Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy

I'm stuck for what would be an appropriate edit here, because I know that what I should write (or simply delete) will be attacked with vigor. The following can't stand as it's written, however:

"Some modern homeopaths are exploring the use of even more esoteric substances. These are known as "imponderables", because they do not originate from a material but from electromagnetic energy or other energy presumed to have been "captured" by a substance like alcohol or lactose. The captured "energy" can be in many forms, such as X-rays, Sol (sunlight), Positronium,[27] Electricitas[28] or even light collected using a telescope (for example, from the star Polaris). Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include Tempesta[29] (thunderstorm), and Berlin wall.[30]"

The whole thing suggests that there is actually evidence that these various "energies" have any bearing over human health in a homeopathic sense. Sure, electricity and light have been used therapeutically, but have been explained and justified in terms of known and reasonable physical interactions with the patient. There is no reasonable argument that can be put forth to suggest that the light from Polaris or positonium emmision into a glass of ethanol should have any effect on a person's health. There needs to be some indication that this is all hypothetical and poorly documented. I'm more than happy to change it, but those who want to keep it relatively intact should take a crack at it first.209.59.122.46 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

Philosophy and Treatments

I have changed this statement:

"The law of similars is more of a guiding principle than a scientific law. It is not built on a hypothesis that can be falsified. A failure to cure homeopathically can always be attributed to incorrect selection of a remedy:"

to the following:

"The law of similars is more of a guiding principle than a scientific law. It is not built on a hypothesis that can be falsified. A failure to cure homeopathically can always be ostensibly attributed to incorrect selection of a remedy:"

The original reads as if the only reason that homeopathy ever fails is due to the incorrect selection of a remedy. It needs to be more clear that failure of a remedy may also be attributed to the fundamental theories of homeopathy being flawed. I don't think the word "ostensible" suggests anything about the validity of homeopathy; it simply suggests that remedy failure is not necessarily due to choosing the wrong remedy. Also, I had a bit of trouble with the placement of the word "ostensibly". There are a lot of places it could be inserted in the sentence, but I think its current location gives the least biased and most accurate meaning to the statement.209.59.122.46 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

A bit of science and a review of the article

As I glance through the article and discussion here on the talk page, I am a bit dismayed at what I see. This certainly smacks of pseudoscience, and given that this is an encyclopedia article on medicine, it is a bit dangerous to not make this clear. We should also be clear about what best scientific understanding is on these issues. In particular, I would have expected a discussion of things like the nocebo effect, or hormesis, or at least a link to those articles. Instead, we get a lot of talk about the alleged hocus-pocus of homeopathy. If a strange treatment supposedly works, where is the evidence? Unfortunately, without evidence, we have to say it is based more on faith than on data. This is of course complicated by the placebo effect and other processes, which are quite interesting (in the interests of readability, this will not be a long paragraph).--Filll 11:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice the article does not even link to Arndt-Schulz rule, which is not that great an article either. Was this article just an advertisement for homeopathy at some point?--Filll 11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So we have no mention of Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim ((1493-1541) (Paracelsus)? No mention of Hueppe's Rule? What about Burgi's principle? Not only does this article seem to be an attempt to rant against science, but it does not seem to document the history and background of homeopathy itself very well. That is the least I would expect. It is very unscholarly.--Filll 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read a bit more of the article. It is sloppily written. No wonder it failed a GA! It is atrocious. Incomplete in spots, lousy references, bad grammar, etc.--Filll 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify I have not edited into this article my own articles or blog as you call it. If there are any references to my work then it was placed there by others. Your friend, both in his actions and in the absurd comments he makes, is clearly unsuited to edit an article upon which he has such prejudicial and strong views. Nothing placed back into the article this morning is crap or POV it is neutral and factual and well referenced narrative...I have not edited this article for about 12 months and in that time it has been steadily left more or less intact. All of the paragraphs I replaced today have been there a long time and it is not good editorial judgement for someone to come along and remove whole swathes of stuff purely because they disagree with the subject. The article has suffered from repeated vandalism and so it is no wonder it reads bad as you stated...I have reported this morning's vandalism and edit warring to a respected editor and administrator who will check it over. please therefore be patient, thank you. Peter morrell 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is all well and good, but to be honest, the article is a mess. Even if homeopathy was mainstream medicine and accepted by the scientific community, the article stinks.--Filll 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In what way do you think it smells bad? please clarify what you are saying constructively and specifically instead of hurling insults and POV abuse...cheap tricks do not impress, be specific and make erudite and positive/sensible changes rather than moaning. People will then respond positively and through negotiation maybe even the article can be improved which is a goal we all allegedly share... Peter morrell 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the edits I have done so far. The English is horrible. The grammar is bad. The references are poorly formatted or even incorrect. The reference titles are incorrect in places. Many references are of blogs or other unreliable sources. I suppose that is all we can expect for some of these, but it should be made clear what it is in the reference. Many peculiar nonstandard terms are not linked to the relevant articles. Some of the wikilinks go to the wrong place. Paragraphs sometimes cover 2 or 3 subjects. Sometimes sentences are strung together with semicolons. Weird capitalization. Multiple nested parentheses. Stray dangling parentheses. And this is just for starters. Frankly, this article is awful. I cannot believe that this is some sort of text homeopaths are proud of. It is disgusting.--Filll 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, yes please carry on then and clean it up...better that than leave it stinking! Your edits thusfar are entirely uncontentious and sound, so I would say go ahead and if you want to make any seriously big or outrageous changes, then please ask others if it's OK rather than doing it first and provoking a new edit war. Seriously, this is how a shabby article can be progressed nicely towards becoming a good article. It is a grind but slow hard work of the kind you are doing will reap just rewards for us all. thanks Peter morrell 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that most contributors have very very intense beliefs about the subject, either "for" or "against". Both of these extreme POVs interfere with good dispassionate editing and producing a good article. I am quite interested in this subject, but not with the religious intensity of a believer or a disbeliever. As a practicing MD with a research background and an editorial background, I've seen the very real limitations of all sorts of medical systems including western medicine and including every stripe of alternative medicine. Very unfortunately, there is no panacea for illness and disease, period. There is also a lot we don't know as a scientific community and a lot we are still working on knowing. Those of us who actually take care of patients, rather than argue about how they SHOULD be taken care of on places like Wikipedia, do the best we can with the tools we have available to us at any given point in time. I have read a lot of the homeopathic literature and am very frustrated with the anecdotal evidence accepted as gospel, the hand waving through gaps in reasoning, and diatribes against Western medicine I find there. Medicine now is not the same thing as medicine was in Hahenemann's day. Many homeopaths just don't seem to get this. Equally irriting is the anti-homeopathic literature which seems predicated on an assumption that Western medicine and science has all the answers to everything and is full of diatribes against homeopathy which betray the fact that the authors have not even for a minute given homeopathy the benefit of the doubt or tried to understand it. Both of these extreme POV have been represented in this article at various points of time. Wikipedia should be a place where an article could be constructed that would fairly state all points of view on a given topic in a cogent way. The problem is that rather than working toward this goal and really letting other POV just be, editors become ideological warriors and turn Wikipedia into a minefield of content disputes, AFD battles, etc. As a very very busy doc, it doesn't really repay my time to contribute here on a regular basis. Abridged ^talk 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a physician, and I am probably a POV warrior in these types of articles. Science is definitely not the answer to everything. But on the other hand, junk science is an answer to nothing. There are a multitude of diseases that we cannot treat--on the other hand, there are so many things that we can do. I now recommend that a male, no matter how healthy, should take a very low dose of statin as they approach 50. Why? Because there is scientific evidence that it reduces cardiovascular disease. However, homeopathy depends on some spiritual quality of a single molecule--if you are a physician, how can you not find that utterly laughable? If you are implying that I am an ideological warrior, maybe I am--it's only that people will come to this article and think that there are cures here. There are none, and they shouldn't be fooled. As a history of Homeopathy, it's fine. If there's unverified statements that it cures what ails you, I stand firm that not only is that POV but it violates the essential nature of Wikipedia, that we cannot and should not give undue weight to junk science. And you are absolutely wrong--nowhere does Wikipedia demand that all POV is equally represented. It only states that a neutral one, which gives more weight to verifiable references, to primary research, and to accepted practice. And you are also wrong about Wikipedia and junk medicine. It should be a place where someone, who is ill (whether with the flu or cancer) and who is trying to research ideas or get comfort from what a physician has recommended, can find verified information. I am a reasonable editor. Show me the references, and I'm all over it. Herbalism is a perfect example. I know that certain plants (and only very few) have some positive effects. But most is based on rumor and innuendo, not on science. Homeopathy is frankly pseudoscience, that's why they reject science, whine about how western medicine is bigoted against them, and "believe" rather than analyze. Orangemarlin 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets try to fix this article so it makes a bit more sense.--Filll 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Fill) If you were a "reasonable editor" you would not use insanely insulting terms like "junk medicine" and "junk science". "Junk science" is a term which could have been applied to notions that the earth was round or orbited around the sun at a different point in time than our own. Everything in Wikipedia should be presented in a dispassionate way, well referenced. Phrases like, "proponents state(ref)"..."based on...(ref)"...."critics argue (ref) "..."based on...(ref)" should substitute for these kind of judgemental tags and phrases you are using. As for statins, yeah, I use them quite often, but not on my patients who I am able to get down to an LDL of 100 or less with diet alone (and that is the large majority of my hypercholesterolemics). A low saturated fat low trans fat diet can often achieve this in patients without a genetic hypercholesterolemia, it is cheaper than a statin, has fewer potential side effects, and many health benefits beyond lowering serum cholesterol. This is a different, also evidence based approach. There are often several equally valid ways to approach a problem. As for homeopathy, with all due respect your characterization above tells me that you don't know much about it (although it is clear you know all you WANT to know). Finally, the homeopathic rejection of western medicine is complex and it is really unfair to say that homeopaths reject western medicine because they practice pseudoscience. Hahnemann rejected the medicine of his time and wrote pretty scathingly about it (read the introduction to the organon for some good examples). This was not entirely unreasonable of him, since the medicine of the time was pretty useless and often harmful stuff (although I'm sure it was well-intentioned by the MDs who practiced). Homeopaths continue in this rejecting and disparaging vein, and I think it is pretty wrongheaded. When Hahnemann said "allopath" and modern homeopaths say "allopath" they are talking about practitioners with complete different knowledge bases, practices, and approaches. I don't think modern homeopaths really appreciate this. If you actually read what Hahnemann wrote, you'll realize he followed an evidence based approach in his clinical investigations, he generated hypotheses, tested them, observed effects, and adjusted his practice based on what he observed. I think modern homeopaths reject western medicine becuase they don't know anything about it, just as you don't know anything about homeopathy. Abridged ^talk 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Abridged: -"Junk science" is a term which could have been applied to notions that the earth was round or orbited around the sun at a different point in time than our own.-

I suggest that to discuss about what junk science is you first should reconsider your own understanding of the meaning of science, because yours is the most utterly inaccurate example of junk science I have ever heard of. Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference with impressive accuracy (and most of all with an absolutely correct method) more than 200 BC. Even before that, Aristarchus apparently argued that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Their method comprised careful observation, systematic measurement and deductive extrapolation. That is, science in its purest sense. I have never heard before of a suggestion that theirs was junk science rather than science thousands of years ahead of time. A suggestion based on what? On a majority consensus at the various times? This comment does not play in your favor in this overall discussion. The scientific validity of investigations has nothing to do with when the investigation and the deduction are carried out, nor with popular acceptance, but solely with the method employed. Popular or majority consensus are irrelevant, today as at any moment in the past, and hopefully in the future. --Gibbzmann 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, junk science is a perfectly appropriate term to be used in this case. See Junk science, because it means precisely that there is no science being utilized. Many things are called junk science, but if you think it is pejorative, I'll use the more scientifically acceptable term of Pseudoscience. Evidence based in the 1830's is a bit specious to me, and by the way, I'd probably would have written scathing commentary about modern medicine. OK, I do agree with you on the statins use. And you know what, I'm not reasonable when it comes to promoting pseudoscience as the panacea for real medicine. Orangemarlin 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't even follow what you are saying when you say, "evidence based in the 1830's is a bit specious to me." Hahnemann used an approach grounded in the scientific method (he generated a hypothesis, created methods to test his hypothesis, tested his hypotheseis, make observations, made conclusions based on his observations and adjusted his practice based on these conclusions. There was no NEJM, no IRB, no NIH grants, no cochrane collaboration, etc. For his time, what he did WAS evidence based medicine. Try reading some of his writings. He was a very interesting guy, a highly highly educated man, and versed in the state of the art medical science of his time which he rejected because it really didn't work, and had some very cogent things to say about health and illness. I realize the hypothesis doesn't seem to make any sense. And I realize a lot of the homeopathic literature is not up to standards, but you know what, that is no reason to dismiss the whole field. I know you feel quite justified in throwing around terms like Junk science and pseudoscience, but why not describe instead of label? Quite honestly, you are coming off like a bit of a troll. Abridged ^talk 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that Hahnemann was a brilliant guy. He realized the value of attempting to get data and do experiments. He was reluctant to make crazy theories up for how his methods worked. He did a lot of work that anticipated modern allopathic techniques. However, what has happened since is a bit disheartening from the point of view of a scientist. --Filll 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after 6000 or so edits in a wide variety of articles, I'm a troll. Pseudoscience is a perfectly acceptable term to describe bogus science. Did you read the article? Do you not know that the National Academy of Sciences, a somewhat respectable organization of somewhat intelligent scientists of marginal educational status, describes a whole list of crap as pseudoscience? Read this published article that in fact describes Homeopathy as pseudoscience, because it meets the empirical standards of what is pseudoscience Science vs. Pseudoscience. I would suggest you retract your calling me a troll. I think I know of what I speak, a troll doesn't. Orangemarlin 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I think it's a good idea to take a step back from any attempt to validate homeopathy by invoking Hahnemann's use of the scientific method, because there is a cataclysmic fault in that line of reasoning. Let me start off by saying that I don't know much about Hehnemann's research or his original claims. What I do know is that the current 'state of the art' in homeopathy is pure jabberwocky which does not stand up to simple, yet well designed, investigations of its validity. That being said, I will accept the assertion that Hahnemann was a strict deciple of the scientific method. I will even go out on a limb for the sake of argument and assume that he was the quintessential scientist, leaving Newton and the boys in his wake. But here's the rub: there is a difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. Adherence to the scientific method is sure to yield a valid argument, though it will not necessarily be a sound one. That distinction is only won through a theory's persistence over time.

Take a look at Alchemy. There were loads of alchemists exercising a tedious adherence to the scientific method. Matter of fact, a lot of the scientific method was developed through the work of alchemists. The problem was, they were working in a field they did not understand and they were founding their exploits on assumptions which were not at all true. A requisite knowledge of the chemical and physical nature of gold, and the sundry base metals employed, did not exist. They were sure to devise valid arguments for the transmutation of lead, but they were never going to develop a sound method of accomplishing the same. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately), once a bunch of iconoclasts managed to devise a theory of matter which stood up to long term experimentation, and also proved to be exceedingly predictive, the absurdity of turning lead to gold through chemical means became gloriously evident. Likewise Hehnemann was working in a time devoid of detailed knowledge of infection, pathology, pharmacology, chemistry, physics, the nature of water, blah, blah, blah. Our current understaning of chemistry and physics, however, is quite profound; and homeopathy stands in stark contradiction to the most fundamental laws of nature defined through these disciplines. He may have had valid arguments in the early 1800s, but they are today manifestly absurd.

Sure, we haven't worked out the final unified theory, but if you have any doubts as to the accuracy of modern physics' description of the material world, just take a look at Japan in mid 1945. The fission bomb is a physical absurdity in the Newtonian world. It was a purely theoretical prediction of relativity and the infant field of quantum mechanics; but it worked. That is not dumb luck. It remains as the single greatest scientific accomplishment of human history (though, sadly the technology was employed for what was arguably the greatest atrocity ever perpetrated by man upon himself). The fact remains: physics and chemistry have stood up over time. Homeopathy has not. Nor has iridology, phrenology, reflexology, or any number of other dubious 'ologies' founded on, romantic and enticing, yet utterly worthless assumptions. Hell, you've even got Milgrom postulating (with nothing more than absurd abuses of jargon, mind you) why no one can observe any efficacy in homeopathic trials! Think about that for a second if you have to.

If you can come up with any evidence that homeopathy has any demonstrable effect, cool! Otherwise, how do you define reality? Can anyone make any claim they want and justify it through any rationalization they see fit? If that's the case, then I'd like everyone to know that I am the Supreme Being and I can be appeased with weekly donations of $1000. Why is this topic even debated? In fact, why am I wasting my time with this? I need a PBR, but a Red Stripe will have to do.209.59.94.172 00:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

• Comment: I think it would be very preferable to say, "An NSF review has classified homeopathy as PSEUDOSCIENCE" rather than "Homeopathy is PSEUDOSCIENCE". Do you appreciate the difference? Abridged ^talk 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying it is classified by the NAS as pseudoscience, if you prefer that.--16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Abridged, I would suggest a long reading of wiki rules on personal attacks, making a point, and whatever else you so choose. Orangemarlin 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of practiotioners

In the main article, it says there are more than 100,000 practitioners around the world. While in the subsection, it says India alone has more than 300,000 qualified practitioners. (BTW, I know that more than 100,000 will cover everything.)--nids(♂) 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any good numbers on this topic. It is really hard to quantify, because the qualifications one needs to practice vary widely from place to place. Unless someone can find a reference from a good source, probably all mention about numbers should be removed from the articles. Abridged ^talk 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Molecular dose

What is a "molecular dose"? I do not think the term is used in this article in a standard way.--Filll 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that term means anything. It should be removed in place of whatever meaning the editor was actually trying to convey. Abridged ^talk 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

well, the term 'molecular dose' or even sub-molecular dose simply means a homeopathic remedy given in a dose above the Avogadro limit, meaning approximately between 0x (tincture or crude dose) and about 12C (10 to minus 24 in dilution terms), or equivalent to 24x (decimal scale). Therefore, a 'molecular dose' is a crude dose which contains at least one molecule of the original ingredient, which of course is not the case for potencies above 12c or 24x. Hopefully, this explains the use of this term. Peter morrell 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. Thanks Peter. Abridged ^talk 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the term molecular dose from the early part of the article. I might include it later or put it in another daughter article. I took what peter wrote and made a new article called molecular dose--Filll 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there used to be an article about homeopathic pharmacy of which strictly speaking this topic is a side-shoot in the sense that it is about the processes of succussion, dilution and trituration that are used in homeopathic pharmacy to prepare the remedies. That leads straight into the size of the dose about which 'molecular dose' might be construed as a core aspect. Obviously, to the allopaths, there is no dose cuz there is no active drug in homeopathic potencies beyond 12c (moot point!), but within homeopathy per se this is a topic in its own right...so maybe you will consider the wider topic within which 'molecular dose' fits. Hope you follow all that? thus this topic might need rethinking. thanks Peter morrell 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We need that article back. Abridged ^talk 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Suddha

What is it? Some sort of Indian Medicine?--Filll 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this refers to a form of Indian medicine called Unani and Suddha is a form of purification, an aspect of yoga. You can find them on google. Peter morrell 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Suddha is a Sanskrit word meaning pure, asuddha means impure. Examples, suddha bhakti = pure devotion, suddha sattva = pure being, suddha dharma = pure teaching, etc The Language of the Sholegas, Nilgiri Area, South India, Kamil V. Zvelebil, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 110, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1990), pp. 417-433 Peter morrell 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Peter Morrell, There is no indian medicine called Suddha. But there exists a form of Indian Medicine called 'Siddha'. Its a pure dravidian (tamil/south Indian) medicine and has no links to sanskrit. The Siddha medicine uses a variety of ingredients including heavy metals. Varmam, the art of pressure point treatment is also an important part of Siddha medicine. 198.240.213.26 08:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Siva

Article in references that is poorly cited

• Nature 438, 902 - 902 (14 Dec 2005)

Can you help me? Or use an alternative reference? Or in addition?--Filll

Here is my stab at this one...It could be: Chanelière,T. et al. Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memorie. Nature 438, 833-836 (2005). Also useful is: Davenas, E. et al. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum againstIgE. Nature 333, 816-818 (1988). both here: [2] and Nature 438, 902 - 902 (14 Dec 2005) News in Brief. "Prizewinning Homeopathy Article is Withdrawn." Nature. Vol. 438; Dec. 2005, 902. [3] also [4] also a ref: Giles, J. Nature 438, 900-901 (2005). listed here: [5] but no real link. Chanelière,T. et al. Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memorie. Nature 438, 833-836 (2005) listed here [6] so no real conclusion to this. Does this help? Peter morrell 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think I have improved this a bit.--Filll 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I have gone lightly over the first couple of sections, and tried to clean them up a bit. I realize that we have some severe problems in this article and it needs a lot more work and better explanations of many points. In particular I think that some of this material should be farmed out to daughter articles to make the main article shorter and more manageable. What do people think of subsiduary articles like History of homeopathy, Homeopathy around the world, and Legal status of homeopathy, for example? The article is just too long and unwieldy, in my opinion, at 89K. --Filll 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There were some little articles in the past, but there was a big push by one editor to collapse all the articles and redirect to the main article. Abridged ^talk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "legal status" would be a subsection of "around the world", but yeah farming off most of the history would probably be a good idea. ornis 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of good progress and prudent editing work you have done so far, then yes go steam ahead! Peter morrell 04:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful with multiple articles. In the past pro-homeopathy editors have used them as POV forks to escape the sourced criticism in the main article. They've ended up reading like ads. I can provide diffs if you like. That said, I am not opposed to multiple articles as long as their number is limited and appropriate criticism is kept in. Thank you for your efforts to improve the article, Filll. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think the links to the new daughter articles you have created might also be placed at the top of the main article? or even just at the top? merely a suggestion to avoid confusion to readers. thank you Peter morrell 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Typically the daughter articles are listed in a "See also" section at the bottom, if they cannot be worked into the text itself (which is the preferred format, and something I will aim towards). The only articles listed at the top are usually disambiguation articles, or links to introductory articles. --Filll 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now made 3 new daughter articles which are:

• Homeopathic techniques
• History of homeopathy
• Homeopathy around the world

To try to reduce edit warring and complaints of one-sidedness, I put a paragraph from the introduction to the main article stating unequivocably what the opinion of allopathic medicine and science is about homeopathy. This paragraph was the product of consensus here, so hopefully it will be good as a starting point for the daughter articles. I do not want to be accused to making daughter articles to promote homeopathy or promote a biased POV that is pro-homeopathy. Without this boilerplate paragraph, the articles will be subject to attack.--Filll 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine BUT a newcomer will not even know the topic has been carved up and farmed out in this way until they get to the bottom which they may not even get to! that is why I suggested putting such links at the top as well...but do as you wish. Peter morrell 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the best way is to just link these articles in the main body, and the one that is standard Wikipedia procedure. For now, until things get a bit more developed, I will just put them in the standard "See also" section at the end. Any regular editor who wants to see what happened will look here to the talk page or look at the edit notes which are part of the history. These edit notes clearly indicate what happened to the missing text, so hopefully people will not be unduly alarmed.--Filll 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, there are not explict enough callouts to the new articles. The way you did this is a bit inappropriate. Each of the new articles should have been summarized in the main article, with a call out the the new article at the top of the section. Abridged ^talk 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK no worries, you have the broad ideas here laid out so maybe once you get the carving up done that you wish to do then you can consider the niceties of possible re-formatting at a later stage...it is not that urgent right now as you are busy in the flow, as it were! thanks Peter morrell 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not worry there will be more links to the new articles once this process is complete. And we might very well make very short summary sections in the main articles with links to the longer daughter articles at their tops, which is the common WP practice. I just cannot do it all at once since this is such a huge mess.--Filll 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way

BTW there is a very weird wiki article 'out there' called Homeopathic Classification of Diseases edited by some German guy...ideally that needs sorting out big style as it is in an even bigger mess than this one!...take a look, maybe you can make contasct with them [User:Filll] and do the two at the same time? just an idea.Peter morrell 16:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw it before. It looks like a translation of the German wiki article, in process. Since I only speak French and English, not German, I might not be much use. I can of course use automated translation tools, but they are not always so helpful. Maybe this is best left to someone who speaks German. I am reluctant to link it in until it gets a bit farther along.--Filll 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More material

A previous article on Classical homeopathy was previously deleted, and obviously not all the material was folded in. This is what is so frustrating here. If you just want to edit war, and not write some articles that properly describe your field, it will just remain as a mess. What is your goal here? World War III? Or some articles that are readable? Because believe me, homeopathy will NOT win in a war with science. Sorry. I am on the side of producing NPOV articles, but I will not tolerate edit warring like [7]. Do you want to write or fight? If you want to fight, just look at my past record. I can fight and I will fight. And I will recruit lots of other science oriented editors as well to help. So please, let's try to operate in a more reasonable, consensual manner. Otherwise, I advocate reverting all these articles back to the disgusting crap piles they were when I first showed up. Your choice..--Filll 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem now? everything is fine we all admire your editing skills, please calm down there is no problem, nobody is attacking you. I can't follow what provoked this little outburst shall we just forget it and proceed as before? who are you talking this to? OK we all have off days. Please carry on with your good work. cheers Peter morrell 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, but User:Abridged has taken it upon himself to try to shape these new articles into one-sided articles. I am afraid that they will not survive as one-sided articles favoring homeopathy. I would like to blend the disclaimers into the text better, but if we do not, these articles will be deleted for sure. Please help us Peter to resolve this problem with User:Abridged, otherwise these articles will just descend back into the morass of edit wars that they have been in for the last 5.5 years, without much noticable improvement.--Filll 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I strongly object to this[8] edit's effects on the introduction. I am OK with some condensation of the intro, but the intro must describe that homeopathy is considered pseudoscience by scientific critics. Burying this information further down in the article is not acceptable. Any article that is created from this effort must contain this information, or they are likely to be deleted as POV forks. Skinwalker 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If we start fighting immediately before these new daughter articles are even ready, then they will just descend into a mess. I propose that parts showing opposition by mainstream science and allopathic medicine be blended in, as much as possible, to these daughter articles. For example, in the history of homeopathy article, it can be written to show the history of opposition. In the homeopathy around the world article, opposition arounnd the world and legal definitinos of homeopathy as pseudoscience be discussed. In the homeopathic techniques article, discussions of mainstream science views of homeopathic techniques should be introduced. Otherwise, as I stated above, these articles will not survive. Does anyone doubt that. If you are a homeopathic advocate, you are under a VERY bad delusion if you think that the science cabal here (of which I am admittedly a member) will let you get away with describing homeopathy as a viable safe treatment without the appropriate disclaimers and warnings in a mainstream encyclopedia. Does the past history of this page not tell you anything? I would ask you to ask yourselves, what is your TRUE goal for these articles. Do you want them to describe homeopathy or not? There is NO WAY that they will survive without disclaimers. Absolutely none. That is my evaluation. Sorry.--Filll 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the articles need to be DESCRIPTIVE and that is my goal for the encyclopedia. I disagree with skinwaker that homeopathy needs to be described as pseudoscience, but think the intro could state that it has been characterized as pseudoscience by whoever has classifed it that way. There is a subtle difference that I'm not sure other editors are appreciating. An article on the HISTORY of homeopathy should not have a huge disclamier saying "HOMEOPATHY is BULLSHIT ALERT ALERT ALERT" on top of it. It is just not relevant to a history article. It should have a call out to the main article where evidence for and against homeopathy should be fully discussed. That would be appropriate. Abridged ^talk 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I beg to differ. If there is an article on the history of astrology, one can get away without a disclaimer. An article on a medical subject like homeopathy, which also had its roots in "respectable" mainstream empirical science but has headed off into the weeds a bit deals with people's health. As a result, we have to be clear that there is opposition to homeopathy in any major article about it. Perhaps the text should be better tailored to each subarticle than my initial cut and paste job, but it is a start. I also favor shorter WP:LEAD sections, but huge rearrangement of my efforts while I am trying to do it is just confusing and will end up in more material being lost and effort being wasted, like huge blocks of material were lost at Classical homeopathy. Lets try to move this forward in a reasonable fashion. Once my massive rewrite and rearrangement is complete, then more details can be addressed. But in the meantime, just sit tight and let it evolve. Hopefully in the end will be a family of articles that are readable and that everyone, supporter and detractor, can be proud of.--Filll 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

User:Abridged has completely torn up the main article and the daughter articles in some frantic attempt to slant this set of articles towards a one-sided view of homeopathy. If you have spelling or grammatical errors, that is one thing, but after 5.5 years all that this kind of activity has produced is a bunch of wasted text, poorly written, ungrammatical, not linked to the relevant articles, with huge gaps in it. For gosh sakes, the article did not link in psora or Miasma theory of disease or nosode or Organon or the major homeopaths (even those with articles already on Wikipedia) or even homeopathic proving or dozens of other concepts. Without this, the reader cannot understand what is written. Period. If you agree or disagree with homeopathy, you should at least want an article that is understandable. Because believe me, homeopaths will never win a fight here with the medical and scientific crowd. All that will happen is that the homeopaths will find themselves blocked from editing, and banned. Now, let's be sensible here and not continue with this ridiculous edit war. Because I saw the results of what you produced after 5.5 years of edit warring already, and it was not pretty.--Filll 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to make the article more cogent. I was working in good faith. You yourself hacked up the article by removing great swaths of material to subarticles without the proper callouts, but I guess that was ok. The article is horibly really badly written with the same sentences appearing all over the place again and again, no coherant sectioning or flow. I was honestly tryng to make it better. Anyway, I am a busy physician and can see I am wasting my time here by trying to contribute. This is a playground for ideological warriors. Abridged ^talk 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many different viewpoints here, and the only way that things are done is through compromise. Call it ideological warfare if you want, but you have so little experience here that you obviously do not understand the mechanics of WP. It is not possible for biased text to survive. There will be more links included when this is finished, but we are talking about 100 K of material, which is a LOT to organize. Yes the wording stinks. Yes the flow is awful. Lots of things are wrong with it. However, you have been editing here for 4 months. I have been here for 1 day. What did you accomplish with your 6 edits, spread out over 4 months? Did you actually clean any of the problems up? Obviously not, since it was a mess when I got here. So give me a break...Let's try to be constructive instead of working at cross-purposes.--Filll 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll revert to your last version and remove my user pages from Wikipedia. Abridged ^talk 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the articles are more or less stable, then the balance can be addressed. But for time being, let's try to make sure the references work correctly, the articles are wikified properly, that huge gaps in the history are not left, that the main players are described, that the sentences are actually readable and reasonable English, that the text describing the dilution procedure makes sense and is understandable, etc. Without this kind of stuff, the articles are sort of worthless. No one can read them and understand what homeopathy is, at least if they do not know it and the terms already. I think that Abridged is under some delusion that it is possible to have a set of pro-homeopathy articles here on Wikipedia with minimal if any mention of its controversial status, the opposition by the mainstream science and medical communities, etc. That is just not realistic, I am sorry. Abridged stands currently at 762 edits. Peter, you stand at 1377 edits. ConfuciusOrnis has 1138. Orangemarlin has 6043. TimVickers has 15354. I have 16036. I am afraid I and my associates have the benefit of substantial experience here on Wikipedia, and I have seen this kind of edit-warring over and over. It will not have a good outcome, and it is almost impossible for a single editor, or a small group of editors, to win out over the consensus, particularly if they are pushing a minority viewpoint. And sorry, but homeopathy is a minority viewpoint. Abridged, if you would worry more about the writing style and less about whether it is promoting your personal agenda, things would move much faster and easier. Fighting is just a waste of time, frankly, and will not get you what you want. All that might happen is that you get banned and/or blocked. So...a word to the wise...--Filll 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! he's left wiki, so now what do we do? He only had to wait for things to resolve themselves...while User:Filll completes his editing...I am sorry for this regrettable bad behaviour can we now proceed more calmly? I am happy with the current editorial process. please just carry on. thanks Peter morrell 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullying, inappropriate comments

Comment: there are alot of attacks, threats, and miststatements in the above section that I find completely inappropriate

1. "User:Abridged has completely torn up the main article" (thanks, I was trying to help by calling out the subarticles and adding some more appropriate flow and section headings)
2. "in some frantic attempt to slant this set of articles towards a one-sided view of homeopathy...". (your opinion, please see WP:AGF)
3. "believe me, homeopaths will never win a fight here with the medical and scientific crowd. All that will happen is that the homeopaths will find themselves blocked from editing, and banned. (hello??? I'm an editor in good standing...I didn't really do anything more drastic than you yourself did...is this a threat?????)
4. "you have so little experience here that you obviously do not understand the mechanics of WP". (nice, thanks)
5. "Abridged is under some delusion..." (very very rude)
6. "Abridged, if you would worry more about the writing style and less about whether it is promoting your personal agenda, things would move much faster and easier" (???my agenda????. Please read my comments above and take a look at my overall edit history. I am not an uncritical proponent of homeopathy. I want a balanced exposition. By this I mean one that is neither slanted for or against homeopathy. Please see my work on the homeopathy biographies.)
7. "All that might happen is that you get banned and/or blocked. So...a word to the wise..." (another threat????).

Anyway, are the comments above really helpful? I am guilty of being rude myself, but only out of frustrated exasperation at what I percieve as systematic afd attempts by Cuerdan and Skinwalker after a long period of civility.

Also, please note that most proponents of a positive or merely not purely negative view of homeopathy end up signing off Wikipedia. User:LeeHunter signed off about the time I joined. He was exasperated by AFD attempts on the biographies. Abridged ^talk 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Look Abridged. I dont want to get into a fight with you. But this place is a bit rough and tumble. I am a veteran of lots of contentious fights here, and I give no quarter. I was asked to come help at this article by two friends, Orangemarlin and TimVickers. I don't need to waste my energies here, if you and others here do not want it. There are plenty of places here on WP that are in very pitiful shape, not just homeopathy. Lets examine your complaints one at a time:

1. "User:Abridged has completely torn up the main article" (thanks, I was trying to help by calling out the subarticles and adding some more appropriate flow and section headings) That is fine, but it is almost impossible for me to redo the article on this scale if someone is moving the parts around while I am doing it. In addition, I do not think that it will survive without some disclaimer in the front, which obviously was produced after 5.5 years of infighting and consensus-building. It clearly is not perfect, but just summarily chopping it will not go well. Maybe it should be shortened, but just whacking away at a controversial article like this to remove the balance will just end up with trouble. Sorry.
2. "in some frantic attempt to slant this set of articles towards a one-sided view of homeopathy...". (your opinion, please see WP:AGF) Sorry if this is not true, but I read what you wrote above. And it is my evaluation, and possibly that of others as well that this is true.
3. "believe me, homeopaths will never win a fight here with the medical and scientific crowd. All that will happen is that the homeopaths will find themselves blocked from editing, and banned. (hello??? I'm an editor in good standing...I didn't really do anything more drastic than you yourself did...is this a threat?????) It might be viewed as a threat, but it is the truth. Believe me, I have seen this over and over. If you want to take a controversial minority position on a controversial article, there will be very disappointing consequences. Just reality.
4. "you have so little experience here that you obviously do not understand the mechanics of WP". (nice, thanks) Sorry, but you do not appear to understand the realities of this situation. Just an observation. Nothing against you.
5. "Abridged is under some delusion..." (very very rude) Not meant to be rude. Just trying to give you a wakeup call. Sorry.
6. "Abridged, if you would worry more about the writing style and less about whether it is promoting your personal agenda, things would move much faster and easier" (???my agenda????. Please read my comments above and take a look at my overall edit history. I am not an uncritical proponent of homeopathy. I want a balanced exposition. By this I mean one that is neither slanted for or against homeopathy. Please see my work on the homeopathy biographies.) Sorry but I just see what I see. Perhaps you have done some good work on biographies. So what is the story about George Heinrich Gottleib Jahr? If you want to be productive, work on an article like that. There are lots more like that. For instance, every single redlink in all 4 articles. And lots of links to make. Come on, be productive, not obstructive. This is hard enough and thankless enough already. Notice that User:ConfusciousOrnis seems to be able to edit together with me and not cause turmoil?
7. "All that might happen is that you get banned and/or blocked. So...a word to the wise..." (another threat????). Maybe a threat. But just an observation. You should try editing something like the articles about the palestinian conflict or the present US administration or racism articles if you want to get some experience in dealing with conflict here on WP.

Anyway, are the comments above really helpful? I am guilty of being rude myself, but only out of frustrated exasperation at what I percieve as systematic afd attempts by Cuerdan and Skinwalker after a long period of civility.

Clearly all that happened was that the main players became exhausted after fighting so much. And the articles were left in a mess.

Also, please note that most proponents of a positive or merely not purely negative view of homeopathy end up signing off Wikipedia. User:LeeHunter signed off about the time I joined. He was exasperated by AFD attempts on the biographies. I have been through lots of AfDs. It is all part of learning how to get along here on WP. Find something useful to do. And do it. Do not step on my toes, at least until this massive rearrangement is done. Then, if you can get consensus, you can propose a new lead or new organization. I am only here for a bit to try to push this area in a positive direction. I have no long term interest in medicine or homeopathy, aside from making this article readable and accessible for all. --Filll 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

sycosis (suppressed gonorrhoea)

Is this really suppressed gonorrhoea? Is this current mainstream medicine? Current homeopathy? Was it ever a belief in homeopathy or allopathy?--Filll 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a maxim of classical homeopathy. I would not call it a belief but use that word if you wish. It is based on evidence as is the syphilis miasm. I am not sure if there is such a concept in allopathy probably not probably never has been but historically you would have to check that. Peter morrell 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to mean something like a rash under the beard in standard allopathic medicine, but does not appear to be connected to suppresssed gonorrhoea in allopathic medicine. I am checking, however.--Filll 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Miasm theory in homeopathy

Do I understand correctly that this is basically connected to the same miasmas found in Miasma theory of disease ? And that the miasm theory in homeopathy first appeared in 1828 in Hahnemann's book The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure ? Did Hahnemann publish any other books on Miasm Theory? This is a bit confusing, for sure. I wish this was explained more clearly.--Filll 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correc; no, he did not publish anything more on it...the only 'confusion' is ahem that you don't know this subject too well, but please continue. Please also use the reference I sent earlier from Nature vol 480...or did I waste my time getting that info? likewise the stuff on suddha...it just goes into a vacuum. Peter morrell 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will continue to link miasm to Miasma theory of disease. I wondered if there was something subtly different. You are quite right. I am struggling here since I am neophyte in this area. I am trying to understand it, however, and make it clear to the readers. Your contributions on both Suddha and the Nature article will both be folded in, never fear. Thank you very much for helping. I plan to write a separate article on Suddha, since the present link to Suddah is something else. The Nature reference we have needs more detail so your contribution there will help for sure.--Filll 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK no worries, just keep going that's the main thing! neophyte is good cuz you have a fresh take on the whole thing unsidetracked by depth and so it will come out clean I guess...not a problem. I think the Nature ref is just a one pager about that withdrawn article on homeopathy so unless you have access to the jnl in which case you can check it for real. The suddha thing was a sidetrack anyweay as thea film of the same title is listed here in wiki! It just means pure in sanskrit, a language I happen to have a passing but rusty knowledge of. The subtle difference is that the miasm theory proposes that certain diseases cause an internalised dyscrasia or stain which leaves a trace in the vital force acting as the root cause of future sickness both in the life of that person and in their progeny. That's about it and that these subtle internalised sickness causes can be profiled accurately...sycosis hits the mucus membranes and sensitivity to damp weather, storms, and hits the genital tract; syph the brain, nerves, ultimately the bones, spawning madness, deafness, insanity, alcoholism, etc while psora hits the skin and all manner of interal sickness states...this is the miasm theory in a nutshell. I am happy to clarify details, so don't worry. Peter morrell 20:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Section 3 on Hahnemann's other contributions

I copied this to the article on hahnemann himself, where it is more appropriate. Can I delete it here, where it really is out of place and makes the article overly long? --Filll 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, I had noticed you did that earlier. It's fine. I am sure your amendments will be OK. I trust your judgement because you appear to be neutral on this subject, unlike others. That is all that is required to do a good edit, neutrality. People who hate this subject cannot possibly summon the skills required for the task. I am no longer a practising homeopath and am just an historian. I have no issue with it and a fund of knowledge about it but beyond that it is neutral territory for me too. True science has nothing to do with belief and theories, but just with observations and manipulations of things that happen, homeopathy included. It is neither a belief nor a theory, it is almost purely an empirical system, mysterious and weird yes but nothing more. It simply outrages those welded to science as a theory and a belief system about the world but not the truly empirical scientists. Peter morrell 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence I do not understand

What exactly does this sentence mean and is it properly placed?

This modern approach also harks back to the ancient 'doctrine of signatures,' which Hahnemann definitely rejected as uncertain guesswork.[29] --Filll 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you have no idea waht you are doing. leave it in it is of course highly relevant. Please also put back in a long paragraph removed by JoshuaZ who clearly knows nothing about this subject but, as with the orange hack-job, insists on interfering. It is highly relevant material. The doctrine of signatures why not try to learn what it is instead of removing good stuff? educate your self about the subject you hack to pieces! Peter morrell 02:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I of course added the long paragraph back in. And appealed to JoshuaZ to leave it in. Also I didnt want to remove this sentence unless I understood. Are there any words I could add to make it clearer to the average reader? I did read about it a bit and I am familiar with it, but somehow I miss the point to it being there in that paragraph. Any help you could offer would be most appreciated.--Filll 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we have this sentence so close to the front?

Homeopathy is considered by many scientists to be a pseudoscience and clinical trials have consistently failed to validate homeopathic claims

Doesnt the last paragraph in the lead do the trick, together with the word controversial? Do we not want to present the topic reasonably without beating it to death before we even describe it? --Filll 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, though it sounds politically incorrect, is a scientific term with a specific definition. Homeopathy, according to science, is pseudoscience. Not only is this a fact, (that homeopathy fits the definition of pseudoscience) it is also a significant viewpoint held by most scientists. I don't think we should remove it from the lead and I would argue that it's removal would not represent all significant viewpoints and would therefore violate NPOV. -- Pdelongchamp 04:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the lead? It is in there, just in the last paragraph. In much greater detail.--Filll 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be in the first paragraph. This lead is a perfect example of giving undue weight to the unverified POV. This article is nothing more than a defense for Homeopathy. Orangemarlin 07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a fair comment. In truth, the article reads more or less like an attack on homeopathy, but the pseudoscience take on it is in the article in several places it does not need to be right at the top. In an article on golf you would not expect a warning at the top of its dangers and how awful it is, would you? Let us please get grounded in this subject as a subject in its own right with a right to exist, and stop denouncing it subtly with every comment you make. We know you hate homeopathy with all your being and that is precisely why you are uniquely unsuited to edit the article. And when you say I mount personal attacks on you that is not actually true; my attacks are about the view you push all the time not you personally but the extremist and hardline intolerant viewpoint you peddle. There is surely a difference between my attacking you as a person and attacking your views, is there not? or are they inseparable aspects of your being? Peter morrell 07:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On some of these issues, like exactly where in the LEAD to place the disclaimer and what form it should be, I have my own personal preference, but I am willing to let people discuss them and come to some consensus. In fact, I believe that is my only option since they are contentious issues. If this kind of issue is decided later, I am fine with that, since as TimVickers says, I want to rewrite the article, first and foremost, to make the English clear. Whether the disclaimer is 1 sentence into the LEAD, or 2, or 10 or so (as at present) can be discussed and a decision reached by consensus. If I decide it by fiat any particular direction, it will just get me involved in an edit war, and all I want to do is to clarify at the moment, not have an edit war. I DO know that we cannot and should not reduce the amount of disclaimer in the LEAD, as that previous editor tried to do. Also, while I am trying to organize this article, it does not help to have it massively rewritten on me so I cannot find material that I am planning to move around, which is another reason I was not happy with that previous pro-homeopathy editor.--Filll 13:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly sentence 10 is too far down, although sentence two would do.

Morrell: this comment is nonsense, "intolerant viewpoint you peddle". Homeopathy is pseudoscientific snake oil peddled by folks of questionable medical backgrounds that kills people by dissuading them from getting efficaceous treatments. Presenting the topic withouut noting that that is the overwhelming scientific opinion creates and undue weight problem. •Jim62sch• 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch"Homeopathy is pseudoscientific snake oil peddled by folks of questionable medical backgrounds that kills people by dissuading them from getting efficaceous treatments."

Oh really? when you climb down off your holy science pulpit maybe you can start talking sense for once in your life. get real. So we can all see where your edits are gonna go. hopefully down the pan. Peter morrell 20:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of science? Does it spoil your fantasies? I'll bet you believed in Pyramid power when you were younger, yes? •Jim62sch• 12:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

this article is very biased

The only content on this article is criticism. There is very little information about Hahnemann or the history or the mechanism of homeopathy, especially in relation to the amount of criticism of homeopathy. Instead of being titled "Homeopathy" it should be titled "One sided Criticism of Homeopathy." Until the title is changed, there should be a tag noting the lack of neutrality of the article.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by A fly in my soup (talk • contribs) 04:30, 14 July 2007

Hi A fly in my soup, criticism doesn't imply bias. It simply implies that the article is written in the opinion of homeopaths and that scientists criticize their views. If the article were written in the view of scientists, we would have criticism from homeopaths. So you see, criticism doesn't equal bias. Could you state any specific invalid or insignificant criticism that should be removed? Pdelongchamp 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very difficult to write. It would be impossible to write this article without having any indication of the controversy or criticism of science or allopathhic medicine. It just has to be balanced.--Filll 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am finding just the opposite, although the article is possibly changingon an hourly bases due to edit wars. The sections on Philosophy and modern advances in homeopathy are ridiculously biased in the favor of homeopathy. The wording suggests that the unfounded and quite arbitrarily formulated assumptions of why homeopathy should work are actually fact. Comments such as "failure of a homeopathic remedy can *always* be attributed to choosing the wrong remedy" are just idiotic. How about the antithesis tht "failure of homeopathic remedies can be attributed to the fact that the claims of homeopathy are farcical"? There needs to be a much more critical presentation of this material, or at least one which doesn't flatly claim that homeopathy is valid as a fact.69.50.69.3 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)P,Cogan

Obsolete?

Should the category for The Organon of the Healing Art be changed? --Filll 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this question what do you mean? the article is biased as folks say above but we have to live with that because of its contentious nature and the fact that pro-science geeks infest this planet in a greater majority than those brave folks who have actually used it, have seen homeopathy work empirically and use it and study it and who therefore know it is a safe, reliable, OK medical system that works but nobody knows how or why. Homeopathy is not a pseudoscience because it does not claim to be scientific. A few MD homeopaths live in hope that it will one day be proved as a science, but most homeopaths realise that hope is fading. Any so-called science or medicine should be led primarily by facts and by empirical action not by theories. I have never met one critic of homeopathy who has even tried it. They just pontificate from the armchair and never try it. All the best advances in science were derived from experimental scientists who got their hands dirty with actual experiments, not by ranting from armchairs based upon a theoretical position. I cannot guarantee to watch or 'protect' the article from attacks today or tomorrow, or indeed ever, it is not my baby and it will suffer whatever fate throws at it. I 'put my oar in' when I can but I also have a life and eat and sleep and go about my business in the real world. I can only promise to come along now and then and chip in. That's all I can do. Peter morrell 06:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am asking because I am not sure that book should be in Category:Obsolete medical theories, but possibly this article and some others about homeopathic theories should be in Category:Obsolete medical theories. However, I can see this turning into a huge war if I try to add Category:Obsolete medical theories here and remove it from the Organon article. I notice that Category:Obsolete medical theories is pretty slim so far and needs a lot more in it. I like the category, but it seems underused to me. However, I am not that kind of doctor. --Filll 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be funny were it not so sad: "pro-science geeks infest this planet". Maybe there are more "pro-science geeks" than "anti-science placebo peddlers" because more people than not are not functionally brain dead. •Jim62sch• 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep you're sad and brain dead alright. Peter morrell 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw gee, you're just too clever for me. Nice snappy comebacks, clearly proud of your ignorance, no doubt a great thinker in spite of that lobotomy. Well done. •Jim62sch• 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Status

I am reasonably happy with the first cut of the LEAD, sections 1 and 2. Anyone who knows a lot about homeopathy like Peter should please check what I have written to make sure it is correct. I am less happy with the articles that we link to. Most of them are in rough shape. I have not checked the later sections very much yet. And the daughter articles are still in very rough shape.--Filll 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about criticisms you are actually doing a grand job albeit long & tiresome work. I have a small suggestion about the intro, it ought to say somewhere how the homeopath operates and what s/he does with the patient and how the profile of their health problems is compiled in the consultation. For some reason this does not appear in the article and it is quite crucial. It is crucial (a) because it is very diffreent from a standard medical consultation and also (b) because it illuminates what homeopathy is in practice. Maybe we can have a go at that at some point. As someone above says, the article reads heavily biased as a critique of homeopathy which I don't have a big problem with because that is how homeopathy is perceived in the real world so in a sense it is justified. However, maybe we should include somewhere in the article a response from homeopaths in summary form stating how they see their medical system and why they think it works. what do you think? no hurry as I know you have much work to do yet, but just an idea. thank you Peter morrell 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very encouraging talk page, I've not seen a version so focussed on writing the article and not on personal attacks and argumentation before. Kudos to the editors involved! Tim Vickers 13:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, this is killing me. I am of course pro-science, but I am trying to write this in a balanced way if possible, but with a large measure of disclaimers and statements about the opposition. And on both sides I am accused of favoring the opposing side! Maybe that means I am down the middle on this one? I am not sure. I do really need more advice from other outside, disinterested parties here, rather than the two sides with the strongest feelings about this.--Filll 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are doing a good job what's the problem? just go straight down the middle line and it will be OK. The article is about homeopathy NOT about science or medical objections to it; it should therefore be a neutral account of homeopathy as a subject in its own right with caveats in the right places where 'facts' or ideas are disputed and why and who by. That is ideally what we need to create here. So far you are doing very well. Apart from those hardline pro-science zealots who hate this topic, jumping on your back baying for blood, apart from them, the article is shaping up nicely. please continue. Peter morrell 14:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro-science zealot? Thank you, I'll take that as a badge of honor! Homeopathy is about harming patients--please read the fine article from your country about killing malaria patients. This pseudoscience harms people. I know that bothers you, but I also think diving rods, astrology, alchemy, creation science, and alien abductions are lumped together with Homeopathy. All rely upon word of mouth and not facts. Whatever you say about me, you're looking into a mirror. Orangemarlin 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if both "sides" are unhappy you are doing a good job. Peter seems most happy, so add some more criticism! (JOKE) Speaking generally, this article needs to be both about homeopathy, its beliefs, practices and history as well as an assessment of how it is viewed by modern medicine and medical science. To have either of these in isolation would be unbalanced. Tim Vickers 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One point that seems to have been missed, "right down the middle" does not work for articles about pseudoscientific technques. And don't try that crap that homeopathy doesn't pretend to be science, it very much does. •Jim62sch• 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparson of this with other controversial articles

I swear, the trouble here at this article is almost as bad as what I saw at black people. Lets compare this article to intelligent design, which has been through a lot more consensus building. In intelligent design, there are 4 sentences describing the belief, with one weasel word, the word "claim". Then the response of the scientific community follows at sentence 5, making it clear that this is not mainstream, etc. In this article, the first 3 sentences (one of which added by me so that I could reference the information later, but this can be rearranged) talk in general terms about the subject, with one weasel word, even stronger than "claim": "controversial" (which some enterprising editor wanted to remove many times, but which I think will not fly). It also includes the words "alternative medicine" which to many people is like a red flag for "unverified and not mainstream", and "not AMA approved". Then at sentence 4 starts the description of the fairly outrageous reasoning behind homeopathy. Sentence 6 to me is pretty much the knock-out punch. Sentence 7 is even more scathing: water memory? Come on!! That is positive? It might need more weasel words, but still. Then in sentence 13 starts a pretty serious disclaimer, which is as heavy a disclaimer as the one at intelligent design but with maybe more substance behind it. Possibly the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be switched, as long as the result still makes sense to the reader. I am not sure. To me, this is a minor issue compared to the mess later in the article. Like intelligent design, this sort of argument about the LEAD can take months or years of effort. I do not intend to personally fight that fight, just as I did not fight it at intelligent design. I only offered my opinion at intelligent design on some points, arguing for an understandable LEAD. I did the same at evolution and other places, arguing for an understandable LEAD, first and foremost. But to me, I want to fix the places later in the article which make no sense whatsoever, and are not even close to English sentences, where the references are just a mess and the wikilinks are to stubs or meaningless stream-of-consciousness writing. That is far worse, because a reader will not be able to make heads or tails out of what they are reading and be confused. --Filll 14:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want more comparisons, look at phlogisten, caloric theory, Aether theories and lumiferous aether. Granted, they are not so controversial and not about health, so the character will not be the same, but they are also about nonmainstream, "obsolete" theories.--Filll 14:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

homeopathy is not an obsolete theory is it? it is still in use as a practical system used by thousands of folks around the world. You're on the wrong track I'm afraid. I repeat: this article should primarily be about homeopathy not primarily what others think about it, whoever they are. Peter morrell 14:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I was a afraid of that. So the use of Category:Obsolete medical theories is not appropriate you think because people are still using it? This is the kind of discussion that can take weeks or months I am afraid. --Filll 14:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

well the term 'obsolete' is a bit damning, isn't it? it is overtly judgemental it says this is junk! it implies it is an outmoded set of ideas. I don't think any homeopath on the planet would admit such a thing. so i do think you're on the wrong track. It is too judgemental and condemning. Peter morrell 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to go with what the consensus says on this. Otherwise, I will be in a huge fight that lasts for months. And I am willing to go with consensus here, although I obviously have my own personal leanings.--Filll 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. And, I'll remind you again to be cognizant of undue weight. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet, for sure. However, when one is forged, then I of course will go with it. I have my own views, but right now I am not in the mood to argue for them. I want to just pare this article down to a place where we can understand what consenuses (consensi?) need to be formed--Filll 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Miasms

The miasm is more of a theory than a fact, it is an imputed entity not something that can be directly observed. Hahnemann claims it was derived from close examination of many family histories so that patterns (each a 'super-illness') emerged as if a stain or shadow had been left in a family of these specific sicknesses and leaving an imprint on all members of that family...patterns as previously stated: syph ...bones, nerves, mind; sycosis...mucus membranes, asthma, etc; psora skin and internal organs. hope this helps. Peter morrell 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Would that be scientific theory, or just an idea? •Jim62sch• 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

These days, they're referred to as genetic predisposition. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. What on earth is being put forward here? This stuff has been obsolete for quite some time. It's not quite holism; it's definitely not science; whatever it is today, the notion of "miasms" may well be correct as a general observation, but the terminology and operational definitions bear little or no resemblance to accepted terms in today's investigations into the functioning of the human body and its problems, conditions or diseases. The phrase "imputed entity" is actually a theological term used in reference to the "body of Christ". Here, it is the same as a generalization or grouping into one classification, or one "thing". More specifically it refers to a diagnosis or putting a name on a classification of a disease. "Sycosis" is nothing more than an obsolete term for the advanced symptoms of gonorrhea, which evidently was widespread in Hahnemann's day; "psora" is an umbrella term for a wide range of conditions, on the basis of which the practitioner proceeds to form an assumption that something's amiss about the internal state of the person that exhibits one or more of them. Today, to hold out concepts like this to be scientific would be to make it a classic form of pseudoscience; to hold it out as the unfettered discretionary exercise of the practitioner's judgment in prescribing treatment modalities might well be worse, depending on what country or state you happen to be in. I say this not to debunk principles such as the "law of similars"; after all, that's essentially what typical innoculations and other such approaches do. Seems there's some empirical evidence in support of its possible efficacy in some circumstances after the disease has developed (don't have the cites at present), assuming of course that the practitioner has properly identified the target substance that's at issue for a particular patient and the level of dilution that's potentially effective. And there's been a fair amount of results showing it's not effective-- I do understand that these kinds of seemingly opposing results often happen in research for a variety of more specific reasons. And there's also been some striking research, such as James Randi's cautious double-blind experiment regarding water memory-- the whole Jacques Benveniste affair involving the journal Science. But, whatever the case, it's simply not appropriate to be throwing these things around and expecting other WP participants to buy into it and throw their skepticism aside. Peter Morrell's reference, a couple of sections above, to "pro-science geeks [that] infest this planet" is unfortunate in this regard-- I'm afraid this is basically a backhanded way of asking for leeway to say whatever one wants and do whatever one wants by telling the cautious analysts and double-checkers to go jump in a lake. Problem here is that there are people treating themselves based on some of this "advice", and practitioners treating other people who may not be able to see through some "pseudo-medical" terminology, obsolete or meaningless terminology, and pseudoscientific terminology as they may come up from time to time. Those WP editors, the ones who are able to see these sorts of things better than most people do, quite often are valuable contributors to WP. On the whole, they do not "infest" the world, but rather, despite the occasional excess of skepticism, do a great deal to improve it. ... Kenosis 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual error

• factual error...the 6th Organon was never published in his life it was a corrected draft of the 5th organon in his own hand kept after his death written in feb 1842 (he died in July 1843) but never published until 1922 after it was finally retrieved from his estate by Dr Richard Haehl of Stuttgart. This edition has then been translated. What most people think is the organon is the fifth edition which was the only edition available in English until about 1930s. Peter morrell 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry for length but here are some refs for the above...

"Hahnemann probably decided to write the sixth edition, in 1840, to incorporate his latest experience with the repetition of potentized doses and periodically modified potencies. He must have revised it after February 1842 to include his latest findings with fifty-millesimal potencies in ascending degrees. Hahnemann's conception about the superiority of the fifty-millesimal in comparison with the centesimal dynamization was based on a significant number of experiments with the two scales." [9]

"Samuel Hahnemann finished the 6th edition of the Organon in 1842. He died in 1843 before it could be printed. His wife Melanie kept the manuscript and attempted to have it published but European wars and lack of funds thwarted these efforts. By the turn of the century the manuscript had passed on to the Boenninghausen family. Dr. Richard Haehl arranged the purchase and Dr. William Boericke and James William Ward paid $1,000 for it at the end of World War 1. Boericke & Tafel published the first English translation of the 6th ed. Organon in 1922. Working from Dudgeon's 1893 revision of the 5th edition, William Boericke added in all of Hahnemann's newest information. This was not a 'from scratch' translation but it spotlighted the last iteration of Hahnemann's grand work. Most importantly, the 6th edition introduced the preparation and management of the 50 millesimal potency, Hahnemann's 'perfected method'. Many of our greatest homeopaths such as Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent, etc., had no knowledge of the 6th edition. This legacy of ignorance still permeates the homeopathic world today but is slowly being eroded through the efforts of David Little, Dr. Luc de Schepper, and others. The 6th edition of the Organon should not be relegated to some bibliographical footnote. Instead, its dissemination to student and practitioner alike would mean a quantum leap forward in homeopathic practice." [10]

• recap at the start of the article it says he published 6 editions of the organon; that is incorrect, can you please change it as per above evidence, when you get chance. thanks Peter morrell 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I think this is fixed and in a new History section.--Filll 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaccines

We don't need all that allopathic intro about vaccines. just link them to another article. Anyone can find out what vaccinations are it does not need to be part of this article. will you please remove it? this is exactly the type of thing that is making the article way too long please stop interfering Filll has been doing a good job and now you are screwing it up. Peter morrell 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? To whom are you talking? •Jim62sch• 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article

I have made changes to the critiques section that satisfies my concerns with undue weight. I'm willing to discuss fine-tuning it, but if the conversation is going to start with a personal attack, don't bother--I'm assuming good faith with all editors. Other than the NPOV, my other concern is the quality of the article. I have used WP:CITET standards for writing the references. Somewhere in the past, someone used ibids and op cits (old fashioned referencing scheme). The problem is if a section of writing along with the original reference is deleted, it's gone. This article will never be GA or FA status with old referencing scheme. If we have battled this hard to get the NPOV right, our next goal should be to get it to GA or FAC. Filll, I have suggested on many occasions that you need to move over to WP:CITET. Every reference edit you make takes 5 minutes to clean up. I know you can do it right. Orangemarlin 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Filll to do the editing which is why I am not doing any; why don't you do the same and discuss your concerns direct with him? this is a much better arrangement considering our wide differences in POV. That way we can filter things through to him or through the talk page rather than being at war. what do you say? Peter morrell 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, see WP:OWN. Filll does not have the sole right or obligation to edit this article. Do we understand each other? •Jim62sch• 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true.--Filll 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph-my logic

Regarding my reverted edit by Fill- [11], the material is of questionable notability. It isn't at all clear how common these claims are. For example, one of the sources used is simply a geocities website, not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. In any event, appears to have original research issues, synthesizing primary source documents. JoshuaZ 16:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for leaving it in are:

• unfortunately, good published sources for most of this unavailable, particularly on the homeopathy side
• it is "notable" since Peter, a well known writer with academic appointments in the area of history of science, has said it is, and the references imply it is as well
• these beliefs might not be widely held, but they are clearly held. There is not a good way to determine how many people hold it. If a large group of pro-homeopathy person came on to claim this was not a widely-held set of beliefs, or showed references that showed it was not widely held, or these sorts of beliefs painted them in a negative light, then this could be incorporated into the writing, but I do not think that is reason enough to remove it.
• Removing this section is like writing an article on scientology and removing all mention of the Xenu story. As I said before, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Lets lay the ideas out there. --Filll 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Peter's background is, and it frankly isn't that relevant. What is relevant is whether we have reliable sources that make the conclusions we make. WP:NOR isn't negotiable. The references don't imply it is notable, all we seem to have are a few personable websites and such. JoshuaZ 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately a huge amount of it is just blogs etc. Perhaps we can find better references for this. I hope so. Then we can replace a lot of the blogs with better references. However, this all is very tedious and takes a huge amount of effort.--Filll 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is something in this article that is OR it goes, period. Move it to the talk page until someone can source it. •Jim62sch• 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it qualifies as OR. It just appears that we have to do a better job of digging through the academic literature for references.--Filll 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article on homeopathy or Hahnemann?

I removed the following from the introduction.

although he began outlining his theories of 'medical similars' in a series of articles and monographs in 1796. Hahnemann's main opus was the book, The Organon of Medicine. Hahnemann published five editions of this work between 1810 and 1842.

This should be added later in the body of the article. It is far to detailed for the intro and a tangent from homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it might not be important for the LEAD and just clog things up. However, it has to be fairly early so that the discussions of the Organon later will make sense. I will try to tuck it down later for time being until we are sure what to do with it. Perhaps a very short history section before the practice section with a link to the real history article. --Filll 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the LEAD

I am always in favor of a shorter LEAD. Can I remove this couple of sentences to lower down in the article?

Homeopathy regards diseases as morbid derangements of the organism, and states that instances of disease in different people differ fundamentally. Homeopathy views a sick person as having a dynamic disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force", a disturbance which, homeopaths claim, underlies standard medical diagnoses of named diseases.--Filll 18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes shorten the lead as you wish...please let me know which section you need better refs for and I will ferret some out...thanks Peter morrell 18:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this: Some modern homeopaths are exploring the use of more esoteric substances, known as "imponderables" because they do not originate from a material but from electromagnetic energy or other energy presumed to have been "captured" by a substance like alcohol or lactose. The captured "energy" can be in many forms, such as X-rays, Sol (sunlight), Positronium[22], Electricitas[23] (electricity) or even light collected using a telescope (for example, from the star Polaris). Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include Tempesta[24] (thunderstorm), and Berlin wall.[25]...then I can track down some better refs...in point of fact a little context here...homeopaths have always been seeking new remedies and trying out weird things, all of these fall into that bracket; there were numerous new remedies of dubious origin or value being introduced throughout the last 50 years or so of the 19th century, for example. Very few of them are still around BUT the principle of exploring new remdies is still very much part of the movement and recent ones include Bamboo, Diamond, Plutonium, Venus light, Moonlight, Berlin Wall, Hydrogen, Chocolate, Lac deiphinum, Lao equinum, Lac felinum, and Polystyrenum. Let me know if you need more on this. Peter morrell 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Any good article needs voodoo in it. @@ •Jim62sch• 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My position is, if there is voodoo here, lets make it clear what it is, and try to get some good references for it. --Filll 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is closer to the kind of reference we need, but we need references like that for things like Polaris, or the Berlin wall. Something in a newspaper or a magazine with a volume and date etc. Something with an author. Something we can say is not just a blog or website.--Filll 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We need references for the entire mess of crap dumped by Morrell. And, keep undue weight in mindm, dammit. I'm getting just a bit tired of witnessing kowtowing to a self-described antiscience fanatic. •Jim62sch• 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I have started to throw {{fact}} tags on it in different places, but it needs more. Just throw them on where you think we are lacking so we have something to aim for.--Filll 12:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem

If this Jim62 character is going to continue intervening in this crass sniping vein and commenting on everything in here, then we are not going to get much done by bitching over trivia and ancient history. It would be better if he went elsewhere and let Filll do a proper job on completing this article in PEACE. Peter morrell 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

correction, he is quite clearly beyond hope! and knows nothing about this subject...or indeed much else. Peter morrell 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Really Sparky? What's the matter, am I pissing on your parade?

Again, see WP:OWN -- the article does not belong to Filll, do you understand? It's really quite a simple concept, I';m sure you can grasp it if you just try. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim really is a good guy. He just kids around a bit, and can be a bit sarcastic. But then, so can I. Of course, I do not OWN it. I am just trying to massage it a bit to make it a bit clearer and cleaner. As for balance, this will have to be duked out and a consensus built. I will follow whatever the consensus is. --Filll 20:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good...but let's make an effort to build a consensus, rather than allowing Morrel (whose creds are quite insufficient) from dictating the course of the article. Sorry Filll, but this is getting ridiculous. •Jim62sch• 22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of letting him dictate the trajectory of the article, of course. However, before we can even see what we have got and where it needs the appropriate qualifications, caveats, disclaimers, etc, we have to have it properly organized and readable, so we can even tell what the claims are. A morass of undefined terms, unlinked people and concepts, with mainly blogs as the few references that appear, is not a good place to start from. I want it clear and organized to start with. Then it can evolve in a more reasonable path. Balance can be struck by consensus. When I looked at it first, after 5.5 years of consensus building/edit-warring, it had quite a few sentences that were arguably not even English, and definitely not understandable. A good half dozen or more "technical terms" appeared, undefined, or unwikilinked, although articles defining them existed (albeit, not the world's best articles by any means). Many of the individuals referenced in the text were not properly identified or wikilinked. Paragraphs were scattered helter skelter, and not organized by subject. Some paragraphs had several unrelated topics in them. It was a confused mess, to be honest. And sort of embarassing to be in this state, after this much attention, for 5.5 years. I know it is pseudoscience, at least to me it sure is. However, can we not at least describe what they actually claim clearly? --Filll 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Heel and Reckeweg

Who are these guys?--Filll 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Check it out for yourself here: never heard of it before actually... Peter morrell 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Subset

Currently we have: "is a controversial subset of alternative medicine practices that aims to treat "like with like." in the lead. Do we have to have 'controversial' and 'sub-set?' It is not really a sub-set of anything, just a medical system in its own right, surely? controversial kind of sets the abrasive tone for the rest really and it might be better left out. If so, it could then more neutrally read 'is a form of alternative medicine' is that OK or not? thanks Peter morrell 21:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a form of alternative medicine and it is controversial. This seems fine to me. JoshuaZ 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I swapped "subset" for "form". Is this better? comments?--Filll 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is an improvement but it is not a form of alternative practices...unless that is your take on it. It is a system in its own right. Peter morrell 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And a pig is not a form of a mammal. •Jim62sch• 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok how about type? variety? sort? Any other ideas? I am not sure I like "system of alternative medicine" because it does not have the right ring, at least to me.--Filll 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Type would be my first choice. •Jim62sch• 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Classical Homeopathy

There used to be an article with this title, but it was nuked. The text still is available and has a lot of information in it which I might find use for. Nevertheless the section on classical homeopathy seems way too wordy here, and has very little information content for the amount of words, as far as I can tell. Also it has no references. Suggestions?--Filll 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Find references first. Why was it nuked? •Jim62sch• 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I found one reference. It clearly needs more. And higher quality references, if possible. I think classical homeopathy was nuked because it was repetitious, and more or less a copy of this article with some slightly different material. My understanding was that other editors did not feel there was enough call to have two separate articles, one on homeopathy and one on classical homeopathy. I would have to agree with that.--Filll 22:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A nonsense sentence I do not understand

What does this mean?

Hahnemann classified succeeded vaccination of smallpox due to the interaction of two similar diseases (the law of similars).Organon § 56--Filll 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahneman believed that the success of the smallpox vaccine was proof of his law of similars. ornis 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable conjecture. I think I will go with that, provisionally. Thanks.--Filll 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article diet

Are there more sections that can be farmed out to daughter articles without causing trouble? How about the section on miasm? Does it have to remain in this article or can it be farmed out to a separate short article? The section on relationship between homeopathy and vaccines? It is still just very long. Can the science section be put in a separate article, with just short summaries here and a link? What do you think? --Filll 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest making too many daughter articles might create more problems than it solves. As for the miasma stuff, perhaps "techniques...", could be moved to "principles of.." or "practice of..." and the miasma moved there with a short summary left here. ornis 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Forks can always present a problem, I'd try to avoid them as much as is possible. •Jim62sch• 11:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but how much does miasm have to do with homeopathy? It is more like psora.--Filll 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions

Three points I would raise: 1. I have revised the lead as follows please respond with suggestions...

A homeopath gives a patient extremely small doses of a substance that can produce the same illness symptoms in healthy people when given in larger doses. A homeopathic remedy is prepared by diluting the substance in a series of steps. Many homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain after dilution.[3][4] Homeopathy asserts that the therapeutic potency of such remedies is increased by serial dilution combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking.

Since its inception homeopathy has received criticism on scientific and medical grounds, and no scientific studies have conclusively shown its efficacy. The belief that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers" [5] is not consistent with any known laws of chemistry and physics and the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. Results of clinical trials of homeopathic remedies have been mostly negative, and even those showing positive results have been found to have methodological problems. Results from well-controlled, 'double-blind' clinical trials using large populations have always been negative.[8] Several examples of publications in high ranking journals that were later withdrawn are known. [9] Additionally, the advice to use homeopathic drugs to prevent malaria infection has been exposed as potentially life-threatening. [10][11] Because of the difficulty in satisfactorily proving its clinical efficacy, combined with all the above problems, homeopathy is frequently described by critics as pseudoscience [6] and quackery, [7] and as a system rooted more in placebo, belief and delusion than in true observations and scientifically verifiable theories.

2. Half of the article still consists of critique - how about farming most of that out to a sub-article? it is also insufficiently referenced in places. The stuff about commercial exploitation and costs is quite laughable because drug companies by comparison are some of the wealthiest companies globally and the 4 or 5 major homeopathic pharmacies are not big profit makers in their field. This obviously needs referencing and a comparison included or that section scrapped altogether if it is not possible to show the dubious points being made. Thus, it is hard to sustain the argument that homeopathy is a rich commercial enterprise...it is not.

3. The stuff about the holistic type of consultation has still not been included shall I write a short paragraph on this? thanks Peter morrell 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Regarding the ultradilution question, maybe fellow editors would consider this citation I only just found: It may have been superceded by negative data since 2001, but does anyone know more about this research or if it has been validated since 2001? Peter morrell 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is my proposed new intro to section 3.3 Choosing remedies: The typically hour-long homeopathic consultation translates a person's entire health problems into a complex of mental and physical symptoms, likes and dislikes and innate predispositions which can then be compared to similar established data in the drug provings which are compiled in the homeopathic materia medica. Assisted by dialogue with the patient, the homeopath then aims to find the drug having the closest match for the 'symptom totality' of the patient. Clearly that additional paragraph will be fully referenced in due course. Perhaps editors can comment on the acceptability of this.

Also, the phrase 'doctrine of signatures' appears in the article unreferenced and unexplained. It is quite a complex concept requiring some explication and/or a link to a suitable article ...don't you think? Peter morrell 07:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more words about the "doctrine of signatures" and its relevance here would be welcome.--Filll 11:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed LEAD doesnt look bad to me. Other comments?--Filll 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticism does not get farmed out. This has been explained previously. In fact, given the pseudoscientific nature of homeopathy, there should probably be more not less criticism.

Re Holism: keep in mind WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. Anything you write must be consistent with all three policies. •Jim62sch• 12:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to argue that the scientific criticism could be farmed out completely. It might need some careful editing and more references in spots. It is a bit long winded I think, for what it is trying to say.--Filll 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So long as its impact is not lessened. •Jim62sch• 12:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not found any follow up studies to the Korean study.--Filll 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed lead has a few problems:

1. Replacing "homeopathic treatment" with "homeopath" shifts the focus.

2. Why was this, "Homeopathy asserts that the remedy will retain a memory of the diluted substance", changed to "Homeopathy asserts that the therapeutic potency of such remedies is increased by serial dilution combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking." The retention of a "memory" or the substance is one of the keys to homeopathy: is there a fear that it sounds too flaky?

3. The change from "is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics" to "is not consistent with any known (emphasis mine) laws of chemistry and physics" is POV and implies that there's some law science has yet to discover (but will) that would justify extreme dilutions.

4. This "Results of clinical trials of homeopathic remedies are almost all negative, and those showing positive results are found to have methodological problems" stays WP:NPOV, although a it needs to be sourced.

5. This change from "Additionally, the use of homeopathic drugs to prevent malaria infection has had life-threatening consequences" to "Additionally, the advice to use homeopathic drugs to prevent malaria infection has been exposed as potentially life-threatening" shifts the subject from homeopathic remedies to advice -- a shift that is inaccurate.

The reorganisation moving "pseudoscience and quackery" to a little farther down is fine and flows better. •Jim62sch• 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I will go with Jim's suggestions here if that's OK. Peter morrell 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Referenced new paragraph (revised)

The typically 1-2 hour-long homeopathic consultation, involves "questions regarding your physical, mental and emotional state, your life circumstances and presenting physical/emotional illness." and then translates a person's entire health status into a complex of mental and physical symptoms, likes and dislikes and innate predispositions. It aims "to build up a well rounded picture of you as an individual," which can then be compared with similar established data in the drug provings found in the homeopathic materia medica. "In homeopathy we understand illness as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, brought on by an internal disturbance that manifests in each person in a uniquely characteristic way." Assisted by further dialogue with the patient, the homeopath then aims to find the one drug most closely matching the 'symptom totality' of the patient. Peter morrell 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

doctrine of signtatures

...here we have this short article: then a definition: "the idea that God gave everything in nature its unique healing powers and left a clue for us to discover in the appearance of each plant or substance."

there is a wiki link too...hopefully these will suffice. Peter morrell 13:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They'll be fine. It does a nice job of explaining the topic. •Jim62sch• 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if there were real links to academic articles. But it is a start.--Filll 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK here goes

1.The main categories of the Doctrine uncovered were: similarity between the substance used and the human organ; resemblance in shape or behaviour to a specific animal; correlation between the colour of a substance and the colour of the symptoms; similarities between the substance and the patient's symptoms and the use of a substance that might produce symptoms of a particular disease in a healthy person to remedy those same symptoms in one who is sick.

2. each medicinal product from nature indicates by an obvious and well-marked character the disease for which it is a remedy or the object for which it can be employed. The Doctrine exerted influence in Europe until late in the 17th century and still does so in most parts of Africa.

Costings

Have not found much so far but the following looks useful for a start: "Your first consultation with a private homeopath will usually cost between £35 and £90. It may be even more than this, especially if the homeopath is medically trained. Further appointments are usually shorter so cost less –about £20 to £60. Your homeopathic remedy will usually be included in the consultation price, but do check first." "The homeopathic remedy costs about $10." I think comparative costs in the US are 100-200US$ for first consult...I will try and get figures on this if you guys think this is worth pursuing...?

Here is an article: but I cannot access it; the author's email is corina.guethlin@uniklinik-freiburg.de Maybe she will send a copy? Another useful site is: more on this in due course perhaps. We need to compare the overall costs/profits of the remedy manufacturers and the drug companies in order to sustain an argument that homeopathy is a rip-off and wasted money (which is the idea proposed in the article) as compared to conventional drugging or else the argument just folds. I think this idea will be very hard to sustain even if we get hard comparative data. Peter morrell 13:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good one: Fees and Payment Options Initial 90 minute Homeopathic Medical Consultation Adults........ $325.00; Children (below 7 years old) ..... $265.00; Follow-up visits (30 minutes) ....$80.00 Hope this is typical Peter morrell 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

More...

1. Disappointment as Boiron Sees Net Profit-Rise by Just 3.8%-in 2005, Mitra Thompson, March 20, 2006.

2. Boiron is a France-based pharmaceutical company specializing in homeopathic medicines. The group also markets medicines based on trace elements, food supplements and health and beauty care products. The group primarily operates in Europe and North America. It is headquartered in Sainte Foy les Lyon, France. The group's recorded revenues of E398.6 million (approximately $526.3 million) during the fiscal year ended December 2006, an increase of 10.2% over 2005. The operating profit of the group's was E26.5 million (approximately $35 million) during fiscal year 2006, a decrease of 18.5% over 2005. The net profit was E10.2 million (approximately $13.5 million) in fiscal year 2006, a decrease of 37.8% over 2005.

Now we need some comparative data for Glaxo-Smith-Kline-French, Pfeizer and Roche for example. Peter morrell 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Boiron numbers fail to mention whether or not Boiron took charges of some type, which seems likely (especially given increased revenue and decreased profits). Also, the only valid way to compare Boiron to Glaxo-Smith-Kline-French, Pfeizer and Roche would be on a per capita cost. The E398.6 million earnings were derived by sales to how many people? Ditto for Glaxo-Smith-Kline-French et al. •Jim62sch• 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jim, of course figures can be very slippery fish (no pun intended!) and a careful analysis is required...I am merely dredging up possible stuff for folks to insert into the offending para in question...we have to start somewhere... thanks Peter morrell 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine starting place, Peter, maybe Boiron has a website that explains what hey did in 2006 as far as any charges, their customer base, etc. I'll look on Yahoo! France and see if I can find anything (at least anything free -- sometimes financial info is for stockholders only and comes at a cost, and if Boiron is private, we probably won't find much of anything). •Jim62sch• 15:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See this site for financial info17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

More [12] -- R&D costs were up so decreased profit is partially related to that. •Jim62sch• 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This acquisition carried a number of charges...see Key events during 2006 from the above. •Jim62sch• 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoing tags

Jim, please explain how multi refs are needed de rigeur for some paras but not for others. I put those tags in and you removed them all. Such quick unilateral action not negotiated smacks of arrogance am sorry to say. We need to demonstrate a consistent policy throughout the whole article not a tough one here and a slack one there, if you follow, or we are just wasting our time. Can we discuss this sensibly please? it is no use going 'hard' on the pro stuff and going 'easy' on the refs for the anti...it does not seem very balanced. Happy to hear your thoughts on this. cheers Peter morrell 14:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You were simply overdoing it. I suggest you consider adding a {{facts}} tag instead of the big banner and {{fact}} litter. Reinis^talk 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, part of it is that you have to read the ref first: everything that you had tagged was covered in the ref (and yes, I do realise why you tagged what you did as they seem to be incredible claims).

Now, if one source covers everything in a paragraph re the "pro-side", then only one ref is needed. However, if it is cobbled together from different sources, then everything questionable needs a ref. Yes, I could have used the Creighton ref to to replace all of the fact tags, but that would have been an excercise in superfluousness. I hope this helps. •Jim62sch• 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK fine no worries...but we must try ensure an impression of consistency throughout. cheers Peter morrell 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Blind Test

I think a lot of man hours are wasted in articles like this, trying to throw references of varying credibility at each other without producing any results. The funny thing is that most of them(there are exceptions) have no clue about what a double blind experiment is...

Suppose we have a debate over a topic between A and B where the topic can't pass a double blind experiment.

• A says, show me a peer reviewed article which has not been retracted, where your apparently pseudo-scientific method passes the double blind test.
• B says, Hey I can show what x,y and z doctors have done... I can show you article in TV,newspapers and journals that prove my point... What is your problem??
• A says, But what about the double blind experiment??
• B says, Science can't explain everything... Science has spoilt you. You guys have become arrogant.

Big bosses from above land over here and declare... "the neutrality of the article is disputed."

Now Wikipedia viewer C comes over here, he thinks that there is some valid controversy over here and an edit war is going on and the most solid arguments present here would look like the POV of the anti-homeo side. This is really BAD. The defenders dont even think that it is more of a joke to continue arguing about anything other than the double blind test.

But the sad sad thing is that viewer C now needs to be educated about what the double blind test is... B should at least say double blind tests are irrelevant and so can be ignored. For Eg maybe we are all part of the matrix ;-)... So if some one is taking observations for statistical purposes then the observed health is different from when the medication is solely for curative purposes... But hey dammit, B needs to give a reason about why double blind experiments don't matter in this context.

Even an illiterate tribal in sub-saharan Africa can perform a double blind experiment to test validity of something like this... It does not need test tubes or computers or labs or Phds... The only constraint is "Don't cheat". And no... this is not rhetoric... I think it is even doable, so long as he does not demand that that the final results should be tampered according to the desires of the local diety.

But hey if B can actually get past a "real" double blind test. It deserves a lot of attention. I guess most of the pro-homeo guys have no clue how much of a difference it can make. In fact I would volunteer to defend their article and get the whole article article to flip its stance. And maybe spend the next 20-30 years digging into this goldmine which extends far far beyond medicine... Not that it matters.

How about a vote here??

• How many of you think: God knows why the guys here are worshiping the double blind test. We should not care about it!!!

Sign here

• How many of you think: The double blind experiment results r relevant but we must still look at all arguments?

Sign here

• How many of you think: Any fuzzy things in the article must be removed and the NPOV tag must be removed if the guys can't come up with a valid double blind test.

Sign here

• How many of you think: I refuse to vote because this poll somehow seems unfair.

Sign here

Do we have a Wikipedia policy or guideline about how articles about topics that cant pass a double blind test need to be dealt with. If we don't it is really sad.

After all you can have an argument about whether there are purple crows and have a never ending debate and pretend as if there is 50-50 probability that some crows are purple. It is not the burden of active wikipedians to resolve the conflict.

Of course I am not trying to claim that the debate about Homeopathy is that light. It definitely deserves much more respect. But my respect to the defenders diminishes when they conveniently try to ignore the double blind test.

Sudarshan. 59.92.207.212 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is something I am missing. However, I think you will not find much argument against the double blind test among regular contributors to this article. The article clearly says little if any evidence has ever been found for the efficacy of homeopathy in major carefully-designed well-controlled studies. Anyone who does not acknowledge that will probably not enjoy editing this article.--Filll 15:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You indeed missing something... Maybe I was not clear... I quote your own sentence: "Wow, so much effort with so little constructive result!"

I just landed on this page by chance... And had a look at the talk page and saw many people arguing even when no double blind test successes could be cited. So I just began to wonder, why it is job of the regular wikipedian to convince each one of these users about what matters and what does not.

Ultimately I am sure, It will be very hard for pseudoscience to prevail on Wikipedia. But still the question is at what cost. The guys who come and jump around the most are ones who are rarely "regular contributors". You guys are lucky for now. But imagine one year later, when the wikipedia user base is even more diluted... you will have a dozen homeo-fanatics demanding a ten page discussion about why each one of their references is considered valuable by them. Then 6 regular guys will have to sit here "proving" why the new edits don't belong to the article... While still not adding any real value. They could have spent that time writing articles from literature to astronomy or spent the time improving the article.

I was just looking around who the contributors were, just out of curiosity. The fun part is that I stumbled across this page: User:Debbe

I am very much fedup with the behaviours of the editors. Most of them are ignorent, not having sufficient knowledge with the technical subjects, lacking in the sufficient knowledge about the subject matters.They are making very big blunders and I have seen that that very serious subjects are edited by the 22 years old students, who are challenging the research of the 90 years old personalities. It is a matter of sorry stage. By the act of these so called intelligent editors, wikipedia is going to be unsafe for reference purposes, and I think if we have not done any concrete steps against these anomalies, one day will come, when the collected matters wil be seen as unreliable sources.

I wont comment over all the humor and the grammar ;-). Anybody is free to enter and exit Wikipedia and feel anything about it. But if the 90 year olds can't produce suitable references, their sciences or pseudo sciences better remain out of wikipedia. The funnier thing is that I hear exactly the same arguments about wikipedians on Citizendium where the 22 year olds are bashed for their ignorance. Of course this time, the Experts are usually real experts who got pissed off by the amateurishness of Wikipedia.

I would like to see the disputed tag off that page and things being done to make this a GA or FA. You guys seem to be busy at work... All the best. Well I too could have spent this time contributing rather than chattering here... It is just that I hate it when every moron demands a never ending argument... The article more or less looks ok But an NPOV tag on an article makes it look like the NPOV is due to the bias against homeopathy.

-- Sudarshan 59.92.157.129 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents. But as you yourself noted, this sort of blather is not really helpful when the article itself and the daughter articles do not even contain English sentences or definitions for many of the terms that are you used. Just opining like this on all sides does not move us forward. Lets write something first, then argue. If you only want to argue, go away. There is too much work to do for that at this point. And after 5.5 years and endless effort, this article and its daughter articles are still pieces of poorly-written drivel. Let's fix the writing first. Then argue about balance etc.--Filll 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Having finally read through this mess

I have corrected a few problems here and there, but still many remain. I agree we need a scientific evaluation section, but it seems a bit lengthy for the material it has in it. In addition, why is there no mention of Jacques Benveniste there? If we are going to mention all the major evidence against homeopathy, why not even a sentence about this episode? That is one of the problems I have had all along with this article. Very poorly linked, lots of gaps, lousy English, poor organization, too long, etc.--Filll 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Put Jacques in there. So far, I've only made style edits for the most part, but it's time to get down to the rest. Not that wikilinks aren't mean to be overused -- the entire article does not need to be one big blue link. •Jim62sch• 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell, I do have a tendency to over-wikilink. But I am frustrated with uncommon or unusual terms with wiki articles and no links to them.--Filll 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but let's try to be judicious with our use of links. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from your talk page Filll

I assume you must be busy but there are still MANY issues and questions, points etc I have raised on the talk page that you have not responded to. I am idly doing nothing now and probably gonna go out so I will check back later...for example, the word practices, the issue about length of the critique and whether it should be mostly farmed out to a new article; the Randi thing which I think is cheap and trivial with no valid place in the article and much of the longwinded stuff in the critique could be trimmed back or summarised or farmed out. We need to do this and then maybe insert small pieces that are actually (ahem!) dare I say, about homeopathy itself!! thanks BTW the refs should go at the bottom which is where I have put them now Peter morrell 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Response, also copied from my (Filll's) talk page

I have been thinking about what to do with the history and techniques daughter articles, which are a mess as well. I am still far from happy with the main homeopathy article, but at least it sort of is starting to read like English, for a change. References still are quite lacking of course. I am glad to have your help and have not yet incorporated all of your ideas yet. I am not happy with how long winded the scientific criticism section is, but I am not sure that the consensus will allow it to be condensed at all or farmed out to another article. I suspect not. I want to describe the D, X, L, M etc system of describing concentrations more clearly, probably in the techniques article. I want to describe potentisizing more clearly, possibly in a short article. I am not sure that miasm belongs in the main article. Psora and some other articles that support this still stink. The Classical homeopathy article that was removed can still be mined for stuff. Many biographies are showing up as redlinks and need to be created. Related topics like those I first raised on the talk page have not yet been folded in and linked in. That Korean study can be mentioned but only if we can find out what the response has been by the community. The Homeopathy around the world daughter article is better, but still needs more work and has lots of gaps. Things are slowly evolving, hopefully in a positive direction. Now editors can actually read what the article is about and hopefully make reasonable suggestions (maybe not totally, but better than before).--Filll 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Other articles with material that were also erased include complex homeopathy and clinical homeopathy. Wow, so much effort with so little constructive result!--Filll 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I will dig out some stuff on potentization for you next and the scales they use...it was all in there last year! deleted by some ardent deletionist no doubt--also please tell me what I need for a costing comparison...e.g. imagine two tables one for Boiron one for Pfeizer...what do I list? number of employees? total turnover per annum, total profit? what else does this table need? think it over...then I can some folks onto it and get some actual data for this it will be a good exercise to see what type of 'David and Goliath scenario' really exists here in hard financial terms. I have several folks in mind who can get this, I will also ask some homeopaths about the Korean study and any known reactions to it. I can also get some financial info re some UK homeo manufacturers. More on this soon. How about doing the doctrine of signatures thing? sew those quotes in from those highly reputable academic med jnls...thanks Peter morrell 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Check out this wiki article Drug dynamization it's all we need it is all there! Peter morrell 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I linked it in. But it needs more work itself. I fixed it a bit, but it needs more. This whole family of articles is sort of in shocking shape.--Filll 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Things to remember

See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight. There are reasons why the article is critical. •Jim62sch• 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Boiron

Here is some data about the finances of world homeopathy...of possible use?

The world pharmaceuticals market • At the end of 2003, the world pharmaceuticals market was estimated at 466.3 billion dollars (manufacturer’s price), a 9% rate of growth with respect to 2002*. With 49% of the world market, North America is in the number one position, followed by the European Union (25%) and Japan (11%). • In the 13 largest consumer countries, the world sales of prescription drugs increased by 9.0% in 2002, reaching 275.8 billion dollars. An 11% increase was noted in the United States (147.4 billion dollars) while an increase of about 6.0% (60.0 billion dollars) was noted in the main European markets (Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Spain). • The self-medication market is estimated at 48.2 billion dollars*, that is 13.4% of the world pharmaceuticals market. This market covers a large range of therapeutic classes, in particular treatments applied to disorders of the respiratory apparatus, pain killers, vitamins, minerals and other food supplements. Europe is the leading market in world sales of OTC drugs with 15.3 billion dollars, followed by the North American market with 12.8 billion dollars. In France, the OTC drug market is estimated at over 770.5 billion euros*. Homeopathy: 0.3% of the world drug market With almost 1.5 billion euros (manufacturer’s price), the world sale of homeopathic drugs accounts for 0.3% of the world drug market. The growth potential for homeopathy is therefore considerable. Almost 70% of all homeopathic drugs are sold in Western Europe. France, with over 300 billion euros, is the largest homeopathy market in the world, followed by Germany (200 billion euros). 40% of the French have already been treated with homeopathy*, and 74% of the patients stated that they are “inclined to follow a homeopathic treatment if prescribed by their doctor”. Homeopathy has been making major advances in other regions such as the Mediterranean basin, South America, Eastern Europe or even India. Peter morrell 19:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it can be distilled properly, yes. But, that might lead to WP:OR, which we need to avoid. But, I'm guessing that someone has already done the math, so we just need to find it. •Jim62sch• 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have emailed some folks hope to report back on this...we need comparative data for Pfeizer or Roche...any ideas? is such data in the public domain? will try to get some next. The OR doesn't matter so much if what we have can be tightly referenced up Peter morrell 20:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh OMG here is Pfizer annual report: 2004 which is a very weighty document 68 pages! will try to find some drug market overviews in more summarized format. Peter morrell 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do Pfizer and Roche make homeopathic products? Otherwise there is great risk of OR and Syn. Be careful, especially since the manufacture of homeopathic products ((no active ingredients in the finished product, no real research, no real biological effects beyond the placebo illusion (and therefore no possibility of side effects)) bears no comparison to real pharmaceuticals ((real active ingredients in the finished product, loads of real well-controlled research, real documented effects beyond placebo (and therefore the possibility of side effects)). Two totally different matters. A synthesis (not allowed here) would not only involve OR, but dishonesty. -- Fyslee/talk 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I study the pharmaceutical industry, I would know this. Pfizer and Roche have OTC, diagnostic, and ethical pharmaceutical divisions. I'm pretty sure they roll up all of their sales numbers into one overall number. But Pfizer and Roche maybe make up 15% of total ethical pharmaceutical sales in the world (if that high). If you're looking for an overall number I can get one, but I'm confused as to what you're asking or trying to show? Orangemarlin 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an actual example for you to consider. Pfizer total revenues = 52.5 billion US$ in 2004; Boiron total revenues = 100 million US$ in 2006. This means that Pfizer is 52,500/100 times bigger than Boiron = 525 times bigger and Boiron can be considered to be 1/525 = 0.00191 of Pfizer. Comparisons of this kind MIGHT be useful in the section about costs of homeopathic treatment. Peter morrell 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if done on a per-capita basis comparing number of users of modern medicine vs homeopathic medicine, number of customers for Pfizer vs. number of customers for Boiron, etc., and that has to have been compiled by an external source or else it's OR. So far what we have here is a comparison of apples and rocks. •Jim62sch• 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Boiron's income in 2006 was $US 547 million, not $100 million. see here •Jim62sch• 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Man am I in the wrong business! Selling expensive water is pretty profitable. Evian backwards should have been a homeopathic brand! -- Fyslee/talk 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from above

Not sure of its significance:

This is from Madeleine Ennis

I would like to say that I find this article to be atypically good for a controversial topic. There's no need to have two-sides to this. There are not two sides. Science does not recognize belief systems which go against logic and observed effects as being valid. There is no evidence of homeopathy working. It goes against well established scientific principals. It is rejected and has been rejected by mainstream science. End of story. If you want to add a pro-homeopathy section, you may as well as a "pro-flat-earth" section to the planetary science article in Wiki. -DrBuzz0

Any comments?--Filll 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have some comments. This is Wikipedia and the articles here are of an encyclopedic nature, unlike articles in other places, whether in print or on the internet. What (generic) you and I might write elsewhere, including our respective websites, blogs, MySpace profiles, etc., are one thing, and this is another animal entirely. Here we are required (and properly so) to cover subjects from all angles, presenting (without endorsement) all notable majority and minority POV. We basically document the existence of all POV without taking sides.

The NPOV policy requires the inclusion of POV that we might personally find offensive, false, deceptive, untrue, etc.. POV from one side are presented, and POV from other sides are also presented. Readers are then left to make up their own minds. If written properly, an article will likely fail to change the mind of a person who already has a firm belief in an idea, no matter how false it is, but they should come away from their reading a more enlightened person, having read POV that they may never have read before. If they are true believers they will resolve their cognitive dissonance in an improper manner and remain believers in their favorite nonsense. They may even be immune to cognitive dissonance. Those who are in an unenlightened or wavering state of mind may be impressed by one or more POV and take a stand one way or the other. It is not our job to make up their minds for them, just to present them with the existing options.

Thus the suppression and deletion of well-documented opposing (to our own) POV is an extreme violation of NPOV. If the obnoxious POV is documented properly by all the rules here, it should be included, and we should support such inclusion. That's why I find the existence of many articles on alternative medicine to be important here. They usually are about nonsensical methods and deceptively dangerous practices, but they should be covered here. Not only is (should!) the nonsense presented without endorsement, counterarguments are (should!) also be presented. What irks me most is when true believing editors consistently delete or suppress those POV that expose their nonsense for what it is. They do not understand NPOV. -- Fyslee/talk 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. Peter morrell 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

weak support

Copying from the article: Consequently, critics of homeopathy frequently describe it as pseudoscience[9] and quackery.[10] These two references are very weak to support such a statement. If you read these documents you can see that 1. they do not strongly support the definite characterisation of homeopathy as pseudoscience and quackery and 2. they refer to other biased documents you can’t trust. Are these our best references for such a strong characterisation? Because if this is the case, then there is a problem with this statement. What about WHO? 91.140.45.151 07:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The refs are to notable critics, so there is no problem there. The wording is now slightly altered to make it more appropriate. Even stronger words are commonly used by critics about homeopathy and its believers, but those two words are sufficient here, unless we want to provide more examples....? What about WHO? Does it also make critical statements? -- Fyslee/talk 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The WHO has recognised that it exists. No more, no less. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft para on potencies

Here is a draft para about potncy...maybe its too long I will reference it...in due course...

Though Hahnemann used small doses of drugs compared to his colleagues, [1] he did not start actually potentising them until the year 1798, [2] eight years after the first drug proving. [3] He recommended 1/500 for Belladonna in the treatment of Scarlet fever in an essay of 1801 [4]. Clearly about this time and for several further years he was experimenting in general with dose reduction. It is claimed this was to remove the potent and troubling side-effects his similar dugs elicited when given for the correctly matching sickness. [5] In due course he developed the centesimal or c scale of one part in 100 either as one grain of solid in 100 grains of milk sugar or as one drop of plant tincture in 100 drops of 30% alcohol. [6] In brief this is how the vast bulk of homeopathic remedies were prepared and most of them still are. Other homeopaths developed the decimal or x scale of 1 in 10. Towards the end of his life Hahnemann then produced the LM or Q scale using 1 drop to 50,000 drops. This he used from the year 1835 to 1843 [7] and has more recently come back into fashion and is reported as the most gentle method extant as it is claimed to elicit the fewest side-effects or aggravations.[8] Peter morrell 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe afterall this can go in a fork? history section perhaps? I have now fully referenced it but I'm afraid it has mutated into a 'humdinger' I overdid the references a bit so I won't post it yet cuz of length :-/ but I can place it here later if you so wish? just let me know or I can place it on some unsuspecting talk page say. thanks Peter morrell 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to slip it in the history article. Or at least some of it. That really still has a lot of holes in it and I think, at least to me, is the most interesting of all these articles. This subject is a bit overwhelming, and this writing task is gargantuan because so much of the English in the field is so contorted and laden with ill-defined terms that it is hard to ferret out the essential basic meaning. Of course, that is where Wikipedia can do the world a tremendous service.--Filll 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some things edited out to be reconsidered

• Since its inception homeopathy has received criticism on scientific and medical grounds, and no scientific studies have conclusively shown its efficacy
• Results of clinical trials of homeopathic remedies are almost all negative, and those showing positive results are found to have methodological problems. Results from well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials with large populations have always been negative.
• The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807.
• Unlinking 'Principle of similars' from law of similars
• Unlinking John Paterson and Charles Edwin Wheeler and James Kent
• unlinking successed

Comments?--Filll 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean here succussed not successed...the action of shaking the medicinal solution hard or banging it against a leather saddle. It was all in the article last summer. the rest fine go ahead. Peter morrell 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the tensions and trouble here, I want to get a couple more opinions before I shove this stuff back in that was summarily removed from the version I had been creating. I want to sort of feel I am working from a consensus of opinions.--Filll 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusively brings nothing to the party.

Provide a diff for item two.

First brings nothing to the party as it is implied.

Law of similars is already linked (in fact it was linked in several places). You really need to be cognizant of overlinking.

Unlinking John Paterson and Charles Edwin Wheeler and James Kent -- they were all red-links, there are no articles on them (just a hastily-posted entry on a disambig page for Paterson, and a link to the wong guy on Kent). If you or someone else creates an article on them, then you can link it. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links

"Succusion" is already linked. Remember, WP is not a link farm, nor a dictionary, nor a thesaurus. •Jim62sch• 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Someone deleted the italic pieces in the first two points, I guess to try to make the article less negative towards homeopathy I guess. Check out these diffs: [13] and [14]. I understand the need for balance, but I am not sure where this balance lies, or at least the consensus. I hear you about the overlinking. However, it was terribly underlinked before. And also many of these terms are quite uncommon so I feel the need to remind myself and the readers of what they are. Of course, minimizing this underlinking is appropriate.--Filll 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas for inclusion look good to me. Gtadoc 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim

This section you altered is a quote! It aims "to build up a well rounded picture of the individual," as you can maybe now see? so it will have to go back to the quoted phrase I think. Peter morrell 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Jim after last revert

1. At least in American English, we commonly refer to sodium chloride as table salt. Salt or common salt is in fact, ambiguous. 2. One of the sentences you reverted is now no long longer English, as far as I can tell. 3. The other sentence makes very little sense to me and seems poorly grammatically structured. I am willing to listen to what others say of course on this.--Filll 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Table salt reads unscientifically to me; and realistically, do you say either pass the table salt or pass the common salt? No, it'd really be better as just salt since other tyes of salt(s) are specified if one is refwerring to say, potassium salt, calcium salt, etc.

As for the other two, could you at least provide diffs so I know what you're talking about? •Jim62sch• 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured out what you were talking about: I missed the extraneous "of", and the "given that" sentence was a bit awkward. Sorry about that. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Drug dynamization

Anyone mind if I take this article out back and shoot it, then take what coherent parts can be extracted, merge them with succussion into an article at potentization or suchlike? I ask, because, frankly, the thing's completely unreadable, bordering on Wikipedia:Patent nonsense in places (That's not intended as an attack on homeopathy, it's literally incomprehensible.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Peter won't mind. I have to agree, they both need to be boiled down to reasonable English, with good references. If you think you can fit them both together in one reasonable, understandable article, I would say go for it. I wanted to, but I was not looking forward to trying to clean it up.--Filll 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've combined them into the pre-existing article Homeopathic techniques. That article could potentially be longer, but at least it's readable, and relatively NPOV as it stands after my editing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll, neither you, me, Peter, or Adam own this article. If Adam thinks it's a good idea, and others agree, it isn't a one-vote veto like the United Nations. I'm still greatly troubled by the article's NPOV. I've just decided to watch and see where it ends up. Because you have endeavored to convert this article into more of a historical one, I will have to amp up the critique sections slightly to reduce undue weight given to unconfirmed (not sure if I'm using the right word) therapies. Orangemarlin 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, none of us owns this article. I just hope that we can continue to edit this family of articles in a reasonably consensual manner and turn them into readable English so the readers can understand the claims. I also think the controversy should also be clearly described. If you look at how far we have come in a week, it is very impressive. We have made more changes in the last 1 week than in any other 1 month period in the article's 5.5 year history. It is far more readable than when we started. The references, although still quite lacking, are moving in a positive direction. To shine the light of clarity on a subject which has the kind of expository and professional literature that homeopathy has is to do a great service. There is so much confusion and so much obscure terminology and writing that it is hard to ferret out what the claims and techniques are of this field from reading the material in the field.--Filll 13:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do mind. It is much better and more reasonable to revise a pre-existing article than to simply delete whole swathes of stuff because one editor or another does not have any knowledge of this subject and so is pig ignorant, which is exactly what vandal cuerden did with a host of bios and other stuff some months back. This is outright vandalism. I find his cavalier and abrasive attitude completely out of place and do not trust his edits. He knows nothing about this subject, wants to see it destroyed and has a cynical disregard for the useful content of these articles. His comments and serious interefering with articles such as vithoulkas amount to nothing more than deliberate vandalism. He should be banned from editing anything outside his main areas of knowledge, if he has any. Can we please have the drug dynamization article back? Peter morrell 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At a certain point, we have to create consensus, or we're all going to be getting on each other. Adam threw out a proposal. It is best to come to an agreement of what establishes a balance. Orangemarlin 05:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with adam, apart from looking like they were written by a 2 year old, those articles are better kept condensed into one article, where the techniques can be read about in context. ornis 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. He did NOT throw out a proposal he deleted a whole article (which he has done many times before) an article which was basically sound even though his limited brain power cannot see that. If someone has strong anti views on this subject and knows almost zilch about it then I would suggest that unqiuely qualifies them to stay on the sidelines completely. My views matter only because I know a great deal about this subject and you are in danger of going back to what that infantile twerp did to these articles back in March along with his weird friends. He delights in this type of contention, totally delights in it. You are deluded if you think he is a respected editor. He is not. he should get a life out of wiki. Peter morrell 05:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not going to respond to that. Have a read of WP:NPA. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He would do well to reply to what I said and to list all his previous 'crimes' in wikipedia for example and reveal the type of unpleasant activity he has been endlessly engaged in against articles like this one. His track record speaks for itself. Come on, Adam, tell all! If he genuinely has nothing to confess, then he has nothing to fear about being open and transparent with everyone here about his previous editing track record. I stand by my previous comments. Deleting numerous bios, whole swathes of stuff, whole articles, usually on very flimsy pretexts and enagaging in unnecessary edit wars with decent and knowledgeable folks, well I'm sorry but this is NOT good editing, never has been and never will be, it is in fact pure unbridled vandalism.Peter morrell 06:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've trimmed drug dynamisation and two other related articles into... well... basically the readable parts of the three. Unfortunately, large sections of it were written so poorly that there was no way to salvage them, and... well, I don't think, in all honesty, the end result is quite NPOV - it needs more of Homeopathy's view of things, and more about succussion. However, on the upside, the end result is readable by laymen.

The major loss was a discussion of potency, how the amount of dilution, succussion, and other things affect it, and on the different theories of increasing it. The discussion couldn't explain a single theory coherently, nor did it even bother to explain the purpose of succussion, though it did quote at length a description of a homeopath applying succussion to a vial at a random point. If someone can talk coherently about these subjects, and add it to the article, please do.

I hesitate to say this, because I just know Peter's going to attack me over it, but the article as it stands is probably unduly negative, for the simple reason that so much of the homeopathic discussion was unsalvagable. I don't think we should remove the skeptical parts, but we should certainly expand the homeopathic discussion, if we can do so in a way that attempts to explain things to the layman. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, it must be said that the negativity is also partially because of a lack of any homeopath actually trying to put forth the homeopathic side. For instance, this is the last version of succussion before I redirected it Note that it nowhere says what the purpose of succussion is, why it's done, nor explain the rationale used to justify it.

And this is what I had to work with.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire! I am not attacking you, I was attacking your longstanding tendency to make dramatic, irreversible and unnegotiated changes to articles on what appear to be flimsy grounds. That was all. Judicious, prudent changes to articles can only be welcomed by all sides if they are justified. And if they are made by someone who is not pushing a POV and who knows the subject. Dramatic changes to articles and wholesale deletions of biographies, usually without notice, 'offences' you have repeatedly committed, are NOT sound editorial processes. This at least you should candidly admit. However, if you want something "from the homeopathic side," as you put it, then I can supply some info about the succussion and dynamization of homeopathic drugs and the rationale behind that. I already supplied a short piece on this, but you promptly deleted it in about 12 hours! Certainly, I can rehash it, but give me some time. BTW the references to that piece were entirely drawn from impeccable and the most authoritative sources, even thought they are texts that are not as yet online. thank you. Peter morrell 08:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that you didn't know about the history tab until a couple days ago, one wonders how much your definition of "irreversible" reflects reality. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing we can do is to restore the 5 or 10 of these articles that still contain useful information in sandbox form so they easily can be mined and worked on by all concerned.--Filll 11:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Filll. I wish you woldn't butt in when you don't know what you're talking about. He's talking about me suggesting some forks and bad articles for AfD a while ago. The irredemable ones and the POV forks got deleted - actually, some were just redirected, e.g. Classical homeopathy - the others ended up improved enough that it didn't matter. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on Adam

Talking of 'reflecting reality,' let's get you to start telling the truth, Adam: in truth, you hate homeopathy and have been on a crusade to destroy these artciles, haven't you? you and your pro-science ilk equate homeopathy as a deviant evidence-free belief system akin to creationism, which is really quite laughable. They are very different beasts, laddie. All your previous wiki crimes have been aimed at destroying homeopathy and poking fun at those decent people who use it, study it and endorse it. Why don't you just come clean and admit what your game is? then we can all know forsure out in the open what your unpleasant little mind games with other editors since about february have been all about. Otherwise all your longwinded carping on about spurious definitions and POV are meaningless trash. Homeopathy is a subject with its own right to exist without science freaks like you crawling all over it; get over it and find something else to whinge about. Meantime, what are your personal goals with this article, Filll? reveal all. Peter morrell 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice of RFC

I hate doing these things, but, well, what else can one do? It's at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project

For those of you who are familiar with the Parapsychology article (now good article, soon to be FA hopefully), I propose that the same thing be done to this article. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. If anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles, they should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles however hopefully we can turn this and related homeopathy articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If anyone here is willing to engage in such a project then please let me know and I will tell you more about how it will work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think this a great idea. You're generally a very good editor, and we could use your input. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to assist. I have wondered for a while if this is really the only way to go here. Do it in a sandbox, and then when consensus is hammered out, then replace the article in the mainspace with the new version. --Filll 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help, within the limits of available time and rudimentary knowledge. --Art Carlson 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Count me in. •Jim62sch• 11:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for editors

Here are a few questions for the major editors of this page. Anyone who has in the past and plans to contribute in the future can answer these questions. The questions will be very simple and the answers should be very simple. Please put a * right below each question if you are the first to answer and right below each answer after that. Here are the questions.

Do you believe Homeopathy as a whole, including it's methods and basis, is controversial both within and outside the scientific community(Controversial doesn't necessarly mean invalid or fraudulently)?

• Definitely.--Filll 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely. •Jim62sch• 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Both yes and no; of course, it is not controversial within alt. med. or within its own paradigm/worldview, ONLY outside these intellectual spaces is it controversial. Peter morrell 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• much of the scientific community doesn't really care. There is very little support within the scientific community so I don't think it would really count as controversial any more than say aether.Geni 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Although the degree of controversy within the scientific, as opposed to the medical community may be very small. --Art Carlson 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• As a passé theory (like the flat earth theory) it is ignored as a historic artifact and may not generate much comment within academia, but among those scientists, doctors and scientific skeptics who patrol the borders separating sense (science) from non-sense (non-science, ie. alternative medicine) it is the subject of universal scorn. So it is extremely controversial when anyone tries to revive it within scientific circles, call it "scientific", or sneak it back into modern medical practice. -- Fyslee/talk 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that in order to follow NPOV, Wikipedia must represent the relevant criticisms corresponding to the amount of criticisms existing as a whole?

• Approximately.--Filll 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• In other words following the Undue Weight provisions. •Jim62sch• 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes and no; homeopathy is a subect in its own right and MUST NOT be molested by 'science zealots' who have a passionate and skewed POV about it; this is exactly what has RUINED this article so many times. Maybe place criticisms at the end, please? Far too much weight in the current article is given to chemical criticisms of the subject which are not rooted in empirical use of the method; too much condemnation based solely upon armchair theorising... Peter morrell 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• depends.Geni 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. That's what NPOV means, isn't it? --Art Carlson 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• NPOV requires that all aspects of the subject be presented, but not sold. WEIGHT requires that the article give the majority scientific POV the greatest degree of coverage....ahhh....just read it for yourselves here! -- Fyslee/talk 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that several related articles could be merged into this article?

• No, I believe that this article is already too long and needs to be shrunk/shortened if anything.--Filll 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Filll; a let's get the article into a nice, clean, concise format. •Jim62sch• 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• No, I think a nest of articles would be preferred with all the core info going into the main article. Peter morrell 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• No.Geni 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Don't know. I certainly do believe that all homeopathy related articles should be coordinated and edited in the light of the others. --Art Carlson 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of the article, are you willing to make compromises?

• Definitely.--Filll 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Of course, so long as we cover the issue according to WP:VER and WP:NPOV•Jim62sch• 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Of course -- as long as folks do not make dramatic & unnegotiated edits as we have seen so many times before. It is this above all else that generates frustration and ultimately spawns uncivil behaviour. Peter morrell 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• compromises on what?Geni 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Not at the cost of reliability and NPOV, of course. --Art Carlson 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Please answer all questions right beside the * and use a new * below each answer for new answers. Please keep your answers short. Maximum 3 sentences. Preferably a "Yes" or "No though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a few days for a lot of people to respond to these answers before I even start taking time to work on a new version of this page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Questions and Answers

It is interesting for me to read the other answers above. Although someone outside science and academia might not realize the position that homeopathy holds in the scientific world, believe me, it is plenty controversial. Any scientist who tried to make these kinds of claims with the kind of evidence that exists would be ending his career, and would quickly be sidelined as deranged or incompetent or worse. It is NOT just the medical community, believe me. You cannot claim to have something that violates atomic theory that you are championing and have no solid scientific peer-reviewed verified repeatable evidence for it, and expect to keep a scientific career. And aether is plenty controversial, believe me. However, few are practicing aetherologists and charging people money for aether therapy, so it is a mute point. Unfortunately, the NPOV, WEIGHT and UNDUE INFLUENCE guidelines mean that this article must include a large dose, and maybe even a majority of material, from "science zealots". I also suggest that lengthening this article further by including more material will really create a mess and produce an inaccesible product. --Filll 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "ending careers," Jacques Benveniste and Andrew Wakefield are good examples of such scientific suicides. Not only did they back ideas that were either nonsensical or dangerous, there were also unethical aspects to their cases. Benveniste is no longer with us and Wakefield's case is still unrolling in the media. His fate in history (just like Benveniste's) won't be a good one. -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article length

I have wondered about the length of this article for a while. Before I started, the article was around 90KB. I then trimmed it down, mostly by farming out material to subsiduary daughter articles (which are still in terrible shape, by the way), to about 62KB. This main article has rapidly ballooned back to 68KB in a few days (however, most of this was new material in the "safety" section, which is probably quite important).

The scientific criticism section seemed excessively long and excessively wordy to me, so I decided to measure it. I copied and pasted it to Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism where I found it is "only" about 23KB long, which is shorter than I would have thought. The safety section, which might be viewed as a criticism section as well, is about 7KB. The remaining material, which contains a small amount of reference to the controversy, is therefore about 38KB.

I might note that the "recommended length" of articles is about 32KB, from Wikipedia:Article size. Therefore, even at present, the article is over twice the suggested length.

As we move forward, I think we should think about how long we want the main article to be, what material is really central to the core description of homeopathy, and what is ancillary material that can be shunted off to some daughter article, or a short article that defines some term or concept.

I also agree with User: Orangemarlin that these "alternative medicine" main articles do need a good measure of cautionary material and description of their controversial status, for ethical reasons if nothing else. I also believe that the daughter articles should refer to the controversial status of these treatments, even at the cost of some repetition.

I personally think that this main article is still pretty bulky. A couple of sections I would advocate trimming down and/or farming out.

Points to ponder:

• Can the scientific criticism section be made tighter, with less wordy descriptions of the procedures in a couple of sections? Some seemed to just drag on and on.
• Can the scientific criticism be summarized, and the longer descriptions placed in another article?
• Can the miasm theory be treated in another article?
• Can the misconceptions about homeopathy be made shorter, and the longer description be put in another article?

I am not sure what the optimal length for this article would be. I personally favor something reasonably concise and easy to read for the main article, which would serve as the introduction to the entire topic for Wikipedia.

However, this is not some effort to dumb the article down, but to make this topic more readable and accessible. To be honest, the vast majority of the readership will not want to slog through a 100KB+ article. I do not favor reducing the total net amount of material, but in sequestering the more detailed and specific portions into other daughter articles, which can be read if further information is desired.

The apparent desire on this article to lump ALL the information into one super gargantuan (150 KB? 200 KB ? 300 KB?) monster that still leaves out a huge amount of important detail is really bizarre to me. Why does this desire exist? What purpose would it serve? Granted, one could police the resulting integrated article against vandals easier and more conveniently than watching a handful of articles (which some might dismiss as "forks"). However, it would not serve the readership well.

I think that probably 90% of the article's readers will only read the first paragraph or two at most. About 95% will only read the article's LEAD. About 99% will only read the main article itself. Only a few will read any significant number of the family of articles on any given topic. Given this sort of pattern, should we not endeavor to structure the articles on this topic accordingly? --Filll 12:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT would require a majority of the article to be the skeptical coverage. -- Fyslee/talk 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's go through, section by section...

Lead

Needs a rewrite. But that's true of most articles below FA.

History

choppy section. says very little for its length, which is already short. Notably, the sentences "The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and appeared in print in 1807.[12] Hahnemann's main opus in homeopathy was the book, The Organon of Medicine. Hahnemann published five editions of this work between 1810 and 1842.[13] This marked the birth of modern homeopathy." seem obsessed with publishing details, as well as repeating themselves repeatedly. Does "This marked the birth of modern homeopathy" actually mean anything?

General philosophy

Good, but too short. Should be combined into an integrated discussion.

Law of similars

about 75% of sentences in this section contain the phrase "The law of similars". I don't think people's memory for the subject under discussion is quite that bad. Again, not enough context, should be combined into a more general discussion. Quote doesn't seem to add much.

Types of remedies

This article is written by antiquarian book collectors! I swear! I mean, REALLY, what do these sentences add: " Hahnemann recorded his first 'provings' of 27 preparations in his book Fragmenta de viribus in 1805. Later, Hahnemann published Materia Medica Pura, which contained provings of a further 65 preparations. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Hahnemann was involved in another phase of proving in preparation for the publication of his book, "The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure"[21]. The Chronic Diseases were published in 1828 and contained provings of 48 further preparations.[22] ...James Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are added to contemporary versions." The "imponderables" section seems like it should be in "Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy" (where I may well move it)

Choosing remedies

Chatty, and the main references are online advertisements by homeopaths. Should probably be deleted.

Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy

I'd integrate this with "General philosophy/Law of similars/ Types of remedies (sans the antiquarian bookseller)

Miasms as cause of disease

Eh, I can live with this. A touch of the antiquarian bookseller, though.

Classical versus non-classical homeopathy

I'm not really sure this section says anything useful in a basic article.

Composition of homeopathic remedies

Lose this, we shouldn't speculate on what the readers misconceptions might be. Combine anything useful into the explanation of treatments, but let's not have a section that basically says "I bet you're so stupid you believe...."

Homeopathy and vaccination

Same critique as above, but I'm not sure whether it's worth fusing this.

And there I'm going to pause. May I cut "Hahnemann recorded his first 'provings' of 27 preparations in his book Fragmenta de viribus in 1805. Later, Hahnemann published Materia Medica Pura, which contained provings of a further 65 preparations. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Hahnemann was involved in another phase of proving in preparation for the publication of his book, "The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure"[21]. The Chronic Diseases were published in 1828 and contained provings of 48 further preparations.[22] ...James Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are added to contemporary versions." and/or move the Misconceptions of homeopathy section to the talk page? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK by me...we can salvage any 'good bits' later? Peter morrell 12:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I'll put everything moved here, in case I mess up. I've done a little rearrangement just now, but I haven't deleted everything. Miasms probably needs a slight re-write to integrate the new paragraph a bit better, but it should fit in there comfortably. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That should've read "anything" but, never mind. I have deleted some bits. They're below. Add back anything you wish, particularly the bit labelled "To be added back in" Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one more thing: anyone else notice that the criticism section entitled "Mechanism of action of homeopathic preparations" actually has nothing to do with the mechanism of action of homeopathic preparations? I'm inclined to cut that section too. I think I will! No showing favouritism, after all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Format of article

I've found this type of format to be very helpful in articles such as Parapsychology in prevent ballooning of the article due to constant criticism vs replies vs criticism continuing to be added on. Basically it works like this, In accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV the article is put into 2 parts. The first part of the article explains and elaborates on what homeopathy is, how it's supposed to work, work done with homeopathy etc. The second part of the article deals exclusively with criticism of homeopathy. The two sections are exclusive and do not blend together or intermingle. There is no criticism in the first part and there is no response to criticism in the second part. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This might work, and is essentially what we have now, except the LEAD of course must be a short version of the whole article, with a section on what it is, and a section that explains that it is controversial.--Filll 20:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead would reflect the article. 2 segments, first describing homeopathy and it's history and work, second criticism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent format. The description of what it is should be presented neutrally, and the controversy around it should also be presented neutrally. All from V & RS that are definitely not neutral, but are partisan from opposing POV. Wikipedia is neutral on who is right or wrong, and just presents the subject. -- Fyslee/talk 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me find sources, I'll tag what needs them

I'm going to go through the article and tag the segments that need sources the most. I want everyone here to help by providing sources for the material before I start using the articles material for my rewrite. If something I tag doesn't need a source as it's already sourced somewhere else then just let me know, or simply source it with the same sources. Everyone needs to help with this ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Choosing remedies

I think this section's references are, at least, questionable - too much linking to advertisements.

The typically 1-2 hour-long homeopathic consultation, involves questions regarding one's physical, mental and emotional state, one's life circumstances and presenting physical/emotional illness. and then translates a person's entire health status into a complex of mental and physical symptoms, likes and dislikes and innate predispositions. It aims to develop a comprehensive representation of the individual's overall health, which can then be compared with similar established data in the drug provings found in the homeopathic materia medica. Assisted by further dialogue with the patient, the homeopath then aims to find the one drug most closely matching the 'symptom totality' of the patient.

(cut paragraph, moved elsewhere in article)

Alternative modes of selecting remedies include medical dowsing or the use of psychic powers. However, these methods are controversial and not accepted by most homeopathic practitioners.

To put back in

This paragraph seemed badly misplaced, but it should go somewhere The 'law of similars' is the guiding principle behind homeopathic treatments. Homeopathic practitioners rely on two types of reference in prescribing, both of which are created using the 'law of similars'. The Homeopathic Materia Medicae are alphabetical indexes of drug pictures organized by remedy, which describe the symptom patterns associated with individual remedies. Also, a 'homeopathic repertory' consists of an index of sickness symptoms, listing all the remedies associated with specific symptoms.

Biblographic babblings

I think this is too detailed for a basic article, it may do for a sub-article Hahnemann recorded his first 'provings' of 27 preparations in his book Fragmenta de viribus in 1805. Later, Hahnemann published Materia Medica Pura, which contained provings of a further 65 preparations. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Hahnemann was involved in another phase of proving in preparation for the publication of his book, "The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure". The Chronic Diseases were published in 1828 and contained provings of 48 further preparations.

James Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are added to contemporary versions.

Classical vs. Clinical

It's hard to see what this sentence actually says, given that every single bit has a qualifier.

Many members of the public are unfamiliar with classical homeopathy, and equate both clinical and classical practices with homeopathy. Others are familiar with the classical approach but regard the nonclassical approach as a legitimate variant, while others do not.

I'm not sure this is true... I mean, I think I saw OTC homeopathy here in Britain, and I wouldn't say the NHS is that integrated.

Use of non-classical approaches is confined mainly to places where over-the-counter preparations are popular and where many doctors use natural medicines in a conventional clinical setting.

Mechanism of action of homeopathic preparations

Does not actually discuss the mechanism of action of homeopathic preparations.

Since homeopathic remedies at potencies higher than about D23 (10^-23) contain no detectable ingredients apart from the diluent (water, alcohol or sugar), there is no known chemical/scientific basis to date for them to have any medicinal action. Some tests suggest that potentized solutions up to D120 can have statistically significant effects on organic processes, including the growth of grain, histamine release by leukocytes, and enzyme reactions. These publications are very controversial since attempts to replicate some of these studies on leukocytes and enzymes have failed, even when using the potentization method. A recent review of tests of high potencies summarized the situation as follows: "...there are some hints from experimental research that homeopathic substances diluted and succussed beyond Avogadro's number are biologically active but there are no consistent effects from independently reproducible models.", although the referenced journal is not generally regarded as being of high scientific quality.

These positive studies are unusual since no effects of high dilutions are seen in the huge number of similar studies on other biological systems. Here, low doses of chemicals give small effects and high doses large effects. This simple dose-response relationship has been confirmed in many hundreds of thousands of experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats and humans.

(cut two paragraphs for use in article)

Misconceptions about homeopathy

The tone of these sections is condescending, I think we should work to integrate the information, rather than talk down to the reader.

Composition of homeopathic remedies

I don't think there's much to save in this one, except the image

Arsenicum album 200

It is a common misconception that homeopathy is akin to herbalism, and that homeopathic remedies consist of only natural herbal components. Herbs and plants are used, but homeopathy also uses non-biological substances such as salts and components of animal origin, such as the duck liver used to prepare the flu remedy oscillococcinum.

Another difference and source of confusion is that in herbalism, measurable amounts are used. By contrast, in homeopathy the active ingredient is diluted until it is no longer detectable, or even until the remedy is highly unlikely to contain any of the original active ingredient at all (i.e., when the dilution exceeds Avogadro's number).

(cut sentence) Some people have the opposite misconception, that homeopathic remedies are based only on toxic substances like snake venom or mercury.

As the term homeopathy is well known and believed to have good marketing value in some market segments, the public can be confused by those who have adopted the term for other therapies. For example, some companies combine homeopathic with non-homeopathic substances such as herbs or vitamins. Some products marketed as homeopathic might contain no homeopathic preparations at all. Classical homeopaths argue that only remedies created and prescribed in accordance with the Hahnemann principles can be called homeopathic. In addition, many producers of homeopathic remedies also make other types of alternative products under the same brand name, a practice that causes some confusion.

Homeopathy and vaccination

See also: Isopathy

To some, homeopathic treatments resemble vaccination, particularly when nosodes are used as remedies. They argue that vaccines contain a small dose of the "disease" against which they protect, similar to isopathic remedies made from nosodes:"a method of curing a given disease by the same contagious principle that produces it." A good example here is Lyssin prepared by potentizing the saliva of a rabid dog, first introduced and proved in 1833. However, since vaccines contain measurable amounts of dead or inactivated organisms that cause the disease, this analogy is considered inaccurate according to medical and scientific understanding.

(paragraph cut for use)

Homepathy around the world

This section is just too short. We could add it to the end of the lead or something, but it won't stand on its own.

Main article: Homeopathy around the world

The attitudes towards homeopathy vary around the world. Homeopathy is particularly popular in Europe and India, although less so in the United States. Stricter European regulations have also been implemented recently by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare.

You could add stuff from diff't countries that was in the article way back...perhaps salvage stuff from the wiki fossil beds?Peter morrell 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

When I start rewriting it I will probably add a lot of different stuff including expanding on the history section as well as other sections and cutting the article down to be more sleek. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the old parts are probably in Homeopathy around the world. However, this article suffers badly from over-sectioning, so I'd be inclined to fuse it to another section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If correctly written, an article can be probably cut in half as far as size goes and I have found numeorus other related articles that could easily be merged with this one, including articles that seem to contain the same redundant paragraphs over and over which are similar between articles. I've also found one that isn't even in English. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Critiques section

Should we really talk about individual studies in this much detail? It seems undue weight - Homeopaths put in ones they like to talk about in detail, the scientific side puts in other studies, and noone talks much about the metaanalyses that pull the information together and actually reach conclusions. And they delay more general discussion that is more relevant. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

British Medical Journal 1991 study

In 1991, three professors of medicine, Jos Kleijnen, Paul Knipschild and Gerben ter Riet from the Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research at the University of Limburg, Maastricht in The Netherlands, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines. They published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." They found evidence for successful treatment of respiratory and other infections, diseases of the digestive system, hay fever, rheumatological disease, mental or psychological problems and other ailments. In addition, they found evidence that homeopathic treatment helped patients recover after abdominal surgery and to address pain or trauma.

Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed. Still, researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy.

The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."

Lancet 2005 study

In August 2005, The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The outcome of this meta-analysis stated that the clinical effects of homeopathy are likely to be placebo effects.

This study is notable for its design, as a "global" meta analysis of homeopathy and not as an analysis of particular effects. It scientifically tested the global hypothesis that the reported effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. The hypothesis was that any reported positive effects of homeopathic treatments are probably due to placebo effects, publication bias, and observer effects, among others. Therefore, the magnitude of these reported positive effects of homeopathic treatments should diminish with sample size and study quality, with the best studies consistently showing no effect. The study tested this hypothesis. For comparison, a comparable set of conventional medical trials was subjected to an identical analysis. The homeopathic studies and the conventional medical trials were matched by disease type and sample size.

The Lancet study reported that the conventional tests showed a real effect independent of sample size, while the homeopathy studies did not, as would be expected if they were just due to assorted types of bias or statistical fluctuation. The Lancet accompanied the meta-analysis with invited editorials.

European Journal of Cancer 2006 study

In January 2006 the European Journal of Cancer published a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio- and chemotherapy. Three of the trials included were randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors were from the Departments of Complementary Medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. Their analysis found no evidence to support the use of homeopathic remedies in cancer treatment recovery.

Basophil stimulation

Madeleine Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University Belfast, and her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These cells, called basophils, release histamine when they are stimulated. However, exposure to histamine stops these cells releasing any more, an example of negative feedback regulation. Three of the four participating groups observed this inhibitory effect with homeopathic solutions of histamine, solutions so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule. These low-dilution effects were seen in six of the 24 independent sets of experiments (Table 1 of paper). A later investigation, attempting to replicate these results, failed to find any significant effect from these ultra-dilute solutions.

Homeopathy and The James Randi Million Dollar Challenge

Due to the lack of any concrete scientific evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than a placebo, the skeptic James Randi has included homeopathy in the list of candidates for his million dollar challenge. He will give a million dollars to anyone who can prove in a controlled, double-blind test, that homeopathy actually works. To date not a single person has done so. However, in 1999 a multi-lab effort directed from France reported marginal-but-positive results.. Following-up on this experiment, an international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University Belfast claimed to have succeeded,. Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis' experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the Vice-President of the Royal Society, John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with the Horizon team failing to prove the memory of water. However, Ennis claimed that Horizon did not faithfully reproduce her experiment.

Refs at the bottom...

I believe that from now on we should start using direct linking format for citing sources. This makes it much easier to navigate through the talk page and much easier to start new topics. I have a feeling that new users as well as others are hesitant to post here because of the difficult navigation due to the long list of static references at the bottom. This is how it seems to be done in pretty much all talk pages on Wikipedia and for a good reason. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

when are you going to actually make a start? Has Filll abandoned the previous edit task? what is happening? it all seems to have gone dead. thanks Peter morrell 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like nothing is happening, however this is only because I am working on the new version of the article. I've been working yesterday and today and it probably won't be ready for a few more days, at which point I will probably leave a message on everyones talk page so that they can come to the talk page of the draft and they can give me suggestions on improving it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

excessive or unavailable: any numbers?

I wonder if the two views on the entry of homeopathy to the USA - that conventional medicine was unavailable, or hat it was "extremely excessive" which seems to suggest there was not a shortage of it might be more understandable if there were any actual numbers attached. How many doctors were there? Midgley 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that; it means its practices were excessive like using calomel, bleeding and purging...these heroic (and unsafe) practices were standard medical practice for at least the first half of the 19th century compared to which taking a few 'dissolve in the mouth' lactose pills seems a credible alternative! homeopathy was the preferred therapeutic modality in all the large urban areas and among all wealthy clientele in the US throughout the period in question. I can give you reputable references to back that up if you wish. Peter morrell 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This has hovered in the article for some time, and, frankly, I'm not sure which side put it up any more. So I think it's time we check: Is the article, as it stands, NPOV? If not, what's the problem?

Tags like that have a habit of setting in the article for months past when there's cause for them being there, and past when anyone remembers why they were there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I'm rewriting the article and doing a total over-haul on it anyway. We'll all work on it until there is no more disputes and then we'll replace it with this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

True. Never mind, then. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding pics, I have sent a pile through, please let me know of other pics you might require, or ideas for pics, thanks Peter morrell 11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)