article in the 'Homeopathy' mag. The article talked about in that blog actually attacks Shang et al, so I'd like to put up a defense in this article. I'm wondering Y U guys R so anti Alt.Med. and Y y'all haven't been successful with the Chiropractic, Naturopathy and Osteopathy articles?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The "skeptics blog" page I linked to is the text which was published in Homeopathy at the reference I gave above (see here). Here's the link to it in Homeopathy if you prefer. Brunton (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you not use "text speak", please, it's hard to read. I'm not anti alt-med, just pro evidence - and there isn't any that homeopathy works. As to adding "defence", feel free to propose a paragraph here that is backed up by WP:MEDRS. As for the other articles, address them on their talk pages - but I think you'll find they are watched by most of us also. Note that there are two kinds of osteopathy, one which is almost entirely conventional; modern, medicine. Also note that naturopaths use some proven, conventional, treatments - a criticism is that they also use treatments which lack any evidence or mechanism, such as Homeopathy - and they do things which have actual effects (whether those are good or bad...). Myself, I haven't looked at Chiropractic as it's not interesting. Also, I believe the blog author had his rebuttal of the rather poor Shang "criticisms" published. Verbal chat 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he did. I gave the reference (Homeopathy Volume 98, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 127-128) above but linked to the blog as it has the full text available. He also discusses the authors' response here. Brunton (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There were responses to that, which you've conveniently not mentioned, I think we'll need someone to arbitrate here!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please give references for these responses. Presumably when you say that I've "conveniently not mentioned" the responses (please AGF, BTW), you don't mean the response of the authors of the paper (published, along with Wilson's critique, in the most recent edition of Homeopathy), because that is extensively quoted on the blog page I've already linked to in the post you appear to be replying to (16:16, 6 May 2009). I'm not aware of any other responses. Brunton (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of you have posted about 'writing for the enemy', but I don't see any of you writing for the enemy (homeopaths in this case). The whole article is full of criticism!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead is looking good these days, IMHO. One suggestion for improvement though. The following line is from the lead: "Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules violates fundamental principles of science..." Since science is generally viewed as a methodology, and not a list of conclusions, I'd suggest changing this to "violates fundamental principles of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology". I'm sure the references listed support the change, as they all likely address concerns of these specific disciplines.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

picosecond

I removed the picosecond from the lead as a bit of a poor wording - not really adding anything. I believe I've retained the original meaning and improved readability a bit. Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree in part. There's legitimate (non-homeopathic) research on water structure and we should acknowledge it. Granted "picosecond" is too technical but we could replace that with "fraction of a microsecond" or something to that effect. Also the "would seem to permit" language is too squishy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've edited it to remove "would seem to". Brunton (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fraction of a second" or "small fraction of a second" is perhaps preferable to "...microsecond"? Brunton (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I kinda think it's better the way it is now - I think the desire for precision can come across as a bit pejorative if we're not careful - personally, I think the piped link to the water memory bit is enough? Privatemusings (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

mass action

Mass action is when there is a chemical reaction - use physiological action if you must, in the Lead.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be completely different from what the source says. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

so find a source for the 'law of physiological action' or delete the term 'mass action'.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nature article is the source. here it's quoted a bit. Basically, in Benveniste's experiment the biological activity fluctuated rithmically, while the law of mass action predicts that the activity should decrease steadily as the solution decreases and that the activity should disappears after no antobodies molecules remained in the solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm only saying that physiological action is a more appropriate term.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see your point. It doesn't matter whether a chemical reaction is taking place in a beaker or in a (human) body, it's still chemistry. The sentence you're referring to says "Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules violates fundamental principles of science, including the law of mass action." Chemistry is science, so - besides not agreeing that it is true - what's your problem with this sentence? Six words (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Law of mass action is a well-defined term; there is no law of physiological action. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before, in particular the sections titled Basic understanding, The book Snake Oil and the debate about Fundamental principles, 11 May reverts, and violation of fundamental laws. In the contribution dated 11:05, 22 April 2008, Shoemaker's Holiday cites the exact passage in question. I argued at that time, and still hold now, that

Or, in the words of Law of mass action, "the rate of an elementary reaction (a reaction that proceeds through only one transition state, that is one mechanistic step) is proportional to the product of the concentrations of the participating molecules." That's all well and good, but it only applies to "elementary reactions", and it seems embarassingly naive to call any biological system "elementary". Besides, the standpoint of homeopathy is not that super small concentrations have in proportion super large effects, but that the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not molecules but something we do not yet know how to measure. That view can also be described as embarassingly naive, but the connection to the law of mass action seems to me to be extremely tenuous.

and

One editorial opinion is not enough for us to write that the claims of homeopathy really do violate any fundamental principles of chemistry, or even that the scientific establishment thinks they do. I think that even the claim of Maddox that homeopathy would violate the principle of mass action is internally too inconsistent to be included in the article.

The discussion at that time did not really reach any conclusion. I still believe that the statement in the article is not adequately supported by the (one!) source cited. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Because one of the biggest journals' posiion statement is meaningless. And, by the way, it's only beencut down to one reference because we're trying to avoid the mega-multi-overreferencing of the past. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a position statement from Nature (if they even have such a thing). It is an op-ed piece by John Maddox. Would you mind citing here a sampling of those mega-multi-over-references on the law of mass action in relation to homeopathy? Maddox is the only one I am aware of. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass action is way too jargony for the lead. Should be converted into something comprehensible for the general reader or tossed. The law of mass action article is not any help here, since it's a load of jargon as well. II | (t - c) 17:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We can probably change it a summary, like "the claimed behaviour of homeopathic dilutions lacks an objective explanation". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end I went for "and the claimed memory effect of very high homeopathic dilutions lacks a substantial basis.", using also the Maddox-Randi-Stewart article in Nature as a source. Sums up the core problem, and avoids jargon. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a roundabout and confusing way to say that homeopathy is scientifically implausible, which is already stated clearly earlier in the lead (first paragraph, third sentence). "Very high homeopathic dilution" is rather ambiguous: does that mean less dilution (high in homeopathic ingredient) or more dilution (few to zero)? II | (t - c) 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that mass action is a problem for homeopathy, Art Carlson has raised the point that we can't assume that simple molecular interactions are responsible for the proposed (though experimentally absent, and therefore not requiring any justification) actions of homeopathic dilutions. We can't prove mass action must be a factor, just like I can't prove that pixie fairies aren't playing some kind of role in the process. However, I have a couple of other issues that I'd like to throw out there for discussion. I'm probably missing something obvious here, but this just came to mind, and I'd appreciate anyone pointing out the weakness of this argument for me. We may not be violating the law of mass action (though I believe we are), but what about the laws of thermodynamics? Propagation of information is an energy intensive process, as it implies a certain degree of order and it therefor comes at an entropic cost. When a molecule is dissolved in a solvent (water), the entropic hit from organization of water molecules in a solvent shell can be greatly offset by enthalpic contributions from beneficial solvent/solute interactions (dipole-dipole, hydrogen bonding, ion-ion, etc.). Here's my thought: once we remove the solute molecules, where does the energy come from to offset the entropic necessity of any sort of imprint of structure/information? The principle of Brownian motion states that any organization of the solvent molecules must be lost at this point due to random motion in the absence of any enthalpic energy barrier. Careful collection and combustion of all of the solute molecules will show that there has been no net transfer of energy to the solvent from the solute. So where does the energy needed to impart information through the remaining solvent come from? It seems to me that we are asking to violate the laws of thermodynamics, which is a little more disconcerting than violating the law of mass action IMHO. I suspect I'm missing something obvious here but, in lieu of a nap today, it seems like a mildly compelling point.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no natural laws being violated. Doesn't cavity QED information store as bound photons? —Whig (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course there aren't any laws being broken, as homeopathy doesn't do anything (accepting the use of "laws", and the impossibility of violating a natural law anyway... :) ). Information entropy and Maxwell's demon might be what you're after, pudding. I'd not thought of applying information entropy to homeopathy, and it's one of my areas. Could be informative. Verbal chat 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer the previous question, please. If homeopathy doesn't do anything why do people keep using homeopathic medicine? —Whig (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do people do lots of things that don't work? Then there is the placebo effect, which can be powerful. Verbal chat 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Marketing, for one. David D. (Talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How many products are repurchased repeatedly without perceived benefit to the customer? —Whig (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Many (eg Vitamins, Laundry balls, etc). However, please direct your comments to improving the article per WP:TALK, thanks - let's not digress any further. Verbal chat 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, only homeopathy derision is allowed in talk? Do many people buy laundry balls repeatedly, or do they just get suckered the one time? —Whig (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not derision, that's how business works. People buy fortified products all the time because they think they are better. Can they tell if they are better or not? Even if it is better, I doubt anyone is going out and reading scientific studies to confirm it or not. They buy it becuase it says so on the box. People are influenced by marketing all the time. What about the expensive hand creams with additives such as DNA and collagen, people pay extra for that. As the adage goes 'you get what you pay for', so it must be better. Also product placement. I've seen homeopathic hayfever products at the entrances of stores. This is an established marketing tactic. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is a perceived benefit, so it does something. That isn't to say that it is better than something else, or that marketing cannot persuade people to buy things that aren't good for themselves. What I think Verbal's point was that he doesn't believe that a physical basis of homeopathy has been established, though my first question was quite to that very point. —Whig (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"But there is a perceived benefit, so it does something." Non sequitur. There's sometimes a difference between people's perceptions and actuality. Brunton (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As to the product placement and all that, sure we've all bought some crap that didn't do anything for us, but the question is do you buy that product again the next time you see it? —Whig (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion on "why do people keep buying homeopathic medicine" has no apparent relation to editing the article. Per WP:TPG, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject." It's hard enough to keep this talk page civil and on track. If there is a relation to a proposed edit, please make this clear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whig, please expound on your QED comment. I'm particularly interested in what it has to do with obliterative dilution of solute molecules leaving behind a persistent excited state. You may have a really good point there, but it was briefly worded and I'm having a hard time making the connection.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Isn't cavity QED information created by cavitation in the preparation of homeopathic medicine during succussion? Cavity QED information stores as bound photons when an atom or molecule is trapped within a cavity and cannot emit. —Whig (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First, there's nothing to support that cavities are "created" by succession. Cavities exist in eternal flux within bulk water, but have never (to my knowledge) been shown to linger on account of a previously contacted solute molecule. I can't see any way that shaking of a sample of water could have any effect on the regular appearance of cavities. Second, even if cavity formation were somehow effected by succession, I don't see how you make the jump to the incorporation of QED information. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that quantum mechanics plays any role in the molecular mechanisms of homeopathy's supposed action. The only writings I've seen on quantum mechanics and homeopathy come from Milgrom and are, to say the least, comically inept projections of his own wishful thinking. Finally, as far as excited state molecules being trapped in solvent cavities, the excited state has to be the result of some earlier input of energy, generally absorption of an incident photon or collision with a high speed electron. Where would this energy come from? Simply dissolving a solute molecule in water does not generally lead to this sort of electronic excitation, as there is not enough energy transferred between ground state solute and solvent molecules upon simple collision. If such an energy transfer and excitation did occur to any appreciable degree, EPR could be employed to detect the excited states, but none exist. So, again, where does the energy come from which is required to transmit the "message" of the once present solute molecules to some ultimate site of pharmacological action? And let's not forget that we are still trying to come up with explanations for a phenomenon (homeopathic efficacy) which the preponderance of evidence suggests doesn't even exist.Puddin'head Wilson (talk)

You ask where the energy comes from, as if succussion does not input energy. Cavitation creates QED information, and in some cases even visible light emission. Cavity QED photon binding occurs on very short time scales. —Whig (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whig, please send along a reference for me. I'm interested to see the details of what you're suggesting and I'm afraid it will take too much space for us to clear it up here. I'll see if I can respond better after seeing a couple of papers on the subject. I have a hard time believing shaking water around in a box can lead to electronic excitation, and if the QED phenomenon you are suggesting is too short lived to be detected by EPR, how can it last long enough to have any pharmacological effect?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of papers which discuss homeopathy in these terms but there is ample experimental proof of cQED photon binding in laboratory apparatus, and cavitation is a well recognized phenomenon. I would expect coherence to be short lived but it could be restored by microtubules or some other structure. This will be my last comment on this thread so if you want to continue conversation we can take it to personal talk pages or off-Wiki. —Whig (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well alright, I found some papers on cavity QED and the phenomenon does indeed rely on relaxation of excited state molecules. The problem is, you'll never find any references which suggest that simple agitation of a bulk liquid will lead to any appreciable degree of electronic excitation (or any at all), because it simply doesn't happen. The energy of shaking is not channelled into these sorts of excitations but is rather dissipated throughout the bulk solvent through more macroscopic means.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not correct. You need to read up on cavitation and sonoluminescence. Let's stop here, take it to personal or off-Wiki. —Whig (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whig, what you are arguing is that A sometimes causes B, and B sometimes causes C therefore A always causes C. Feel free to point out where your logic has broken down. Shot info (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing for the enemy

I'm thinking of writing for the enemy. I'd like to mention the million dollar prize by magician James Randi. I'd also like to add that homeopaths are cheating people, just after the pseudoscience and quackery sentence, in the lead. I'm gonna add a lot more negative stuff, but I just thought I'll discuss it first.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make changes of this nature, especially in the lead, it is probably a good idea to discuss them here and reach consensus first. You will need to find reliable sources for these statements, especially potentially contentious ones such as that homoeopaths are cheating people. Also, the lead is supposed to summarise the article. If you want to introduce new information it should go in the body of the article. Brunton (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object to it. I'm sure you can find references for what I posted! I'm gonna bring a lot more negative stuff here soon.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to insert a POV into the article will be regarded as unconstructive, even if that POV isn't your own. If you want to insert material into the article, in particular potentially contentious material, you will need to support it with reliable sources. You will also need to show that it is relevant and notable enough in the context of homoeopathy - the JREF paranormal challenge, for example, applies to any claim considered to be paranormal by the JREF, so I doubt that it's notable enough WRT homoeopathy to include here. Brunton (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"writing for the enemy" sounds like an interesting approach, though I'm not sure what you hope to achieve, nor why a skeptic's view of homeopathy needs to be viewed as an "enemy" stance. I am always amazed and disheartened by how people are so willing and eager to push their own agendas and beliefs, even when faced with the fact that common sense, thoroughly established theory, and (most importantly) the vast majority of properly culled evidence, contradict and negate them. What is more disconcerting is how many people don't seem to see anything wrong with this approach to defining reality. I imagine that one goal of "writing for the enemy" would be to make the article sound excessively caustic and hostile towards homeopathy so that believers in homeopathy will then be able to dismiss it as such when they are challenged with it (as they currently do anyhow). Sounds like an insidious plan. Of course, I can't say that this is indeed your motive and it is not my intention to insinuate as much.

A great deal of nonconstructive material has been cut away from the article over the last few years, and much of this was negative comments about homeopathy which were simply derogatory POV. Keep in mind that much of the unreferenced negative commentary has been cut away by editors who are clearly skeptical of homeopathy, but are continually acting to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the article. The article stands today as the result of the tireless efforts of a handful of these editors (and others) to have it reflect the best available evidence on the claims of homeopathy, which unavoidably casts the the claims of homeopathy in a dubious light. The lack of supporting evidence for the claims of homeopathy in the article reflects the fact that such evidence, based on appropriate and honest investigations documented in reliable sources, simply does not exist. Anything in there which proponents of homeopathy find offensive or contentious is not intended to be so, it simply reflects the best available evidence on the matter. Adding statements which are unreferenced and intentionally inflammatory won't accomplish anything and it won't be tolerated by the other editors, so save your efforts.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an important point. There's no need to debunk homeopathy -- simply describe what homeopathy is, in an accurate and dispassionate way, and homeopathy will debunk itself. If someone still believes in homeopathy after reading that it contains no active ingredients and so on, well, natural selection can take over from there... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Patient's symptoms vs. Disease's symptoms

I recently changed the lead to indicate that homoeopaths consider any symptoms exhibited by the patient rather than symptoms specific to a particular disease that they may have - this was reverted on the grounds that "A patient doesn't have symptoms. A disease exhibits them" (which I don't think is necessarily the case - surely symptoms are exhibited by the patient). The lead itself says that "Apart from the symptoms of the disease, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state", indicating that it is not just disease symptoms that are considered, and there are plenty of examples of homoeopaths stating that homoeopathy "treats the patient not the disease", for example here is a document from the (UK) Society of Homeopaths stating this (it just happened to be the first hit on my Google search), and here is a prominent US homoeopath (and Wikipedian) stating that "practicing classical homeopathy does not require a specific diagnosis of disease". Does anyone object to my replacing the reverted wording? Brunton (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead, your reasoning is correct. Fences and windows (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. There can be no doubt that patients present symptoms, and there is no need to phrase this in a way that is objectionable to homeopaths when it can be phrased so that no reasonable person can object. I am sad that this type of unconstructive, impulsive reverting has started again. The reverter does not have email enabled, but a likely earlier incarnation does. I contacted the old account by email a few hours after the revert and have not received a response. But the reverter has calmed down considerably. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would object to any implication that non-homeopaths "only" treat the symptoms, and not the "whole person", as that's nonsense. However, I don't see a problem with stating that holeopaths claim to treat the person etc. Verbal chat 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, Hans. Brunton (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That showed up in my feed as "Good Hans". I agree. Verbal chat 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The law of similars

Would anyone object to a clarification to the "Law of similars" section, in an effort to state that it is, in fact, not actually a natural law? Scientific laws are stated as such because they have been established as unchanging in the face of extensive experimentation. The law of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics are considered laws because they are invariable and serve to govern the action of other fundamental physical processes. The "law of similars", on the other hand, was apparently designated by Hahnemann based on his erroneous (or at least unsupported) assumptions of the relationship between chinchona bark poisoning and malaria. It can hardly be passed off as a law, but is often referenced as such in attempts to validate homeopathy. I think a clarification of this is important for establishing a clear description of the parameters of homeopathy.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

I do believe that science has abandoned the term "law" altogether. Science has moved on from Newton's laws, and medicine has moved on from Homeopathy (but at least there was some truth to Newton's laws). I don't object to such changes to the article to make it clear that this is simply a name he coined, but we should avoid the technically incorrect description of "scientific laws". Maybe the laws of cricket are closer? (j/k) Verbal chat 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

From wikipedia's article on "Physical laws"

A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.

While I appreciate the point you're making, and comparison to "valid" laws is not necessary to establish the "law of similars" as nothing more than a coined phrase, the statement that science has abandoned the term law altogether is simply not true. No need to go into it here but, Giancolli (probably the most widely used college physics text in North America) still referes to Newton's laws of motion and certainly maintains that there are laws of thermodynamics. Wikipedia even has an article entitled "Laws of thermodynamics" with no indication that it is a dated concept. These are referred to regularly in just about any discussion of physical processes, so I'm a little confused by the claim that the term has been abandoned.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

The idea of "laws" as fundamental, immutable, etc, has been abandoned. Newton's laws have very well known limitations. We now use other terms, but for historical reasons only keep these terms (and they are well used outside of science). Modern "laws", such as Godwin's law; Murphy's law, and Moore's law, use the term for this reason. Scientists now generally talk of theories, which has a slightly different meaning to the main public understanding of the term. I agree though that most of this is an aside, I just thought it was interesting. Verbal chat 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's entropy for you, rather like WP. Only when applied energy is organized does it accomplish anything ;-) LeadSongDog come howl 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead (again)

I've edited the first two sentences so that "first expounded by Hahnemann in 1796" applies to homoeopathy rather than homooepathic preparations. If anyone thinks this makes the opening sentence too long or unweildy, possibly the historical note should be expanded into a sentence of its own. I've also changed "preparations" to "remedies" in the second sentence (this is certainly how homoeopaths refer to the preparations) and removed a bit of editorialising that has just been introduced. Brunton (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow we've arrived at a version that buries the controversy in the third para. In some fashion or other it belongs in the first line.LeadSongDog come howl 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable enough to have the lead set up as it is, starting with a (relatively neutral) description of what it is, followed by the criticisms. Not quite sure about the opening sentence of the second paragraph though - this is what homoeopaths claim to do, surely? Brunton (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much like the current structure of the lede: define the thing, then give the scientific perspective. It's in keeping with NPOV and is less likely to turn off the audience that most needs to read the article, i.e., the poor souls who believe in this nonsense. So we win both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SBHB. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would like to add the word "controversial" in the first sentence. I never understood the objections to that; I guess it's something along the lines of claiming that this word can only be read as saying there is a scientific controversy. Is there an alternative word without this problem?

I don't see a big problem with the first sentence of the second paragraph. They seem to consider this very important. Brunton, do you have any evidence that it's not widely followed? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really - I just think it's a bit "handwavy" in its use of terminology like "psychological state". They're really just collecting symptoms and impressions and then trying to match them to the materia medica rather than assessing the overall state of the patient and then using that to decide on an appropriate treatment. Brunton (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the one-sentence reader take away? That it's a kind of medicine. Harry Potter identifies in line one that it is fiction. Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence is clear, the reader should find out what it is and why it is notable. "If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so." Well, most of us realize that homeopathy as medicine belongs squarely in the realm of fiction, though somehow it has escaped into the real world. I don't much care if it's characterised as controversial, magic, faith healing, confidence game, talk therapy, or system of placebos, but something in that sentence should make it clear that it's not just another branch of medicine. LeadSongDog come howl 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Note the first sentence characterizes homeopathy as alternative medicine, not just "medicine." In fact the current lede of Homeopathy nicely parallels the lede of your Harry Potter example -- the first paragraph identifies the books as "fantasy novels" and tells what they're about, then later paragraphs talk about their popularity, critical reception, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget it says alternative medicine. I think most people have made up their mind either to trust their regular physician and not waste money on something that's not covered by their health insurance; or to try everything else first because regular medicine is evil. Therefore I would expect most people to realise the significance of this word. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely nobody uses homeopathic medicines for conditions that orthodox medicine is unable to treat? —Whig (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy can cure a lot of conditions that allopathy is unable to treat (e.g.Cancer)!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for that suggestion and perhaps we can add it to the article. Brunton (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is there a reliable source to the contrary? —Whig (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Hans, but "alternative medicine" is jargon that will mislead many casual readers even if it is wikilinked. A large proportion of worldwide readers have no health insurance. Even more have no drug coverage. It's at least part of the reason why quacks can prey upon the poor. (I can't explain the choice of the British royals, it makes no sense to me.) LeadSongDog come howl 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Only poor people use homeopathy? People with health insurance never use homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

going off-topic --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Certain possible explanations come to mind for the popularity of homeopathy among royalty. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Does this kind of denialist speculation improve the article? —Whig (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest finding some reliable sources and using them as a guide for the first thing to say in this Wikipedia article. Example: What is homeopathy? from the NIH. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor pet peeve - the abovelinked article is from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. As well say it is from the Department of Health and Human Services as say NIH.

Going back to the original topic of this section, remedy is being used as a term of art, and should be defined when it is introduced. We definitely should cover use of the term, but given the already unwieldy length of the lead, perhaps it would be better left to the body? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are billions who've benefited from homeopathy through the centuries (including my patients). You guys aren't allowing me to mention the positive studies. I also saw that 498 studies have been mentioned in the archives earlier, probably there have been thousands mentioned before, but you guys don't want it to be mentioned, but I wonder why?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

References

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