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.

Mechanism of homeopathy

We don't have any great detail on the proposed mechanisms of homeopathy, and criticisms of these proposed mechanisms.

• Walach and Milgrom have proposed non-local effects and quantum entanglement play a part. While looking for studies I found this examination of the issue as well: http://www.cs.rug.nl/~michael/qthair.pdf
• The proposed mechanisms of water memory could be explored more, although possibly on its own page.
• Some discussion of the placebo effect and its subtleties might be good.
• The issue of "complex treatments", specifically that there may be other elements in the homeopathic treatment other than the remedy that may have an effect, e.g. the consultation, e.g. see these articles: Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions, Homeopathy – what are the active ingredients? An exploratory study using the UK Medical Research Council's framework for the evaluation of complex interventions, Evaluation of specific and non-specific effects in homeopathy: Feasibility study for a randomised trial, How do parents of child patients compare consultations with homeopaths and physicians? A qualitative study ‘Homeopathy’: Untangling the debate Fences and windows (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wanna see:-

1. Martin Chaplin, ed. (2007) "The Memory of Water." Homeopathy. 96:141-230 (Copies of the articles in this special issue along with discussion are available at Homeopathy Journal Club Bad Science, a blog by Ben Goldacre.

2. Khuda-Bukhsh AR (2003). Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview. Mol Cell Biochem 253: 339–45. PMID 14619985.

Regards,

NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Memory of Water" special issue of Homeopathy, it's also worth looking at the responses to the papers in that issue published in the January 2008 issue of the same journal.

Regarding the second item, can you give us any details of the "interesting scientific works on homeopathy" of which this communication presents an overview, and say what it says about them? Unfortunately the full text is behind a paywall. Brunton (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Khuda-Bukhsh's review is here.

Here's a debate between Khuda-Bukhsh and Moffet et al.: [1] [2] (the latter is un-free).

The Bad Science homeopathy journal club has links to a lot of (free) articles on mechanisms, including water memory. Fences and windows (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I now see that there's a mention of WQT in the section on effectiveness: "Positive results have been reported, but no single model has been sufficiently widely replicated. Local models proposed are far from convincing, and the nonlocal models proposed, often invoking "weak quantum theory", would predict that it is impossible to nail down homeopathic effects with direct experimental testing." This wording fails to explain what "local" and "non-local" mean in this context; a reader unfamiliar with the proposals of WQT would be confused. I don't think discussion of mechanisms is appropriate in a section on effectiveness; there should be a separate section called Mechanism of homeopathy. Fences and windows (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The water memory nonsense got a lot of attention, and it would fit nicely into such a section. A better title might be Proposed mechanisms of homeopathy. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, but how can homeopathic preparations retain their "vital force" but not their disease-causing "force"? For example, some preparations are based on proven carcinogens and the practitioners claim the preparations can't cause cancer. 172.190.53.158 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as homoeopathy is concerned, the remedies have the power to cure because they have disease-causing powers. The concepts of desired effects and side effects are alien to homoeopathy - the remedies (allegedly) have effects, and it is simply a matter of matching the remedy's effects to the patient's overall symptoms. Brunton (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

External links - Associations and regulatory bodies

Of the 6 links in this section, 5 are clearly associations and not regulatory bodies. Wouldn't it be clearer to call this section simply "Associations", and possibly move the link to HPCUS someplace else? (I know how easily tempers and edit wars can rise here, so I leave the change to those who are more deeply involved in this topic.) --Art Carlson (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The HPCUS is clearly in the same class as the other links. I think it would be better to simply change the title, or perhaps find a second regulatory body. Although I guess that some of the professional organisations play a similar role anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DMOZ has a page for organizations. I dislike linking to organizations because you get scope and organization creep. Unless there is a world body, every country, state and group will start adding themselves to the list. In addition, it's not really world-wide to allow specific areas, nor is it really appropriate per WP:ELNO or WP:ELYES. The page is not about an organization, it's about homeopathy in general. DMOZ also has a regular page for homeopathy. I had added it, but Shoemaker's Holiday removed it citing extensive commerical entities (and no critical ones I think) so I'm content to leave it off. I'd be more in favour of replacing the DMOZ's organizations page though, it's ultimately got a useful collection of links to Europe, North America, Asia and Oceania org lists as well as the misc. list on the front page.

Right now, all the links are problematic in my mind - what nation does the "National Center for Homeopathy (NCH)" represent? Why does it deserve a mention? Why does the BHA? Why are there three for Europe, why does the US get one? I'd rather the whole set removed seeing as I don't see anything encyclopedic added by having them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New Source

This source is of interest [3] I think the abstract explains the main points. Smartse (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't new, it's a Boiron/Ennis paper. Was there something especially interesting? Verbal chat 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was its fifth birthday on Tuesday... Brunton (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Opening sentence: "larger doses"

Sorry to bring this up again, but a recent edit has made the opening sentence of the lead more directly contradict a sourced statement in the body of the article. Homeopathy does not try to treat disease with dilutions of substances that would cause the symptoms of the disease at larger doses: it treats disease with remedies that are claimed to cause the same symptoms in healthy volunteers. Hahnemann, by time he wrote the later editions of the Organon, recommended "proving" remedies (i.e. finding out what symptoms they caused) at 30C, and, as sourced in the article, "most modern provings are carried out using ultradilute remedies in which it is highly unlikely that any of the original molecules remain." My previous attempts to rephrase this sentence to better reflect the referenced statement in the body of the article have not met with approval - would anyone else like to suggest an alternative wording? Brunton (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've edited it accordingly so that the statement in the lead is at least true. I suspect that The "thought to" might not be acceptable, but the evidence that they actually do cause the symptoms they are claimed to is not exactly robust - "provings" are rarely adequately blinded, and there are several double-blind proving trials of potentised remedies which appear to show no significant effect. Brunton (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this important point, which I was not aware of until recently. For me personally the use of very dilute substances in provings is as important as the use of ultradilute substances in remedies: These are the two key points where plausibility breaks down completely. Your formulation works for me. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:18, 27 April 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: [4]. 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)

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.

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. 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)