Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Symptoms are defenses

Friends, I inserted the following sentence in the introductory paragraph and it was undone (hey Infophile...who suggested that I bring this up at the Talk page). Here's what I wrote: "Because homeopaths (and many modern-day physiologists) understand symptoms to be defenses of a person in his or her efforts to respond to infection and/or stress, using a medicine that mimics the symptoms of a sick person are thought to augment the person's own defenses. One of the underlying principles of homeopathy is its respect for the inner wisdom of the body and its viewpoint that symptoms are defenses of the body in its effects to defend and heal itself (references: J.T. Kent; G. Vithoulkas; many others). Because the homeopathic "principle of similars" makes more sense once one acknowledges this assumption, I believe that this information should be at the top of the article. Let's chat about this... DanaUllman^Talk 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the "Law of similars" section is 1 paragraph and is short on information and citations, this seems an appropriate piece to place there. The generality in the current lead, that "Homeopathic practitioners contend that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness" is accurate without delving into the complex justifications practitioners claim in support of the law of similars and such. — Scientizzle 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested before, this would be more appropriate for a daughter article on scientific justifications and analyses and criticisms etc of homeopathy. I would like to get those with so much extra energy involved in doing something constructive like writing that article instead of altering this article very much.--Filll (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While on this subject, I mentioned briefly rewording of this, so I'll clarify what I had in mind. At the beginning, I don't think the note about modern-day physiologists is particularly relevant here (though if we have an appropriate, reliable source stating this, it's reasonable). Secondly, the word "understand" gives the impression that this belief is the truth, whereas it's debatable at best. Something like "believe" would be better here. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, what part of that reference justifies your phrasing? Please provide a quote from that reference. I have looked, but am unsure what part you're referring to. We need a connection between your phrasing and the reference. Unless there's a clear connection, then it could be OR, but I'd like to hear your reasoning and see the evidence of a connection. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've heard this logic somewhere before, so I don't think it's entirely OR. Should just be a matter of finding the right source. I'll check if I can find something myself. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Checked what Hahnemann said on this, and his theories are different from what's presented here. He basically believed that the remedy would substitute itself for the disease's place in the body, pushing the disease out you could say. So the "symptoms as defenses" theory would have to have come after Hahnemann. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am especially interested in making sure Dana's phrasing is based on the source. I'm wondering where his "(and many modern-day physiologists)" part comes from. -- Fyslee / talk 06:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some symptoms are a defence. Many however such as cold sores are not. No physiologist would lump them in together.

Actually, thanx for that example. There is a significant body of research that shows that inflammation has an important defensive role in the body's efforts to fight infection. Hahnemann was a vitalist (a concept that not only emphasizes an energetic components of living things but also that living organisms develop symptoms in its best efforts to defend and heal itself). James Tyler Kent followed in this tradition, and in modern times, George Vithoulkas uses concepts of symptoms as defenses, thus creating the logic for using medicines that MIMIC these defenses. I do not think that anyone knowledgeable of homeopathy would deny that homeopaths respect symptoms as defenses, even though homeopaths will also be the first to recognize that it is not ususally enough to "let the body heal itself." Instead, the sick person needs some type of therapeutic measures that augment (or mimic) the body's defenses in order to overcome infection, environmental exposure, and/or stress.DanaUllman^Talk 07:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whooops...as for the many modern-day physiologists, one can begin with Walter B. Cannon ("The Wisdom of the Body"), go on to Hans Selye (the father of stress theory), and more recently, I appreciate the work of R. Nesse and G. Williams in their seminal book "Why We Get Sick: The Emerging Science of Darwinian Medicine" (they see symptoms as adaptation and evolutionary efforts of the organism to defend and heal and evolve). There is a serious body of work on fever, on inflammation, and even on high blood pressure...and on and on. DanaUllman^Talk 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree that there is something to it, and some very specific examples can no doubt be cited. My main concern here is your phrasing and it's connection with the source you used. What part of that source are you paraphrasing or using to justify your wording? My quibble here is not with the idea. -- Fyslee / talk 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, here's my proposal: "Because homeopaths (and many modern-day physiologists, such as Walter B. Cannon and Hans Selye) understand symptoms to be defenses of a person in his or her efforts to respond to infection and/or stress, using a medicine that mimics the symptoms of a sick person are thought to augment the person's own defenses.[1] One of the early and modern principles of homeopathy is its respect for the inner wisdom of the body and its viewpoint that symptoms are defenses of the body in its effects to defend and heal itself [J.T. Kent, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, 1900; G. Vithoulkas, The Science of Homeopathy. New York: Grove, 1980]" I'm a reasonable man and am more than willing to work with others to make this work, or this premise is basic to understanding homeopathic philosophy and practice. DanaUllman^Talk 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A few symptoms are defences, most are not. The life-threatening diarrhoea produced by cholera, the shortness of breath and chest pains of a heart attack, the loss of movement from a stroke, the loss of memory from Alzheimer's, coughing blood from tuberculosis, coma from cerebral malaria, even the stomach pain from an ulcer - none of these could be considered as defences. You can't suggest this as a general idea "are thought to be X", but must make it perfectly clear that these are fringe beliefs "homeopaths believe they are X" Tim Vickers (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This idea (symptoms are defenses) is by no means unique to homeopathy, but is also basic to naturopathy. It is a common and simplistic idea in alternative medicine. Unfortunately reality is much more complicated. That's one of the reasons "allopathic" is a true misnomer, since modern medicine is eclectic and doesn't follow any one rule, but tries to figure out what is really going on and goes with the flow of knowledge, ever changing as it learns. -- Fyslee / talk 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try - yet again - to get my point across. I am totally uninterested in a "proposal" or anything else. I just want my question answered. What part of that source are you paraphrasing or using to justify your wording? My quibble here is not with the idea. BTW, I agree with Tim Vickers, which is basically why I even questioned this to begin with. But right here the sourcing is the question, especially only one source, the one you used to begin with. -- Fyslee / talk 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you've got a great mind (and body of knowledge), but perhaps I have not been adequately clear. Homeopaths do not believe that a person's symptoms are always effective in healing him/herself, and in fact, we tend to assume that the bodymind is usually not effective in affecting a cure. It may more accurate to say that homeopaths (and many physiologists) believe that symptoms are the bodymind's best efforts to heal, though not always successful efforts to do so. Therefore, rather than use drugs that inhibit symptoms, homeopathic use drugs (nanodoses of them) to augment the body's defenses.

As a footnote, I encourage fellow editors to read the Nesse and Williams' book Why We Get Sick: The Emerging Science of Darwinian Medicine. This book links the body's symptoms as defenses to evolution of the species. (note to skeptics: homeopathy is not mentioned...I note this so that people don't assume that I am a homeo-aholic).

I wrote the above before I saw Fyslee's newest comment (we were writing at the same time)...bit it is now too late in the evening to consider an adequate response right now. DanaUllman^Talk 06:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree, Dana, that this idea has any merit whatsoever and it should not be included in this article. It is at best a marginal belief even within homeopathy (I bet most homeopaths have never even heard of the idea) and so I fail to see what possible purpose it could serve to include it. It is by no means a mainstream view as presented by Hahnemann. He regarded symptoms solely as an expression of the disordered vital powers and though homeopathy should employ agents that closely mimic those symptoms, that does not mean that the symptoms of themselves have any profound meaning or significance. He expressly distanced himself from that type of theorising in figures like Paracelsus, for example. It is purely speculative metaphysics to make such a contention, with which he had little truck because he was an empirical worker concerned primarily not with building up absurd and evidence-free theories about anything (an impulse in medicine which he repeatedly denounced), but because he was a pragmatist solely concerned with developing methods for healing the sick. I therefore reckon this idea is a dead duck and should be dropped. My 2 cents. Peter morrell 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have Vithoulkas' book (The Science of Homeopathy) in front of me. Pg 15- "These symptoms, or groups of symptoms, are erroneously called "diseases", when in reality they represent the result of the struggle of the defense mechanism to counteract the morbific stimulus" There is more in a similar vein throughout the book. So, what he is suggesting is the homeopath's view is that symptoms are the result of defence mechanisms, they are not themselves the defence mechanisms. So, Peter is sort of right and Dana is more wrong than right when citing Vithoulkas. Conventional medicine encompasses this idea but can also encompass the idea of symptoms that are not the result of the defence mechanisms. Homeopathy presents as a complete and generally applicable principle something that is only a subset of the real situation. I would not object to reference being made to symptoms as defence but this should be balanced by evidence that falsifies its status as a general principle. Indeed, inclusion of this material would be helpful to place homeopathic philosophy in context. OffTheFence (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside it is interesting to note that homeopathy's greatest weakness, grossest error and strongest attraction to the naive lies in its having something they fondly call a "Philosophy". It is also of no help to them that this philosophy was set in stone by a man who has been dead for 200 years and passed down as holy writ since then. One intriguing feature is that much of what homeopaths believe is not absolutely wrong, as seen above in connection with symptoms/defences, but just so far from being right as to offer no explanatory or predictive power. I think that one thing that homeopathy's believers struggle with in real medicine is the messy reality of incomplete knowledge of complex systems which contrasts markedly with the simple, though false, purity of their fictional system. It comes as no surprise to find many references in the homeopathic literature to its being a "complete system of medicine". It must be a comforting notion to believe that they have a settled and finalised set of concepts that are few enough in number to be able to write them on the back of a fag packet. Real medicine doesn't have anything as grand as a philosophy. I suppose, 'Find What Works and Exploit It' could be stand in for one, which is, of course, why real medicine doesn't accept homeopathy- it doesn't work and presents nothing to exploit. (I seem not have signed this, so I'll do it now ahead of the "bot") OffTheFence (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My point was and remains that what symptoms are is always a theory, an interpretation and such theories have never been core aspects to homeopathy even since Hahnemann himself. Theory is always subordinate to practice, unlike modern science which has let the cart run ahead of the horse! and is excessivly theory-driven (IMO). Vithoulkas, no matter what he says, will never stand as a higher authority than Hahnemann and Hahnemann dismissed the idea that symptoms have some purpose or hidden significance. That is not to dismiss the idea totally. Whether they do or not is not the business of homeopaths, it is the business of medical philosphers. If you read the Organon it is abundantly clear that Hahnemann did not hold the view expressed by Dana or by Vithoulkas. Everything more or less in homeopathy can be traced back to Hahnemann, not because he is revered devotedly, uncritically and sentimentally like Einstein or Darwin is in science, but because he founded the whole thing and then spent 50 years perfecting it in practice, as a practitioner, and all his views derive from practice, not from theory. Apposite cites to follow. Peter morrell 08:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not true to say that he is not revered. There are too many places where he is referred to as the "Master", with a capital M. The fact of his spending 50 years deriving his philosophy from practice counts for nothing when his practice was not founded on methods that allowed him to distinguished what was true and what worked from what was neither. I think you would also struggle to make the case that theory is subordinate to practice, The Law of Similars etc are front rank and centre in any introduction to homeopathy. Since I have Vithoulkas' book open I'll quote the title of its opening section "The Laws and Principles of Cure" in which he aims to "Outline the basic laws of healing that...have always operated and are valid for all ages". Sounds pretty much like the pretence of having a Universal Philosophy to me. OffTheFence (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above- "This remarkable work is obviously a labor of love and passion. Dr. O'Reilly and Mr. Decker have brought out an Organon to satisfy not only beginning students of Homeopathy, but also those (practicing for a long time) who have read and reread and studied carefully the Master's teachings - often with much confusion. The soul of our beloved Master must delight and rejoice with this translation which really does justice to his immortal work."[2] and "Like you, I would not permit that a single word of the sacred text should be changed....Be kind enough to offer my compliments to the physicians who joined you in writing to me, and say to them that I honor and esteem them as -faithful disciples who are intent to promulgate the true doctrine of the Master as be created and perfected it." [3]. I think an entry drawing attention to the religious connotations would be highly appropriate. OffTheFence (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I could perhaps point out that practice does also develop independently, regardless of the supposed simplicity of that philosophy, but it is practice undisciplined by any necessity to find what really works by judging against an objective external standard which is why you can cleave the population of homeopaths along so many planes separating mutually incompatible approaches. OffTheFence (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not a fringe view

Here are the facts:

• (1) Homeopathy is not a "fringe" view within the fields of alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine.

• (2) There have not been "dozens of homeopaths posting here". By my count, there have only been three (if you count Dr.Jhingadé).

• (3) "Dicklyon" and "Slim Virgin" are just 2 of a number of uninvolved editors - with no position on homeopathy one way or another - who have noted over the last several months the biased "anti-homeopathy" tone of this article.

This talk page is to be used to improve the article, and is not for general discussion and condemnation of homeopathy.

I propose that all editors work towards a consension version of this article - one that presents both sides of the issues involved without taking a stand for or against homeopathy.

For starters, I propose that this sentence be removed from the lead section:

The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience, or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".

This is simply a restatement of the negative previous sentence, and a violation of the Wikipedia policy: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone) Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arion, You seem to be the only one here who has a 'Fairness_of_tone (not counting the proponents of Homeopathy)'. I believe Homeopaths are not posting here because of paucity of time (should we be seeing Patients or posting here?) and because the critics don't let them post here (critics keep blocking them) or else this article would not have been allowed to be so 'anti-Homeopathy'.-Dr.Jhingadé

It's verified with reliable sources. We're not here to support a POV of homeopathic pushers. Sorry to bust your bubble. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the trials mentioned were conducted, but those trials conducted by Allopaths which condemn Homeopathy did not follow the principles of Homeopathy in selecting the remedies (imagine if acetaminophen/paracetamol was given for a sprain, instead of a pain killer - it won't 'kill' the pain), so should y'all consider them to be reliable? I'm just asking y'all to give Homeopathy a fair chance, not support a POV of homeopathic pushers.-Dr.Jhingadé

Look what the truth about homeopathy is not really the issue. What you believe is not the issue. What we believe is not the issue.

However, would you agree that there are some in the world that are skeptical of homeopathy? If you agree that there are some skeptics and critics out there, we have to represent their views in the article too. It is that simple. Got it?--Filll (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So I'm sure you can create a fork for criticism with the main article giving the right perspective of Homeopathy (reason same as above/before)-Dr.Jhingadé

First of all, why don't you get an account. Second, use a signature. Third, we don't do POV forks, because there is no POV, except yours. The NPOV is that homeopathy is unsupported by science. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is good reason for not doing so. He is an indef banned user who has previously linkspammed Wikipedia:

• User:Dr.Jhingaadey
• User:Dr.Ramanand Jhingaadey
• Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dr.Jhingaadey

-- Fyslee / talk 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have known. Add him to the sockpuppet list. Can't wait to have him banned. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, he's rotating his IP now, so we either have to get a rangeblock (though it does seem broad) or semi-protect this page. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting anything he posts here? Is that justified? Workable? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is allowed. The only reason I haven't done it yet is that what he's writing is rather innocuous, but still self-incriminating, and a blocking admin may want to see it. Once his IPs are blocked, then anyone can remove his contributions. Of course any article edits should be reverted on sight. This guy is determined to use Wikipedia for a soapbox and to fight for "The Truth", and that's not the purpose here. We are creating an encyclopedia that covers subjects from all POV, including ones we may personally find abhorrable. -- Fyslee / talk 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked the first time because I had given external links to what I posted the first time (I did not know it was not allowed); the second time, I was blocked for 'sockpuppetry'. That's when I decided to start rotating my IP (you guys haven't been fair to me). Have you guys even bothered to look up the book I mentioned (I'm not associated with that book or web-site in any way)? At least remove that allegation that we use placebo and are 'Quacks (I'm a Qualified Homeopathic Doctor who's cured more than 10,000 Patients)'".-Dr.Jhingadé
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.70.140 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I have not received any contrary comments on my specific proposal, I assume that means that I may go ahead and remove the repetitive negative sentence in the lead. Is that correct? Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin seems to have oppposed this: he posted, "It's verified with reliable sources" I suggest leaving the sentence, but removing the first instance of the word "quackery", so that the end of it reads "...have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst"" (with the appropriate references left in, of course). Brunton (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It does fairly represent the view of mainstream science and medicine, which is what that paragraph of the article seems to be intended to do. Brunton (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to remove the entire sentence, but I would support Brunton's rewording. — Scientizzle 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was not whether there were so-called "reliable sources" - but rather that there was an over-use and over-emphasis of negative criticisms of homeopathy in the lead. This article should be primarily about homeopathy's beliefs and methods, and only briefly mention that mainstream science and mainstream medicine do not accept it. It should be structured like any other article on homeopathy in any other encyclopedia. The currently unacceptable lead comes across as a "debunking" article in a "skeptics" publication. It is a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone) Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. One thing many readers will be coming to this article for is information on whether or not it actually works. That's quite relevant to a discussion of homeopathy, so it should get appropriate coverage. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding! Arion 3x3 actually has the gall to openly state such a glaring lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 states: "This article should be primarily about homeopathy's beliefs and methods,..." BS! This article is about the "subject of homeopathy," not just "about homeopathy." There is a very important difference, which is because it is not "like any other article on homeopathy in any other encyclopedia." That is also another big misunderstanding. This is Wikipedia.

Arion 3x3, you are in the wrong place. Please find one of those other encyclopedias where you can write an article the way you like it. Here we have to write it in ways we both like and intensely dislike. Remember that if everybody is happy with the article, then something's terribly wrong. It should tell all sides of the story, from all notable POV, and should indeed contain insulting and obnoxious information. It actually must contain all the nonsense, metaphysical mumbo jumbo, false claims, etc. that are what makes homeopathy such a deception and danger to the public. Do I find it comfortable including that information? On a personal level, of course not. But as an editor here it is my job to know that without a doubt, quibble, or objection, and to edit in that manner. NPOV is absolute and not to be questioned. If you can't get used to editing like that, go elsewhere, because you are just obstructing us and being tendentious and disruptive. I really do wonder who you were before you appeared in this guise.... I suspect many inquiring minds have been wondering the same thing since your sudden appearance at an opportune time. -- Fyslee / talk 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The role of an encyclopedia is not to tell people which therapeutic methods are effective, and which are not. The facts need to be presented with fairness of tone and the reader should be given the opportunity to make up his own mind. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

wow. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

So, we shouldn't let presentation of facts get in the way of fairness of tone? When did Wikipedia become the modern US media?

Arion, to deconstruct the sentence you'd like to trim:

The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience[17] or quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

This is the strong close to the scientific criticism section of the lead. Taken with the previous sentences, it says given there is sufficient evidence for the current scientific consensus to consider homeopathy a robust placebo (described 2 sentences prior), and that the ideas behind it don't play well with all the chemistry, physics, and medicine we've learned over the last 200 years (1 prior), there is also a substantial movement to fight homeopathy on these bases because it is viewed as anti-scientific and potentially dangerous. In the interest of allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind, the claims of homeopaths cannot be presented neutrally without the claims of relevant scientists, and a significant stance of said scientists is described accurately within that sentence. Again, I see no need to remove the sentence. — Scientizzle 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I might be uncomfortable with the phrase "quackery". You might be uncomfortable with the phrase "quackery". However, we both have to agree that some use the phrase "quackery" to refer to homeopathy. And that this is not a vanishingly small group ! And so by NPOV, we represent this groups views in the article, right?--Filll (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, I never stated that we should not let the "presentation of facts get in the way of fairness of tone". On the contrary, all facts need to be laid out clearly.
• The article language - in the lead - incorrectly makes it appear and gives the impression that there is no scientific evidence for homeopathy. That is definitely not true, and that is one reason why the language as it currently stands is unacceptable and misleading. Anyone not familiar with homeopathy is immediately presented with that false impression. Precision in the presentation of facts and fairness of tone are standards in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia is no exception.
• All those who think they are supporting a "scientific" point of view, and yet deliberately prevent facts that are contrary to their preconceptions from being presented, should realize that this is not being "scientific" - that is being dogmatic. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence that supports any homeopathic mechanism other than the placebo effect as remotely plausible. The best that has been done is water memory, and you can see what a train-wreck that proposal was from the article we have on the subject. This is not a false impression: this is a fact. No one has presented any evidence contrary to this fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is scientific evidence that supports homeopathy - both clinical effectiveness and biological effects of high potencies. It is not true that "No one has presented any evidence contrary" - since I have presented large amounts of such evidence over the last 3 months on this very page, with specific suggestions on incorporating this evidence into the article. I received some criticism for doing so. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While there may be "scientific evidence" that supports homoeopathy, there is far more scientific evidence that doesn't. Try looking at all the evidence. Brunton (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And the "scientific evidence" presented by Arion was all from unreliable sources. Be that as it may, no one has even provided one source providing "scientific evidence" for homeopathy mechanisms beyond the laughable attempt at water memory. WP:REDFLAG rears its head and we are bound as editors of this reference work to marginalize Arion's extreme minority opinion about material reality (that homeopathy works due to magical powers of homeopaths/water/ridiculous dilutions). Carry on. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors should not take it upon themselves to exclude confirmatory evidence of homeopathy based upon some arbitrary percentage. I (as well as others) have previously pointed out the methodological shortcomings of many of the homeopathy trials that did not show effectiveness. One blatant example (which I previously detailed) was the Rhus tox. trial. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this ad nauseum. You are currently arguing to remove a single, heavily cited, line of text that is critical of homeopathy. It seems hypocritical to me to justify this with a statement that "all facts need to be laid out clearly". Please present sources that show that homeopathy is accepted by scientific and medical consensus; there's quite a bit out there that asserts the opposite. It's very simple, and you should understand this by now: homeopathy has little support within the scientific community for its claims. Not absolutely no support, but insufficient evidence and an incompatible underlying theoretical framework have quite obviously been cited to justify homeopathy's very limited acceptance in modern medicine, and in the active attacks by skeptics. Again, I see no reason why this information should be removed. — Scientizzle 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes we have been over this ad nauseum. I have been referring to ONE sentence that I stated was over-doing the anti-homeopathy arguments. There are 3 other previous sentences presenting the same anti-homeopathy POV. This violates the Wikipedia policy on fairness of tone.
• Ideally, this article should have one sentence IN THE LEAD summarizing the anti-homeopathy research and one sentence IN THE LEAD summarizing the research that supports homeopathy. The more in-depth presentations of each position can then be presented in their own sections of the article: RESEARCH CRITICAL OF HOMEOPATHY & RESEARCH SUPPORTIVE OF HOMEOPATHY. What is unreasonable in these suggestions to improve this article? Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV again. Our job isn't to balance the pro and con arguments with one sentence for each. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I even capitalized the words "IN THE LEAD" twice to make sure no one could possibly misunderstand that I was referring to the lead section. I suggest that you read what I actually wrote, and that you also read WP:NPOV again. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I know quite well you said that, but the rules that apply to the article as a whole also apply to the lead. While we're throwing pages at each other, WP:LEAD might serve you well. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arion, it's clear that we've read your actual text, but disagree with your sentiments. Please don't continue to insult our intelligence by suggesting that we lack reading comprehension skills.

Per WP:LEAD: In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Given that (quick count) roughly ~50 of the ~180 cited sources deal directly with the scientific basis of the topic, and the best sources are heavily weighted towards the viewpoint that homeopathy has limited-to-no medical and scientific validity, again I see no need to remove this sentence from the lead. This is me disagreeing, with full comprehension of your presented argument and interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidleines. — Scientizzle 06:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A few things: Fairness of tone does not apply here in the way Arion thinks it does because there isn't a legitimate controversy nor a debate among equals. The experts in material reality (the scientific community) are clear that homeopathic mechanisms are bunk. So what we actually have is a bunch of amateurs with regards to mechanistic reality (homeopaths) on the one hand and the experts in reality (scientists) on the other. There is no "balance" that can be made away from the fact that homeopathy's mechanistic claims fly directly in the face of scientific facts. This is the sense in which we must describe homeopathy because that is what all the most realiable sources say about homeopathy. We certainly describe homeopathic understandings in this article since that is the subject of the article, but we are under an obligation to couch all these explanations with the fact that homeopathy has no scientific basis and is roundly rejected by the scientific community who are the experts in material reality. You may disagree with this state of affairs, but it is the way things must be until homeopaths manage to convince the skeptical scientists otherwise. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not the place to right great (perceived) wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is an example of what so many on Wikipedia miss; the fact that there are some pockets of controversy or intransigence on Wikipedia where a few editors steadfastly hold out against the policies of Wikipedia and consensus. If one looks at the current RfC against JzG/Guy, many many there do not understand what it is like to beat your head on the wall in these situations, and we are observing another one here. People are bending over backwards for Arion 3x3 and Dr.Jhingadé. We are calmly explaining, for about the 500th time, why what they want violates the principles under which Wikipedia operates. And they just keep repeating the same objections over and over and over. Until you have experienced this kind of nonsense, it can be a bit difficult to believe that it exists. The problem is, in our efforts to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", we tolerate way more of this sort of behavior than we should. It is far more wasteful than is necessary. We invite this sort of trouble, and have no reasonable tools or mechanisms for dealing with it or discouraging it. Sometimes this kind of banter erupts into more serious conflict, and then the people who frequent articles on which they never see any controversy cannot understand what the problem is. And they say, How could you, big ugly established editor or admin "X" BITE this newbie or SPA? How dare you!! and so on and so forth. If we had some sort of established mechanisms for sanctioning and/or correcting Arion 3x3 and Dr. Jhingade for this sort of behavior and letting them know we mean business, and letting them know we are serious about the principles under which Wikipedia operates, much less time and energy would be wasted in these kinds of conversations and disputes. As it currently stands, they can pretend they didn't hear us say similar things over and over and over previously, and take succor from the presence of each other and other homeopathy promoters, and claim we are interpreting NPOV incorrectly, or whatever (just like Martinphi does), in an attempt to write the articles in the way they think is appropriate. This even goes to redefining what FRINGE means. Any and all tactics are used in an attempt to present homeopathy in an uncritical manner. On evolution and creationism articles, we have established the rule of thumb when we get confronted with similar behavior, we just remove the posts from the talk page. Sometimes they are deleted, sometimes put in a sandbox, sometimes they are userfied, and sometimes they are just hidden. Nevertheless, after a few episodes of this, the editor gets the message; we will not tolerate certain kinds of behavior and argumentation here. We need to develop similar procedures here on these sorts of articles, or else we will be endlessly mired in these sorts of silly arguments and discussions. --Filll (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How can this type of personal attack against me continue to be tolerated? There is again a call for some type of punishment for my "behavior" - and I am again being insulted as being one of those who disagree with the "the experts in reality". I thought this article probation process was to allow intelligent discussion on improving this article - which is exactly what I have been doing! Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And there we have the perfect example of the stock response to all this: Claim that you're being personally attacked and/or persecuted. Focus on the (moderately) uncivil behavior and act like it makes all the rational arguments vanish. Well, that doesn't work. All the arguments against your position are still there, Arion. By ignoring them, you're letting them stand. By the rules of organized debate, that counts as conceding the points. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on Addhoc's block for one-week of a tendentious editor to this page, I believe Arion deserves the same for the same activity. That's why I hate these talk pages. I'd rather engage in a civilized debate with Peter morrell, than read Arion's "whining" about being attacked. It's tiresome. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed my post, since it was viewed as a personal attack and uncivil. I apologize to anyone who was offended. It is clearly uncivil and a personal attack to disagree with the precepts of homeopathy, or to have anything critical about homeopathy in the article at all. Oh my goodness.--Filll (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was glad to see Filll remove his uncivil post, and I now hope that OrangeMarlin acknowledges that Arion is not whining, but Arion is correctly seeking to maintain civil discussion. My note to OrangeMarlin is that I hope that you try harder to avoid blaming the victim. Standing up for civility must be supported, no matter what side of opinion you hold. DanaUllman^Talk 04:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy as religion

Following on from my responses to Peter Morrell [4], would it be helpful to create a section in the Article highlighting the resemblance of homeopathy to a religion? It could be inserted in Section 2 and titled something like "Similarity to Religion" or "Religious Connotations". OffTheFence (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Or the section could be titled "Steadfast Refusal To Let Facts Get In The Way Of A Good Story", but I doubt that would achieve consensus. Too many words. :-) OffTheFence (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources "highlighting the resemblance", or is this original research? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think finding RS would be a problem, I'm floating the idea to see whether there is a consensus to support its inclusion. The quotations I provided give a flavour of what is out there. OffTheFence (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your quotation is a killer, but even if you can find a dozen more like it, what you are proposing sounds like a synthesis. I think we need sources that point out that homeopathy sometimes has religious overtones, not just sources that have (in our opinion) religious overtones. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is interesting, but it may not be easy to carry out under the rules of the game. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is that potential. Perhaps others would like to comment on the idea in principle while we see if people want to present sources for consideration. OffTheFence (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

References

• What is the “Subtle Energy” in Energy Healing?
• PMID 11620590
• Triumph of the light—isopathy and the rise of transcendental homeopathy, 1830–1920 - An article by Peter
• Dogmatism in homeopathy

However, I think a comparison with magic is a better one than with religion, since homeopathy does not involve an approach to personalized "agents" such as gods, spirits or angels, in an attempt to get them to intervene in the healing process. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no resemblence to religion. As for ideas that were discussed 200 years ago by homeopathic authors regarding the theory of "vital force" - that was a common theory in the healing arts back then, and still continues in some to this day. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you would need to counter the evidence I have presented before that point could be conceded. OffTheFence (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Metaphysics" would be more proper than "religion". -- Fyslee / talk 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The "non-evidence" you presented consisted of such articles as a diatribe by a Bible extremist who warns against acupuncture and homeopathy as being contrary to the Bible and "satanic". Arion 3x3 (talk)

Religion is debatable, but creationism is certainly a close comparison (as are many other pseudosciences). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence, I can understand if you are frustaded with the pro homeo crowd here. But the attitude of editors here on WP is not a valid ground for adding content to the articles. I doubt that you can find RS that support this without resorting to syntesis. And considering the toxic editing environment here both(!) sides should have solid support before adding new content. MaxPont (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Homeopathy is largely based on obsolete scientific theories like vitalism - which, through most of history, had no real religious aspect to it. To answer the religious question, I would compare homeopathy against other roughly contemporary theories like phlogiston or fermentation theory. Many obsolete scientific theories and modern pseudoscience have religious aspects, like creationism, but it is by no means common to all of them. I agree with Tim in that the connection to magic (or, more specifically, magical thinking) is better, but after reading the above sources I think the religious/magical connotations are more polemic than descriptive. I don't think we should include a section on this. Skinwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on that, please? The Article currently gives no description of the wide range of beliefs held with homeopathy. Indeed, as I note below, it is constrained to a particular POV of certain homeopaths who hold that it may be understood within the scientific paradigm. I see no evidence that this is their majority view, and even if a minority view a brief perusal of their literature and web-presence reveals it to be a vocal and notable minority. So, an even-handed description of homeopathy should include these aspects, though I agree it would then be inappropriate to bend that description to ridicule those beliefs, even if we think them ridiculous. ("Writing for the enemy" would seem to be the appropriate approach here [5]). OffTheFence (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

From Tim Vickers' link to Peter Morrell's article, the first line is "Modern homeopathy dwells in a nebulous and metaphysical realm into which few allopaths would fear to tread" and later quotes Kent, saying, "a man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homoeopath." and that Kentianism was "metaphysical, dogmatic, puritanical and millennial…[and] so far as Kentians were concerned, the faithless were responsible for the corruption and decline of the movement." I think that it is fairly clear that there is a well-established literature to support a section on religion and, as you reasonably point out, magic without resorting to synthesis. What we may find, however, is that homeopathy's advocates will cry "Synthesis" if we bring to wider attention sources where homeopaths are effectively writing for their own flock where these things are made explicit in contrast to the impression they often try to create of being good little scientists just wanting to do genuine trials of their remedies. I have noticed before a tendency to want to hide these things from wider scrutiny. This resembles the frequent tendency of their publicity materials to describe their remedies as containing "tiny doses" rather than no dose at all, which would require justification of their belief in the medicinal properties of content-free solvent. OffTheFence (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kent was a highly religious man, so what? You can keep pushing this wild POV but there really is no more religion and belief in homeopathy than there is in science today. Is there a section on religion in the science article or the medicine article? According to you, there should be. That's precisely how daft your idea is. If you continue in this vein then you might even be banned. This article is under probation and prejudicial & vastly uninformed time-wasters like you are on a short leash or did you forget this? If a pro-homeo person were doing what you are doing here they would have been banned 24 hours ago. Peter morrell 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a section on the similarities between homoeopathy and conspiracy theories? Brunton (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, this is a Talk page. The whole point of the current exercise is to explore some possibilities for the creation of a section. I'm not sure why you would want to censor such a discussion. To answer, for the moment, one specific question, "Is there a section on religion in the science article or the medicine article? According to you, there should be." Well, yes there very probably should be if there is a general discussion that brings in the history and philosophy of those subjects. It is not a great secret that historically the motivation to do science for many was to define how "God's creation" worked and to shine a light on the work of God. It is well known that even to the modern era someone like Stephen Hawking has described his work as an effort to know the "mind of God". Whereas that might have been said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the reason why the idea resonates is precisely because it has a huge set of historical precedents. An important difference with homeopathy is that the metaphysical aspects of it are central to the approach of many of its believers in a way that a religious or metaphysical mindset is not a necessary component of the daily practice of science and scientific medicine. The issues are therefore rather important in homeopathy and certainly "encyclopaedic" when the aim of an article is to present to the reader a clear and even-handed picture of the topic under consideration. I'm not sure one what basis you judge me to be "vastly uninformed", I would prefer to let the accuracy of my citation of sources to stand as their own evidence. OffTheFence (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think many different topics could be usefully brought together if we widen the net in the section I am proposing. I think the key words are religion, metaphysics and magic, though exactly how we structure the overall piece and what umbrella we need to create under which to categorise them is, I would suggest, still debatable. The issue of the place of magical thinking in homeopathy has been raised by Tim and I think we should make reference to the work of Harald Walach [H. Walach. Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Brit. Homeopathy J. 89 (3) 127-140 (2000)] in this connection as well as JG Frazer [6]. Walach's paper contains much that is interesting to note, for instance "Magical presence and effects are wrought by signs, not by causes. In this sense, homeopathy is effective in a non-local way: it acts by magically activating connectedness." But I do have a couple of technical problems related to my "newbie" status. First, I can grasp the definitions of WP:RS when it comes to scientific papers, but when it comes to wider sources of information that is not derived form scientific experiments I am unclear what is and what is not permissible. For instance, the web is littered with a huge amount of material that expresses people's conviction of the metaphysical basis of homeopathy presented both by believers keen to promote this view and sceptics criticising homeopathy precisely because so many of its believers hold those opinions. What can we draw upon? The second matter is the problem of "Synthesis". Choosing to bring any material to a Wiki is in its nature a synthetic process- editors choose to cite some materials and not others. I still have a poor grasp of what are regarded as the parameters within which this is acceptable. For that reason, if it does end up falling to me to actually create an initial draft I would appreciate not being jumped on and told that it's all "synthesis". Constructive editing would seem to be more helpful. For this reason if I were to draft something I'd post it here not in the Article because "Boldness" aside, I am unlikely to get these nuances right first time. OffTheFence (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically with respect to WP:SYN, it seems to me that we can cite anything we want to provided we effectively let the words speak for themselves, so if we use the words to make a point counter to their author's intentions to prove a point of our own then that is WP:SYN, but if the author really meant the words as quoted in the way they are quoted then that is not WP:SYN even if some editors, from their "POV", might not like having those ideas highlighted. Is that about right? OffTheFence (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is another area that needs to be covered and that is the intersection of homeopathy with other odd 19thC spiritual movements, particularly Anthroposophy (e.g. Google on "etheric body" + homeopathy [7]). OffTheFence (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And another item, is, of course, the common denial by homeopaths of the ability of the normal methods of science to address whether their remedies have any effects beyond placebo. The Article at the moment deals in various ways with homeopathy's failure to satisfy scientific standards to prove efficacy, but it does not mention the tendency of homeopaths to try to excuse homeopathy from such scrutiny. Ironically, where we are so bounded by NPOV rules, these are actually breached by allowing the discussion to be centred on a particular public aspect of homeopathy- the desire of some of its believers to achieve scientific credibility, but this is only one POV within homeopathy and an NPOV description of homeopathy should cover the large number of its believers who want it to be regarded as outside the reach of science. We should be careful to not allow the Article to be tuned by the POV of one set of homeopaths and exclude description of its wilder ideas, which pace Peter Morrell, do not appear to be "fringe" beliefs within homeopathy but widely held and understandably drawn from homeopathy's basic principles. OffTheFence (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an admin should consider deleting this endless & circuitous SPAMMING of this talkpage by this individual? If it had been a pro-homeopathy person he would have been indef blocked by now. What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. Peter morrell 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a 7 day ban for talk page disruption. Addhoc (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call, if you do come back OffTheFence, focus solely on the text of the article, rather than debating with other people on the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schmucky

User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Please_put_this_on_the_Talk:Homeopathy_Page_and_mention_it_is_posted_by_me, our new member wishes me to related 50k to y'all, he is not yet past the point where he post to semi-pp pages. Since it is 50k, I'll just leave it on my talk page and anyone interested who wishes to use it or make sense of it may import the important part of it for discussion here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There's a copy on my talk page, too... I guess it doesn't take long to feel at home on this page, huh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on over, I'll light up a grill. I here multiple postings of large size can be quite tasty. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Do you have gas or charcoal? Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I've left a warning to discontinue the spamming. My patience is wearing quite thin... — Scientizzle 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here, I've put it somewhere useful: /Studies. Enjoy! -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Category: Energy therapies

There certainly seem to be quite a few homoeopathy promoters who consider homoeopathy to be an "energy therapy", not least the [UK] Society of Homeopaths, whose "What is homeopathy" page states, "Homeopathic remedies are a unique, potentised energy medicine ... They work by gently boosting the natural energy of the body"[8]. I think the category as added by Dforest is appropriate here. Brunton (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of this category looks a mite suspect given that the supposed energies are unverifiable. However, given that the category definition is "Alternative therapies that involve the use of purported energy fields", it might be appropriate if it can be verified that most homeopaths believe it is an "energy therapy". Jefffire (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy therapies are generally more interested in chakras, therapeutic touch, crystal healing, pyramid power and the like. Homeopathy has its own history and while some people who use homeopathy certainly think its mechanisms are the same as those for other energy therapies, my suspicion is that the most devoted and reliable homeopaths (closest to the history of the subject) do not associate with these ideas. Peter, any thoughts? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I am not Peter, but I agree with you anyway. I.e., I also suspect that many homeopaths would prefer not to make the connection. The Society of Homeopaths seems to represent only classical homeopaths, since in their explanation they only talk about remedies starting from 12C. On the other hand there is also the British Homeopathic Association, which leaves this a bit more open, and whose website also points out the interesting fact that there are 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK which are part of the NHS. I have never heard of these two organisations before, and I am having trouble assessing their relative importance. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think energy therapies is a suitable category for homeopathy and that should not upset any homeopaths but as said above these energies are inferred rather than measurable. Peter morrell 14:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but I'm still wondering about it's relative acceptance. Could someone with some more time take a look at the websites of prominent organizations to gauge whether this is a a general view? Jefffire (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One cannot say that the "majority" of homeopaths think of it as an "energy medicine" or an "energy therapy." Some homeopaths think about it as "energy," others think about it as "information," and some homeopaths are simply empiricists (they use it because it works). DanaUllman^Talk 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dana, they want some RS citations on this matter, not JUST our opinions, cheers Peter morrell 06:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the term "energy signature" used by homeopaths as a way of decribing what they are working with. If it can be shown that a significant share of homeopaths use a certain term it should probably be integrated in the article. MaxPont (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to see what the term "vital force" is intended to refer to if not a concept analogous to "qi", "prana" or other types of "energy" invoked by other forms of CAM (Unless it's some sort of religious, metaphysical or paranormal concept, of course). Brunton (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have said it's closer to vitalism. According to de:Lebenskraft the late Hahnemann took this concept from Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, which de:Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland says was Hufeland's answer to the Brunonian system of medicine. It seems that this was mainstream medicine at the time, and that suggests being a bit careful here about the connections to eastern concepts. Which, of course, exist and should be mentioned. (I am not trying to contradict you.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But we need to give cites rather than opinions. Peter morrell 08:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramaanand (talk · contribs) blocked

FYI, I reblocked Ramaanand/Dr.Jhingaadey. Assuming that no other admin will unblock, WP:BAN is back in effect for this editor... — Scientizzle 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks continue to be allowed

• Why - if the homeopathy related pages are under probation - are personal attacks against me allowed to continue? [9] Calls for sanctions against me, when I have done nothing wrong, and insults that I am on a side that is opposed to the "experts in reality" are two examples of posts that are not what the talk page is for.
• Furthermore, there has just been the claim made that I have ignored "arguments against" my "position " - which is untrue - and that by "ignoring" them "by the rules of organized debate, that counts as conceding the points" (also untrue). By the way, my position is that this should be an NPOV fairness of tone article on homeopathy that is encyclopedic - not a "debunking" article. THAT IS MY POSITION.
• If you will note, I have been very careful to try to direct the discussion to specific proposals and suggestions to improve the content of the article, and to reach consensus on a NPOV article on homeopathy. As the article currently stands, it is an abomination - a thinly disguised anti-homeopathy article that could properly be called "Current scientific criticisms of homeopathy". Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is impossible to discuss anything on this page without being charged with some offense, violation of CIVIL or AGF or something else. I respectfully decline to continue and invite anyone who is a homeopathy supporter to do whatever they want. I wash my hands of this. Do what you want and then we will see what you produce. --Filll (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, nobody is being "charged" with "offenses", because this isn't court, and we're not in the presence of laws. Your input is valuable here, and I hope that you'll continue to participate with good will. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This has become too dangerous and so I will not. Sorry. If you want to take the risk, go ahead.--Filll (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous how? Has your personal safety been threatened? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Arion 3x3, hi. I'm pretty new to this dispute; could you please summarize for me what you see as the chief way(s) in which the article is currently at variance with your understanding of NPOV? Parts of it seem more neutral than others to me, and I wonder how you're seeing it. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings GTBacchus! It certainly is refreshing to have dialogue with another on this page in which kindness and respect are shown. Here are the main points I have been making since I came upon this article in December of 2007:

• This article should be primarily about homeopathy's beliefs and methods, and only briefly mention that mainstream science and mainstream medicine do not accept it. There certainly should not be an entire paragraph in the lead section stating essentially that "Science" has clearly disproven homeopathy (it has not!). It should be structured like any other article on homeopathy in any other encyclopedia.

• The currently unacceptable lead comes across as a "debunking" article in a "skeptics" publication. It is a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone)

• The article language - in the lead - incorrectly makes it appear and gives the impression that there is no scientific evidence for homeopathy. That is definitely not true, and that is one reason why the language as it currently stands is unacceptable and misleading. Anyone not familiar with homeopathy is immediately presented with that false impression. Precision in the presentation of facts and fairness of tone are standards in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia should be no exception.

• Ideally, this article should have one sentence IN THE LEAD summarizing the anti-homeopathy research and one sentence IN THE LEAD summarizing the research that supports homeopathy. The more in-depth presentations of each position can then be presented in their own sections of the article: RESEARCH CRITICAL OF HOMEOPATHY & RESEARCH SUPPORTIVE OF HOMEOPATHY. Do you not agree that these are reasonable suggestions to improve this article? Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, that's helpful. My short answer to your question is that your suggestions sound reasonable, but I really don't know yet. Thus, I'm trying to gather the pieces so I can make up my mind. It seems to me that you raise two somewhat independent, but somewhat related points.

First, there's the question of evidence, and letting the readers know about the existing research. Now, I don't know a darn thing about Homeopathy (though I get the feeling I'm about to learn some), so I'm not in a position to know what kind of evidence exists, pro or contra. I certainly got the impression from reading the article that no evidence has been generally accepted by the scientific community, but I haven't double-checked any sources or anything yet. (Most readers don't.) However, in a neat bit of timing, a bag of evidence was dropped on my talk page just yesterday. I've copied it to /Studies. It's a bit long; perhaps it could be organized in some way into categories? Anyway, I don't suppose there's a shortage here of people willing to explain why those sources are or are not reliable, so that's something we can work on. We'll set up a section for that presently.

Second, you raise a question of tone, and how the article comes across to readers. I think the "skeptical inquirer" tone may be laid on a bit heavy in places, and the article is slightly repetitive. I'll bet there are some not-too-major rewrites that could help with that, without sacrificing important information. To an extent though, the question of tone and balance (in the lead in particular) hinges on the earlier question: not knowing what kind of evidence is out there, it's hard for me to say how the lead can best summarize it.

So, am I understanding you correctly? Would you say the above fairly represents your concerns? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for your careful consideration of my concerns. You have restated them very precisely. As for whether "evidence has been generally accepted by the scientific community" - general acceptance does not yet exist at present. Quite frankly, as you will see from reading the archives of this talk page for the last 3 months, there is a knee jerk reaction - that since there are currently no instruments that can detect the "qualities" that are claimed to be transfered to the soluent - then there must be nothing to this so-called homeopathic "potentizing" process. I would compare this to someone using a simple chemical analysis to test a radioactively contaminated substance, and concluding that there is nothing present other that the chemical constituents. Without the proper instrumentation, the radiation cannot be detected. But it is still there.

Research studies in recent years have indicated that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters:

"Efficacy of the potentized drug, Carcinosin 200 fed alone and in combination with another drug - Chelidonium 200, in Amelioration of p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene- induced Hepatocarcinogenisis in Mice." [10]) (full text pdf: [11])

"A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice." [12] (full text pdf: [13])

"Supportive Evidence for the Anticancerous Potential of Alternative Medicine against Hepatocarcinogenesis in Mice" [14] (full text pdf: [15])

As you can see, "placebo effects" are not a factor in these studies involving mice. By presenting all the facts in the article, there will no longer be the apprearance that Wikipedia is under-estimating the intelligence of its readers by telling them what they should think about homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "placebo". I haven't read these studies, but it is certainly not sufficient to say the results must be correct because they were done with mice. If there is any subjective element in evaluating the conditions of the animals, it is important that that be done blinded. Some pilot studies are even done without a control group, which also makes the results unusable. Then there is still publication bias and cherry-picking of the results that do get published. You might be able to make a case, but you will have to work harder to do it. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I never stated that these studies "must be correct because they were done with mice" - I was referring to the common argument that the only effects that could possibly exist with homeopathic remedies are the subjective "placebo" effects. I would also note that a lot of wasted text on this page occurs when comments are made about evidence without even bothering to read the evidence - thus wasting everyone's time. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been around here long enough, Arion, to know that it is a waste of time to bring up studies without making clear how they deal the with various issues I mentioned. In fact, in a properly designed clinical study, the placebo effect is the last thing you have to worry about, since it would apply equally to the control group. On a more constructive note, I think it would be a good idea to set up a separate talk page to discuss scientific studies. It would help focus the discussion both on that topic (there) and on the remaining topics (here). I always wanted to start such a page myself, but never had the time. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Arion 3x3, I understand your point about the mice - how could mice experience a placebo effect? It does appear that there are multiple studies and meta-studies, making claims both for and against the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. To an outside observer such as myself, it's not immediately obvious what to think of all of it. I think it would be very helpful to set up a page where we list all the relevant research we can find, and talk about what different researchers have concluded and why. Then we'll be in a much better position to neutrally summarize the state of research in the lead of this article. It might even make sense to split off a separate article about research on homeopathy, but we would still want a one- or two-sentence version for the lead here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I heard some report somewhere that animals could indeed experience a form of the placebo effect. I'll go look it up, and see what I find. (Sadly, our placebo article is insufficient at the moment.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, a few papers demonstrating this: [16] [17] [18]. For those that don't have access to the full papers, essentially the placebo effect comes into play via a Pavlovian response to the experimenter's expectations. When the experimenter expects something to work on the animal, the animal picks this up. It's weaker than a direct placebo effect, but still present. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Even bring strictly neutral, I don't see how saying that "some positive studies of homeopathy do exist," is that outrageous placed somewhere in the article, possibly in the lead. The issue has always been that whenever something like this has been inserted into the article, it has provoked an edit war from the anti- folks who do not wish such a sentence, no matter how mild, to ever be included. THAT IMO is the crux of the issue. 2 cents FWIW. Peter morrell 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand this page has been subject to some edit warring. I think we can resolve this in a mutually acceptable way, though. Let's analyze the studies, and figure out how to make a solid, well-referenced, well-balanced statement about the status of research on homeopathy. A simple assertion that "some positive studies exist," without some work to put it in context, is unlikely to stick. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I really feel for both sides in this issue. The existence of these studies is a verifiable fact, it is something that supporters of homeopathy know about, and they will expect it in this article. Without this information the article will be deficient. On the other hand, the existence of these studies is no conclusive evidence that homeopathy works, but this is very hard to explain and most people will not understand the argument anyway. Therefore including the information will give an incorrect impression. It is the kind of information that serious journalists filter out because they know the majority of their readers would misunderstand it. We have the same problem, but we can't use the same solution because we are not writing a newspaper. The best we can do is probably to offer everything we know in a hierarchical manner:

• In the lede: Homeopathy has positive effects, but overall there is no conclusive evidence that this is due to anything but the placebo effect.
• In the main article: Explain some of the technical problems with verifying efficacy of homeopathy. Mention that studies in this field often contradict each other and say that meta-studies indicate there is no conclusive evidence either way. Mention that this is a controversial question, with both sides having some extreme protagonists.
• In a separate article on scientific studies on homeopathy: Discuss the most significant studies, explain selection bias, and discuss the most significant meta-studies.

Does this sound reasonable? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing sounds a lot like original research, since we would have to valorate the relative significance of primary sources, among other thing. We are supposed to rely on secondary sources to do all that stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One would hope that we can find secondary sources commenting on the primary sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some of those sources are already on notes 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the article right now --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage and regulation in the EU

There is a trade organisation called Echamp [19] for the homeo inudstry in Europe. I believe that we can digest facts and figures from their website. As an industry body I believe they can be considered a reasonably reliable source about market data and the regulatory framework. MaxPont (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some remarks after my first reading of this article

First, congratulations to everybody for the current state of the article. I know you are aware of all sorts of little problems that I didn't notice, but overall it is much more balanced than I would have expected.

One interesting fact that I learned here is that homeopathy is extremely marginal in the US, almost to the point of non-existence. I had already guessed this based on harsh statements by some US based editors that would be socially unacceptable in Germany. In Germany my guess is that to the order of 5% of "allopathic" physicians occasionally prescribe homeopathic remedies (often in the D3-D8 range), even to patients who do not specifically ask for them. More verifiably, according to the 2001 WHO report on alternative medicine, homeopathy is taught at 5 state universities and accounts for 27% of alternative medecine contacts. I think it would be a good thing if all the regulars on this page could keep in mind that there is a huge cultural gap. In the US homeopaths are fringe and Mormons are a notable minority, in Germany it is the other way round. Perhaps this is related to some of the "civility" issues here.

One issue I noticed is that metaphors for high dilution may currently be getting a bit too much space. There are three paragraphs on this in Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion; this really jumped out at me. Later I was surprised to find yet another paragraph on this in Homeopathy#High dilutions. I don't know if it's just a temporary issue, or if everybody is afraid of opening a can of worms here, but it seems to me that this is the most important stylistic problem with the article.

A related point is that very high dilutions ("classical homeopathy") (I will call it "late Hahnemann homeopathy") seem to be getting a lot more weight than relatively low dilutions ("clinical homeopathy") (I will call it "early Hahnemann homeopathy" and acknowledge that this is probably a simplification). Perhaps this is justified; after all there is a sourced statement (although I cannot read the source from home) saying: "However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy." On the other hand this does not correspond to my impression of how homeopathy is practised in Germany. This could be the result of a tacit agreement between late Hahnemann homeopaths and anti-homeopaths to (innocently and inadvertently) marginalise early Hahnemann homeopathy, which they might see as heresy and as harder to debunk, respectively. Perhaps someone wants to check whether there is a problem with neutrality here.

Finally, while I see no balance problems in the first paragraph of Homeopathy#Prevalence and legal trends, I am not sure that all the details are correct: "In Austria and Germany, no specific regulations exist, while France and Denmark mandate licenses to diagnose any illness or dispense of any product whose purpose is to treat any illness." It's not clear what "specific" is supposed to mean here. Here is what I found in the cited WHO report: In Austria and Germany you do need some kind of degree to treat patients. In Austria there is even a specific degree for homeopaths ("Homeopathic doctor"). I don't see what the significant difference is between Austria/Germany on the one hand and Denmark ("...permits non-allopathic physicians to practise medicine regardless of their training...") on the other. In France, however, homeopathy seems to be essentially illegal, although widespread and tolerated by the authorities.

Also the following sentence is a bit unfortunate: "At the start of 2004, homeopathic medications, with some exceptions, were no longer covered by German public health insurance". What really happened is that in 2004 most alternative medicine was taken from the catalogue of things public health insurers must pay for, while they also got for the first time the option to offer alternative medicine (including homeopathy) plans to their customers. As a result, since 2004 people who want homeopathic treatment only need to switch to certain insurers to get it covered completely (instead of partially, as before). The change in 2004 affected virtually all over-the-counter drugs, not just homeopathy, and since April 2007 the public insurers are allowed to offer alternative medicine plans. Since then it is possible to get complete coverage of homeopathic treatment for little or no extra money. (Corrections Hans Adler (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC) and 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry if any of these things have been discussed before. I scanned the last ten archive pages, but of course I didn't read them completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Adler (talk • contribs) 20:28, March 16, 2008 (UTC)

I would comment and try to address any errors or confusion, but unfortunately we have been put on notice that any discussion on this page is too dangerous and will lead to being blocked. Too bad. --Filll (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's simply false. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to try to give some input and see how false it is. Having watched this for more than 8 months and seeing how dangerous the situation is, I am afraid I will not continue with this charade. If the system decides to operate in a rational fashion, then I will return. Otherwise, forget it.--Filll (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about other countries' views of homeopathy, the only one that really matters on a global scale is China, after that you're talking about little countries. Is homeopathy known at all in China? A quick Google search finds nothing obvious. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? what on earth are you talking about, Tim? Chinese imperialism? never heard such nonsense. Are you saying that unless China thinks something is good/bad then forget the rest they are small fry? This is the worst form of banal monopolistic cultural and intellectual monoculture/monotheism I have ever heard. Please get real. Go check acupuncture, they sure like that! Peter morrell 10:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Tim was replying to what might look like my obsession with the situation in Germany, although it was perhaps not the most prudent way to express this. I think one thing we can all agree on is that the section Homeopathy#Prevalence and legal trends doesn't do a very good job of describing the wide range of attitudes that different countries have to homeopathy. The WHO report looks like an excellent source that can be used to fix this problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What I have heard is that in some European countries (France?) only conventional medical doctors are allowed to prescribe homeo remedies and that education about homeopathy is a part of the convetional medical training. If this can be verifed by a RS it should be integrated in the article. MaxPont (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the definitions of "classical homoeopathy" and "clinical homoeopathy" being used here, in particular the implication that the basic difference between them being that "classical homoeopathy" uses very high dilutions but "clinical homoeopathy" doesn't. Do you have some RS definitions to support this? Brunton (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT a correct definition of either. This needs doing carefully and properly. The distinction is not that great, more imagined than real, blurred: they blend into each other. The best homeopaths are classical and clinical of course. The only difference is that clinical often means quick and so short consultations 10-20 mins and perhaps use of remedies on a rote basis rather than 40-70 min consultation and deep prescribing for chronic issues. Even then there are excellent 'classical homeopaths' who use a quick-fire approach just as there are longwinded clinical types who take an age. Potency is entirely an individual issue that cannot be used to split homeopaths down the middle in this false classification attempt. Peter morrell 10:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusion on this point. Perhaps I am a bit too detached from the subject of this article to meddle with it. I am just interested and have a lot of half-knowledge and obviously some misconceptions. You may want to think of me as an earthquake.) I will try to correct what I wrote above so it's less offensive. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The point I am making is that China has about 1.3 billion people, and is by far the most populous country with roughly 1/6 of the world's population. If you are going to consider the importance of homeopathy on a global scale, this is the country you start with. Discussing small European countries in preference to large Asian countries is an example of systemic bias. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on, please. This is the most absurd nonsense I have ever heard, Tim, and am astonished that you can make such a ridiculous point. It needs to be ignored totally IMO. Oh, so numbers is now superior to actual knowledge huh? Please think again. Peter morrell 16:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We discuss India (second most populous country) and the USA (third most populous country) but do not discuss China, the most populous country. This is illogical, and may be a result of our unconscious Western/European bias. At minimum we need to note in the section on worldwide usage that homeopathy is/is not known in China, and give some idea of usage. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason we discuss India, Tim, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with its population size but because homeopathy there has great prominence. period. It is almost unknown in China, so why even mention it? It has nothing to do with so-called balance. Peter morrell 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have wondered repeatedly about moving this material to a separate article where we can include more detail about homeopathy around the world and its prominence. For example, homeopathic remedies sold per year are valued at about 0.3% of the world pharmaceutical market. This sort of analysis could be done far more in depth in a separate article.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If homeopathy is unknown in the most populous country in the world, then this is a fact of great importance when discussing its worldwide prevalence. However Fill is quite right that if we are going to spin off a sub-article this is probably the least contentious choice and one of the longer and denser sections to read. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not unknown in China, it merely occupies a vanishingly small percentage of all prescriptions. It is well known in Hong Kong, which is, of course, a part of China again. Also Macau ,previously under Portugese control but now again returned to China. In Beijing, Shanghai and other major cities where larger numbers of foreigners live and work, homeopathy is known to the westernised doctors who practise there. Chinese hospitals, however, use a combination of Western and Chinese medicine to the exclusion of all else. Standards are, of course, at times abysmal. docboat (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, your comments, as I'm sure you know, can only be added to the article if you can produce citations to support them, but not simply as opinions or anecdotes. thanks Peter morrell 10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I need sources for this statement: "(on China) Homeopathic remedies can't be commercialized or used on hospitals because the chinese health agenciy has not approved their use". Change chinese health agency for the adequate name on the source --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian and Soviet Homeoapthy

i did some research on my own and found some hsitorical information that might have been overlooked regarding homeopathy in Russia. I've listed below the are th online sources that I found; i just wanted ot make sure that they met WP:SOURCE. i checked myself and it semed to be workign on all right but i wanted a sercond opinion. Smith Jones (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What you have placed today is contradicted by the very source you give (in which Dr T S Verdi (William H. Seward's doctor) says that rumours about Tsarist rejection of homeopathy are untrue) and by Alexander Kotok, who actually states that Tsar Nicholas I encouraged doctors to study and practice homeopathy in Tsarist Russia, [20] so at the moment this section is beginning to look like a dog's breakfast. Can we begin to clarify and clean it up, please? thanks Peter morrell 07:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I have tried to clean that section up a bit today. Hopefully it can be improved further in due course. Peter morrell 09:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry when i wrote that was i was looking at the New York Times article, which stated in very large eletters that the Tsar Nicholas the Second baned homeopathy by means of a ukase within his territories. If tha tsource is wrong, then you should be criticzing the New York Times as a reliable source since it is the one who provided the contraditory information. Smith Jones (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is verbatim: "Homeopathy in Russia, Washington Friday Oct. 30 1868, To the Editor of the New-York Times: Sir: It has been generally reported by the Press in the United States that the Emperor of Russia forbade by ukase the practice of homeopathy in his dominions. I have the authority of the Russian Legation, at Washington, to state that there is not a word of truth in the report. T S Verdi MD, publ Nov 14 1868."

Here is what Kotok says: "While then demonstrating convincingly the advantages of homeopathic treatment, Dr. Scherring introduced homeopathy to several doctors, among them Drs. Iosif Kazakevich (1826-1871) and Stepan Stetkevich (1812-1894) – both became then convinced homeopaths. The Tsar Nicholas I, who was familiar with the "half-homeopathic" method of Dr. Martin Mandt (see the chapter "Homeopathic facilities") and often visited the hospital, both encouraged Dr. Scherring to continue with the treatment and regretted that such a fine "specific" treatment was not widely used in all Russian medical facilities. On November 5, 1862, Russian homeopaths celebrated a fiftieth anniversary of Scherring’s medical service. The Grand Duke Nicholas presented him personally with the Tsar’s reward, the order of St. Vladimir of the Second Class. Scherring died in 1864 or 1865." [21] From which I think we can say there is some confusion as to what really was the case. So, I have left the paragraph repeating the confusion. thanks Peter morrell 16:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

well the NY term sarticle was really blurry and difficult to read what it was talking about so its still not my fault. I dont really understand why the New York Times article loked like that it was supposed to seem normal or more normal than that. Smith Jones (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So-called Spam

Please stop removing good stuff from the article: this Appeal to Thinking Philanthropist Respecting the Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera, Hahnemann, Samuel, 1831 is clearly NOT spam' it is a learned article supporting a statement. What pray is wrong with that and why do Fyslee and Quackguru keep removing it? Please explain your reason for removing it and reverting its replacement. thanks Peter morrell 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, my apologies if anything of yours was disturbed. My removals were strictly cleanup of the self-promoting work of a linkspammer, irregardless of what it was, except for one spot I left because it was actually being used as a source in the absence of any other source. I hope that those who watch that article will find a better source. It could be that some source accidentally got deleted in the process. Please try to find the same material from another source that is reliable, and not from this linkspammers personal website, where he has even used it to include his own private opinion articles as sources here. Nothing personal regarding you was intended, or even regarding the actual content. It was strictly because of the nature of the website as a personal, unnotable, and non-RS site. If anything important got deleted, please find it from a better website. None of the deleted links were placed by you but by one other person. -- Fyslee / talk 07:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; no apology required. However, unfortunately that site is the ONLY site that carries some of Hahnemann's minor essays. Even if I copied them all to a site of my own making it would still be seen as a non-RS site so I can't see a way out of the issue. It is not the site that is being used for a ref but the essay itself. Saying I don't mind if you "disturb my stuff" what stuff? Nothing here is "mine." That reminded me of Juvenal's: si dixeris, aestuo, sudat. ("if you say that you are warm, he sweats"). Maybe there is another cite somewhere. thanks Peter morrell 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

His minor writings are, well, minor, and don't belong on this article unless they affected homeopathy in a notable way. That belongs on the Samuel_Hahnemann article, where they are already listed on the external links list. No need to add them here unless they were really important to homeopathy for some reason --Enric Naval (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. That ref was being used to support a statement. If it was correct then the ref should be replaced. Read the sentence that was removed. Peter morrell 09:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On first sight, it does appear to be placed on the correct place. I guess it could have remained there --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it was originally placed there to show that Hahnemann envisaged that Cholera was caused in his view by minute living creatures invisible to the eye. A view that was quite astonishing at the time as it was 50 years before the work of Pasteur and Koch. However, that cite got removed and its quoted passage so the cite was redundant. Presently it was to show that homeopathy accepts hidden as well as visible/tangible causes of sickness and not just 'derangements of the life force.' does this clarify? Peter morrell 09:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hahnemann's proposal is clearly very significant for the discussion of Hahnemann himself since apparently his advice was tried with good success. Michael Emmans Dean (York University) writes in footnote 117 of his paper (that we are already citing): "it would be interesting to know whether his suggested hygienic measures [...] were followed in homeopathic hospitals, accounting for some at least of homeopathy's success in the cholera decades".

But I agree that a counter weight to the "vital force" seems necessary to correct the impression that homeopathy is necessarily based on this outdated concept. Perhaps we could cite Dean's "in 1831 Hahnemann proposed an infectious micro-organismic origin for the cholera pandemic" instead of referring directly to the Hahnemann pamphlet, which seems to be easily accessible only in this apalling machine translation form. Of course "believing that diseases have spiritual, as well as physical causes" needs to be extended, to take the "invisible living creatures" into account in some way or another. As it stands it gives the incorrect impression to modern readers that Hahnemann had an esoteric POV. -Hans Adler (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a fine proposal to me, go ahead, thanks Peter morrell 10:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to keep this reference in, but use it to support some of Hahnemann's ideas about this nonvitalistic component of homeopathy. It clearly is of historical interest and quite another side of homeopathy which we should be describing. In fact, obviously in the history of medicine, homeopathy was quite important for many reasons. And I suspect, if Hahnemann had been born 100 years later, he might be remembered very differently today.--Filll (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just thinking, would it be alright to use the essays directly as sources? There's no requirement that a source be web-accessible on a reliable site for us to use it. When we're using them to prove that Hahnemann believed something, there shouldn't really be much of a problem there. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Infophile, is absolutely right. Paper based sources are perfectly acceptable as RS and we can make references to paper based sources in the ref list. In my opinion, paper based sources are underutilized on Wikipedia. MaxPont (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says that you can, so go for it. BTW you left of a signature so i added it i in for you. next time use 4 tildes (Smith Jones (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)) to sign in. Smith Jones (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, that just made it look like you'd signed it there. Though don't worry about these things; with SineBot around these days, it'll catch it sooner or later when we slip up (which we all do from time to time). By the way, if you want to actually show code like ~~~~, you need to use <nowiki> tags around it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ah my mbad i didn t catch then in the preview seton. Thanks for the tip about <nowiki> tag. Smith Jones (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When you write <nowiki>, you also need to write </nowiki>, or the rest of the page gets badly garbled. Or write &lt; instead of <. I fixed that for you. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

my bad again. sorry about the hovak. 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything about the article because it's a bit complicated and I was busy with other things. We certainly can't copy the Hahnemann text from the website: The translation is horrible, and it's probably copyrighted, too. I think the best thing would be if someone with access to the original German version could put it on Wikisource. I would be prepared to do this, provided someone sends me a scan of a copyright-free German version. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fork time?

The page is currently 109kb, which "almost certainly should be divided up". Splitting out the criticism has been rejected here as a POV fork, but how about an article on the Prevalence and legality of homeopathy or something similar? The "Prevalence and legal trends" section is fairly large, and likely to continue expanding as we learn more of each country's relationship with homeopathy.

Suggestions? Comments? — Scientizzle 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. I have been advocating exactly this kind of fork since this version of the article came out of the sandbox, back in September or so of 2007. --Filll (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the above fork seems to be non-controversial, and since the suggested article is a natural growing LIST of how homeopathy is viewed in different places, I've gone ahead and been bold, and moved it to the suggested article as a main subtopic. No info is deleted. Note that the header has been left as a summary HERE, but duplicated as the LEAD THERE. Discuss and fix as you like. Or undo it all, if you really think this is horrible. SBHarris 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, congrats, that was a very good bold decision and it was right on the target. Best application I have seen until now of bold editing --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, sometimes things never happen on WP unless somebody does them, but they must be things that don't step on anybody's toes, and look obvious in retrospect. I wish the other issues discussed here were that easy to "fix", but this one looked like an easy and noncontroversial way to offload a junky section to get us down to 90 kB again. The discussion on the main article might benefit from a closer examinatino of the other sections to see what can be done there, also. What sections can be "subbed", even given the luxury of a longer summary, if you feel it's needed? But I will leave that for others. SBHarris 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One fork that we've been discussing would be one describing the research that's out there, evidence that's been proffered for and against, meta-studies, and all that. I think an article describing its prevalence and legal status in different places makes a lot of sense, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As alluded to in my opening statement, forking out the science has been discussed & rejected recently. Of course, consensus can change... — Scientizzle 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

fork was rejected about 20 days ago. For consensus to change, a wait of a few months would be in order, unless there is some policy change on forks --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was typing in the wrong section. I think there ought to be a detailed article about research that's been done on homeopathy, with material that we haven't currently got in the main article. That's different from forking; it's making a daughter article. I'm not suggesting that information about research all be removed from the main article, though. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what I'm suggesting actually wouldn't look at all like a "criticism fork" that was suggested and rejected. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We have always rejected a Criticism fork which of course goes against the principles of Wikipedia. No these proposed forks, or daughter articles, are completely different. And they have been proposed on this talk page repeatedly for months on end. And never rejected, and in fact received a fair amount of support. --Filll (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be to leave the research discussion in this current article as is, and use the Research fork as a place to capture more of the positive and negative studies that I have watched parade across this talk page for the last few months.--Filll (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be summarized in the main article. Just how much of a summary, and how much more detail there is in the daughter article are editorial decisions to make. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support and contribute to a daughter article of this article. no one has ever once objected to that, only to a potential fork designed to give undue weight to one side fo the homeopathy controversity. 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Good move on the split; I was thinking of doing just that myself sooner or later. At the present, the article is at 91 kB, which means it could probably still benefit from some more splitting up. The only sections I think it might be okay to fork off are History and Research on effects in other biological systems. The latter would be my best bet here. Thoughts? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Quackery in the lead

(This thread is a continuation of the one above ending "after version 1, 2, or 3, if that's what you are referring to".)

Ah, "contradiction of basic scientific principles" replaced by "reliance on remedies without molecules". I had somehow overlooked that, as I am only half following this discussion. Sorry. The only objection that I have to this sentence is that it accuses homeopathy of quackery, although in a weasly way. I.e. it mentions that people do and explains their reasons. I don't consider this neutral. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats attribution, there's nothing "weasely" about it. Jefffire (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what it is exactly, but constructions like "Because of [reasonable reason], certain people call [minority] [expletive]" are obviously not neutral. The problem is that "quackery" has very strong connotations of intentional fraud. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they are neutral. It's an attributed opinion, which is covered here. Jefffire (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To cite the policy: "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." It is a way of expressing statements that we endorse. I believe we have no sources that say there is more intentional fraud against patients in homeopathy than in mainstream medicine. Therefore using the word "quackery" here in this way amounts to name-calling. If you think about similar statements involving the x word, for any reasonable letter x, you will probably see what I mean. I don't want to remove this stuff completely, I only want it worded neutrally. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the following lines would be fair: "Homeopathy is highly controversial. Mainstream scientists often describe it in unfavorable terms such as "placebo therapy", "pseudoscience", or even "quackery". --Hans Adler (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution is in no way a method of expressing opinions we endorse. It would be entirely neutral and acceptable if the conditions were reversed and a homeopath was calling, say, vaccination quackery. All we need is "x said y{source}".

I don't have any objections to the proposed reword (remove to word "even" though), but it could legitimately be argued that it is more PoV. Jefffire (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with all that but agree with Hans that it is perhaps not neutral to say quackery BUT I am not that bothered and hardly feel apoplectic with rage about it, so carry on. Peter morrell 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why I prefer a different wording, but that's mainly because of my agenda: Getting this article to the point where it's factually correct and people from the two opposite backgrounds can read it and think: "It's biased towards the other side, but at least they tried to be neutral." Perhaps I am being a bit oversensitive here, and before anybody concerned actually complains about this point I am certainly not going to insist on it. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, if both sides are irritated with the article I believe that we have reached a NPOV article. MaxPont (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New World Data on Those who "Trust Homeopathy"

Friends, I was alerted to this data from a skeptics' blog, and it provides a rich body of data. For info on the survey, see [22]. For info on the company behind the data, see: [23]. A summary from this report could be: An international market research survey discovered relatively high levels of "trust" in homeopathy worldwide. Specifically, they found that 64% of people in India, 58% of Brazilians, 53% of Chileans, 49% of Saudi Arabians, 49% of United Arab Emirates, 40% of French, 35% of South Africans, 28% of Russians, 27% of Germans, 25% of Argentians, 25% of Hungarians, 18% of Americans, and 15% of British "trust homeopathy."

Before I consider adding this data and reference, I'm bringing it here for discussion. DanaUllman^Talk 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A survey from a marketing and market research company, with no named authors? Importantly, there is no information on the sample size in this survey, no information on how the sample was selected, and no information on how the survey was carried out. This could be discussed in general terms, but I wouldn't trust the precise figures at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Tim, but when you consider that market research companies provide information to large corporations who trust their work and then put their money (often big money) into products based on this research, it seems that large companies consider such research to be "reliable." This market research company is one of the biggies and thus seems to be a reliable source. DanaUllman^Talk 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with this being added if the source is directly specified and it is discussed in generalities, eg A market research survey suggests that homeopathy may be quite popular in India and but much less popular in developed countries such as the USA and Britain. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that if many of the largest corporations in the world consider market research data to be reliable, it would seem that we should simply report this information for what it is: "According to an international market research company". Perhaps something like this can be said: "According to a 2008 survey from an international market research company, a near or greater than majority of people in India, Brazil, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates “trust homeopathy,” and a 25%-40% of the population of people in France, South Africa, Russia, Germany, Argentina, and Hungary also trusted homeopathy. Only 18% of American and 15% of British expressed a trust in homeopathy." DanaUllman^Talk 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantitative data from established market research companies are routinely referenced by most mainstream media. Major corporatations pay 1000s of dollars for these data. Their methods are quite rigorous and and if you contact the company or look carefully at their website I am sure they explain their methodology. MaxPont (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If a secondary source refers to the survey, it should certainly be used. As it stands, it's a primary source with no evaluation or context, so I'd be very hesitant to add it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using primary source data is not against wiki policy; it is commenting on it that is OR. For instance, it would be OR if someone wrote that the data shows a "high degree of trust in homeopathy," while just repeating the data without comment is NPOV. DanaUllman^Talk 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, saying that there is evidence for homeopathy effectivity and then listing a lot of primary sources is also OR. You are just implying the link between the studies and their link towards effectivity instead of saying it straight away, but the link is there --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But no one (!) is suggesting that we place the prevalence information and the evidence of efficacy information in the same sentence or paragraph. Just because this is separate information in two places in this article does not make it OR. Is that what you really suggesting or did I misunderstand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaUllman (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Listing a primary source is bad, because at some point you have to justify its inclusion on the article and its relation to the topic, and that's the point where the editor has to make a link between the topic and the source. That link may be explicit ("xxx is blue because a study once found a blue instance of xxx [ref$ to primary source]") or implicit ("xxx is blue [ref to primary source]"). Sometimes it's necessary to use primary sources because of lack of secondary RS sources of topics that are not very popular or don't have secondary RS sources for a host of reasons. But, if you have secondary RS sources available, you should use those instead of the primary ones. Now, there is like a ton of secondary sources on homeopathy, its effects, etc, so, using a primary source instead would amount to deliberate OR because we are choosing to ignore the secondary sources that already used those primary sources for their creation, and creating instead our own unsupported links.

Again, WP:OR says to use common sense. Now, with dozens of secondary sources to cherry-pick from, why should we go down to thousands of primary sources and then rely on an editor's criterium to actually pick the correct ones and analyze them better than the guys that have spent all that time to write all those secondary sources? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe EN is correct here. We should be mainly drawing on secondary sources. Or at least including them in with the primary sources.--Filll (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, assume we found a reliable primary source that said that 73% of the population thinks that homeo is blatant fraud, would your interpretation of how to interpret WP and exclusion/inclusion bias shift in that case? MaxPont (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not everybody, but I'll answer for myself. If such a reliable primary source was found, then we'd have to wait until it was covered by a secondary source - such as a (respectable) newspaper - before we could use it in the article. Also, to be truly reliable we'd need details on sample size, population details, question sets, ... And regarding marketing firms, they are by their very nature generally unreliable sources. >>Partyoffive (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Well I personally think that any of this sort of material in this sort of detail probably belongs in the subsiduary daughter article on prevalence, if anywhere. I am pretty sure that I can find sources that state that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what homeopathy is, for example. So I am somewhat doubtful about this kind of "data".--Filll (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC) """"I would have to agree with fillis remark regarding placing this material in the prevalence page. this article should not go into things like this is any great detail, so if a source was found that said, for exmaple that most americans did not even know what homopathy was, that source would not going in here but would go in the United States section of Prevalence and legality of homeopathy, which was specifically devised for aht specific purpose. Furthermore, I woudl recommend that this article limit itself to only a general summary and a link to the prevalence article at most with regards to any information that is gone into exhaustive detail here. the reasons for this are threefold. First of all, the size of this article should be considrred, since making it too large and unwieldly will lead to undue havoc and frustration to casual readers of homeopathic related subjects. Second duplication of content is generally unecessary since this PRevlance Article should be linked extensively elsewhere on the Wiki. And thats about it. ~

A comment, I think that the word PREVALENCE is unnecessary abstract and would prefer the word USAGE or something similar as the title of the forked article. MaxPont (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with smithjones that the paragraph in question ought to be moved to the prevalance daughter article. BTW I see no problem with the word 'prevalence,' it is as it says about the prevalence of homeopathy in various countries and I fail to see anything even remotely controversial in using such a word. It is also a darnsight more elegant than the ugly word 'usage!' my ten cents Peter morrell 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ideas vs. theories

I made this change. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See theory, the concepts of homeopathy are not theories in the scientific sense, so using this word invites confusion. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind Quackgurus edit. Note that the word has another meaning in the social sciences and normal language than in the natural sciences. In normal languge it can mean something like: not yet proven conjecture or speculation. MaxPont (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; ideas and theories are the same thing, or sufficiently similar not to matter very much. What might be far more useful is an explanation of the entire sentence: The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine. What are these so-called 'fundamental principles of natural science' that homeopathy stands in direct opposition to? Someone might spell them out with citations, so we can see what on earth it refers to. Peter morrell 06:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you are kidding here. How about the lack of proof for water memory, or the saying that "the smaller the dose the bigger the effect". I looked at theory like Tim says, to the scientific meaning. Homeopathic ideas are not capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and they are not testable nor falsifiable. Since the sentence is talking about its scientific pausibility we should be using the scientific meaning --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is a good question. The sentence sounds as if it has a stronger foundation than "Most serious scientists think it's bollocks", which would be a sociological statement. If this foundation exists, then we should explain it to make the sentence more convincing. If it doesn't exist, we should be honest and say something like: "There is near-unanimous agreement in the scientific community that the ideas on which homeopathy is founded cannot be taken seriously". Or whatever is correct. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep to the topic: we were talking about the use of the word "theories" vs "ideas". The sentence talks about science, so we are using the scientific meaning, not the non-scientific one. The article has plenty of sources confirming the incapability of homeopathy ideas to predict future events, thus they fail the criteria for the scientific meaning, thus they are not theories, thus we must either use the word "ideas" or risk mixing meanings and creating inaccuracy. About the foundations of the sentence itself, I answered below to Peter Morrell --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of plausibility is NOT such a bigdeal in science and nor is the lack of a known mechanism -- these are very 'old chestnuts.' In due course they might be sorted out; it's possible. On their own these are 'small beer' and say nothing. They are not in conflict with major principles. So, how is homeopathy in abrogation of the "fundamental principles of natural science?" That is a much bigger claim. How is it so? tell me. Simple question. I cannot see any basis for this claim and it needs to be cited, ideally even better: a quotation. Peter morrell 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, wait a minute there. The sentence already has two references right next to it. Also, homeopathy claims that there is a known mechanism, and this mechanism goes against stablished cientific principles, saying that a non-present substance can have effects, water memory, the smaller the dose the stronger the effect, etc. So, homeopathy *does* go against fundamental principles of natural science. adenda: the sentence "its contradiction of basic scientific principles (...)" is also sourced. The article has plenty of scientific studies showing this. Sorry, but this looks like just POV pushing trying to give sientific legitimacy to science, ignoring the sources on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And about lack of plausibility, it's not a big deal on its own, but here it's not on its own. It's acompanied by several other problems. Leaving it out is taking out a verifiable sourced statement --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you say the incapability of homeopathy ideas to predict future events who says that? how do you know that? what events? what predictions? you just blithely skate over complex issues. Also what are those sources you say in the article that support the contention that homeopathy runs counter to scientific theories...can you give the quotes from those sources? No, this is not POV pushing at all it is an attempt to clarify and hammer out a specific claim made in this article which seems to be unfounded. BTW a true scientist would not be quite so touchy! what's your problem? scientists should welcome rigorous and critical inquiry OF ANY SUBJECT. thank you Peter morrell 13:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

About prediction: tell me a list of facts that homeopathy predicted before modern medicine discovery, since it's homeopathy that has to demonstrate that it is capable of prediction.

About the sources for the sentence that we are discussing, the first source referenced right at the end of the sentence says "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible" on the summary, and the second one says "Homeopathy is a popular but implausible form of medicine. Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos.". I believe that you didn't even read the sources provided to support the sentence before disputing it. Since this moment on I will consider that you are aware that the sentence is properly sourced.Meh, we were discuting about the ideas/theories change and I got somehow centered on pausibility. I need to chill out a bit.

About the sources for how homeopathy runs counter to scientific principles, I'm going to ask you to search the sentence "and its contradiction of basic scientific principles" on the article, and that you check yourself the half a dozen sources that are provided for that sentence, mainly notes 17 to 21, included. The article already provides sources for that statement, and the burden of proving that the sentence is false lays on you, not on me.I searched them myself, and found only one sentence that directly supports the statement, altought it could be on the article body that is reacheable only by payment. Turns out that Fill is right, we need a pair of RS for that exact part of the sentence :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(and the reference to how a true scientist is a bit fallacious since we are all wikipedia editors here, not true scientists, even if we would be so on real life) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The only appropriate thing to do in this case is find a couple of WP:RS that state that homeopathy violates the fundamental principles of science. But I have to agree with Peter, it is much more complicated than it appears at first glance. If you say the smaller the dose, the larger the effect, then in some cases well-verified by science one gets such an effect (an unusual dose-response curve, but this can happen). If you discuss molecules and so on, many of the dilutions do not reach the molecular limit. Even past the molecular limit, it is possible that we could measure some effect (as I have noted repeatedly, the person doing so reliably would win the Nobel Prize however). If you want to discuss the law of similars, many conventional treatments fall under this rubric, such as ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and allergy treatments. What about hormesis? What about the Arndt-Schulz rule ? Remember that too little vitamin A can produce a deficiency disease, and too much vitamin A can be toxic. Same with vitamin D and several other vitamins. Recently questions have been raised about vitamin E. --Filll (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are already sources on the article about how homeopathy would violate fundamental principles of science if it worked. There are on the same paragraph as the sentence that we are discussing, and they are sourced. Also, you are engaging in original research too and discussing the topic itself instead of proposing RS that claim those statements Geeeez, I hate being wrong (see one of the other two striken comments above). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Enric, are you not getting a little too heated? I have to provide sources and diffs for a discussion on the talk page? Me directing you to other WP pages is WP:OR? Me mentioning other examples is WP:OR? If you head down this road, it will not be good, I can assure you. And as anyone experienced on this page can tell you, I am extremely skeptical about homeopathy and even a strident supporter of mainstream science and medicine. So try to give it a rest, ok?--Filll (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are skeptical or not, I was evaluating your statements by themselves. I was just pissed off at Peter. And apparently pissed off because of a misunderstanding :(

About OR, Fill, you see, IMHO, and as far as I know, discussing the law of similars and then making links between the effects of vitamins, hormesis, Arndt-Schulz rule is OR. And IMHO saying that ritalin, vaccinations, hypnotics and allergy treatments all fall under the law of similars is also OR (as far as I know), so I see no problem with accusing you of OR. Citing examples is one thing, and citing several examples and saying that there is a supossed link between them is OR when you are not talking about links supported by secondary sources (and I agree that asking for secondary sources on the talk page is a bit excessive, but some statements are really shouting for a source. Recent questions have been raised about vitamin E? Really? I think I'll ask for a source on that :D ). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well OR does not really count here since this is the talk page. As for vitamin E, do some google searches on vitamin E toxicity. You will find a lot , such as this. A few years back, a study found that smokers who took vitamin E were more likely to die than those who did not.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem would be entering on the discussion of OR that has no chance of entering the article, when the talk page is supossed to be for discussing improvements to the article. For example, this study is really interesting (I don't smoke myself, but I people that does), but probably completely unapplicable to homeopathy unless you apply really big doses of OR to link it to the topic (basically, the study does not deal with homeopathic amounts of vitamin E). Now, if vitamin E had a property relevant to homeopathy then we could beat the theme to death until we get bored until we extract everything possibly useful from it..... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Personally I find most of the ideas that Enric thinks go against fundamental principles very unconvincing, and I believe that they are wrong except for the law of similars in some cases. However, as a mathematician I am very much used to seeing convincing proofs that my intuitions are wrong, and perhaps that makes it a bit easier for me to see the problems with such claims. Neither of you is POV pushing, and framing it that way is not helpful. Enric, for perspective you might want to think about tachyons or Braess's paradox.

Neither tachyon or braess paradoxes are theories, because they fail the definition of theory. They can't be used to predict future outcomes, and they can't be falsified. (they can be proved some day on the future, of course, and then they will become theories) (damn, I just discussed something not related to the article, let's not repeat that again :D ). Yeah, maybe Peter is not POV pushing, but he is most certainly disputing the sentence without checking the sources first, and that annoys me a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed they were theories. My point was that these are two things that might seem, for different reasons, to contradict the very fundamentals of science. If you don't see this, then I haven't chosen my examples well enough. Sorry. About the other point, perhaps more later when I have found out whether I have access to the references myself. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So there is no such thing or could not be such a thing as a Tachyon theory? There could be no theory that involved the Braess Paradox? I would beg to differ before you go around pronouncing what can and cannot be a theory. A theory is just a temporary explanation for data that makes some predictions. Under that definition, tachyons and the Braess paradox could both easily be part of theories. And if you ask me for references and charge me with committing WP:OR for stating this, then we are going to have trouble.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just implied that they were not good examples for this case because they are not (currently) theories by themselves. It seems I didn't interpret them the way that Hans intended. Hans, it's true that there are things that we believe false or imposible today and that tomorrow may become true, but it's also true that there are also lots of things that will keep being false or imposible. That's why that argument is fallacious: we won't know until tomorrow wich arguments will be true tomorrow, and accepting all as true because they may become true someday would be, well, I don't know how to express it, it would be chaotic, negate the usefulness of testing if things work, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statement has two references. (Unfortunately I can't read them, at least not from home.) But we have some editorial discretion. We are under no obligation to make strong claims here (even when found in reliable sources) if we think they are misleading. I don't know whether they are misleading, and most of our readers are in no position to know. It's certainly worth discussing.

It is also interesting to note that this strong claim is repeated in the next sentence, as if to rub it in. Have a look at the German lede (translation) for comparison: "There is no evidence for an effect of extremely small doses of a substance. So-called high potencies arithmetically no longer contain any active ingredient whatsoever. The selective increase of desired effects in the potentization procedure that is presumed by many homeopaths contradicts scientific knowledge." Note the words "desired" and "many homeopaths". That's much more cautious than what we have here. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I assure that the statement are supported by the sources, as you will see as soon as you can read the sources, so I don't think that they are misleading. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources, and what they do on the german wikipedia can be looked at as an example, but it doesn't mean that it's better or worse, or that we have to copy it --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look at the sources if I can get them. And I agree completely with the rest of your comment. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In insects, tiny minuscule doses of pheromones, only a few molecules in a cubic mile of air, can stimulate moths and other insects to find their mate or in the case of flies and mosquitoes to prey, faeces or human blood. These are well documented. Therefore, small doses is not as big an issue as it seems but yes of course 'water memory' is not a well-supported idea/theory it is just a crazy idea that might be proven one day or it might not. But it is only guesswork as many things start off in many fields. Regarding events and predictions then homeopaths would say they can predict events and make reliable clinical decisions about which remedy fits which patient, for example. Unless that is rigorously tested, then who is to say conclusively, and in advance, that they cannot make predictions? Likewise with the miasms: longitudinal studies could be underatken to show if alcoholism, bones disorders, insanity, blindness, deformities like cleft palate, and deafness do indeed shadow a single case of syphilis down a family tree as Hahnemann claimed. So much is still untested and unproven. Unless you are going to make a strong judgement in advance without a shred of evidence, which is not a very scientific way to proceed. Peter morrell 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To be a pedantic entomologist, pheromone detection is nowhere near that acute. That's a common misconception which spread from some poor science in the early studies. Jefffire (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about syphillis being passed down to descendants, our previous knowledge of genetics suggested that such a Lamarckian idea was completely discredited. But more recent investigations are finding that maybe Lamarck was not completely wrong. See Inheritance of acquired characters.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, could I suggest that you focus on the article, instead of debating the subject matter? PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We are doing exactly that! We are discussing a contentious sentence in the lead and whether it is valid. What pray is that if it is not discussing the article? You are welcome to tell us your view on this matter. Peter morrell 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, your discussion on the effect of mosquito pheromones is original research. You don't provide any source supporting the relation between the effect of mosquito pheromones and the effects of homeopathic quantitites. You are objectively not discussing how to improve the article on the topic, you are discussing the topic itself and the validity of the science behind it.

Not to mention that the comparison is dubious, since homeopathic quantities are smaller quantities of substances than the ones released by mosquitoes, and are not pheromones, and are not transported by air, and are supossed to affect human metabolism and not to stimulate the specialized pheromone-sensing organs of mosquitoes which have evolved to detect those amounts anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that homeopathy is implausible I even repeated that above myself, so why are you going back to that? But being implausible does not of itself discredit anything. It is mentioned and repeated in the article "to rub it in" as said above. Second, pheromones are active at 1 part per thousand million (I have just been reading about it and yes I am a zoologist) which is certainly within the range of some homeopathic potencies. Indeed, many other metabolic compounds and drugs with known biological activity are also active at such low concentrations, so we have the science and certainly what you or I believe is irrelevant...these are what you choose to call "the facts." We have simply been discussing the sentence and if/how homeopathy runs counter to accepted scientific principles. Thusfar neither you nor anyone else has answered that point. Please discuss this matter with more amicable humour and less hostility. Lighten up. It's just a genial exchange of ideas. It's not a war. Nobody gets shot. Peter morrell 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "Lack of plausibility is NOT such a bigdeal in science ", hum, I see I have centered too much on the pausability thing. I was talking about the ideas/theories change at the start of the section and wandered far from it.

About the pheromones, on a 15C dilution, you would have one active molecule per every 10 squared to theto the power of 30 molecules, that's 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000 compared to the 1 in 1000000000 (1 thousand million) of the pheromones. (that's from the swimming pool example, btw. If it contains 10 squared toto the power of 32 molecules of 1 15C dilution, and if you need to drink 1% to get one active molecule, then you need to drink 10 squared to the 30 molecules to get an active one). Your statement that other substance work at that concentration is moot since the concentration is way lower than you thought. Now, I think that we can agree that the action of a substance at *those* concentrations would be "directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine".

About the source, I found that on note 21 on the article, the linked paper [24] says It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science. I take this sentence as having the same meaning as the disputed sentence. Note specially that we are talking of concentrations like the 15C that I mentioned before, and that 15C is *way* lower that the concentration you appear to believe that happens on homepathic remedies.

30C is even a lower concentration, 1 active molecule per every 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 molecules (10 squared toto the power of 60). Can we agree that the active molecule still having effect would go against scientific principles, even with no source for it? The ones saying 100c and 200C are so low that it's ridiculous and they only hurt the image of homeopathy (one active molecule per several times as many molecules as the whole known universe has including dark matter and you are still short of molecules, and similar stuff). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok EN, writing as the person who wrote that swimming pool example section (or actually corrected it since it was previously in error), I think you are a bit confused (too many "squares" perhaps). A lot of homeopathic remedies have concentrations of 3X or 6X. These have plenty of molecules of the active ingredient in a typical dose of one of those homeopathic remedies.

Of course, those remedies that are past Avogadro's limit are a different story (that is have less than a single molecule of the active substance in a dose). In those cases, one is presumably relying on either the placebo effect (which is a real effect, and somewhat mysterious) or some structural arrangement in the water (extremely unlikely in my estimation, but there are some who argue that such a thing is measurable, a controversial propostion).

So things are more complicated than your simple analysis. And you have not presented anything that has not been well known for a century or more, and certainly to all of the regular editors and homeopaths here. What has to be done is to word things carefully so we can be as accurate as we can and keep the article as close to NPOV as we can.--Filll (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, you are right, it's "10 to the power of 60", I get confused because the spanish wording is more similar to "10 squared to 60" (10 elevado a 60). Apart from wording, did you find any actual error on my math? If we are going to calculate how many molecules of substance there is on a given 3C or 6C dose, then let's start from the base and let's check the basic assumptions that I used: I assume that a nC dilution would have one molecule of the original substance per every 100ⁿ = 10^2*n molecules of the solvent, so a 6C dilution would have have 1 active molecule for every 10¹² molecules, so one per every 1000000000000 molecules. Is this calculation correct?

(mind you, you are right that we still need RS for that exact statement, even if it's apparently true) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to your answer to my original question: how is homeopathy in contravention of fundamental scientific principles? Much hot air has been vented, but still no answer. thank you Peter morrell 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Meantime here is some data about insect pheromone threshold limits:

• "Maple Furanone (Abhexone) Threshold: 0.003 ppb to 0.00005 ppb" [25]

• "threshold of 10 ppb (6.07 x 10-7 g/m3)." [26]

• "Insect ORNs can determine the odour chemical concentration very quickly andaccurately in the air at the range of ppb."

[27]

These are all within the range of homeopathic potencies. the top one 0.00005 ppb is equivalent to centesimal potency 6 or 7. Insects can clearly detect such concentrations of substances. Therefore, the previous argument espoused here, that homeopathic potencies are incapable of inducing biological effects is not correct. If one type of molecule can induce such effects, then how can we just boldly claim that other such molecules are not capable of doing the same thing? To claim that is not a logical or indeed a neutral evaluation of this matter. Peter morrell 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I work in the field of entomology, many of my colleagues specialise on insect olfaction, I can tell you that a lot of the work claiming to show responses at ridiculously low concentrations is due to a failure to realise that odour plumes do not diffuse perfectly. Pulling up the early dodgy studies isn't going to convince anyone. Jefffire (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is of course an important distinction between very low concentrations and "homeopathic concentrations". I would regard a concentration as homeopathic if it was well below avagadro's constant. Anything above that is just a low concentration, and calling it anything else is equivocation. Jefffire (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are of course welcome to your POV, but most of the early homeopathy was done with potecnies BELOW 12c, so your argument is specious. One can even argue that the entire system of homeopathy prior to about 1830 was FOUNDED ENTIRELY on low potencies such as 3x, 6x and 6c all well below the Avogadro limit. So your talk on this is pretty worthless and proves nothing. Nor are the studies quoted 'old studies' as you wish to claim. Facts are facts according to your science buddies and clearly these 'low concentrations,' as you prefer to call them, have demonstrated significant biological effects. Case proven NOT by homeopaths, but biologists. Peter morrell 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're still convinced that there is a respectable scientific backing to your claim that "only a few molecules in a cubic mile of air" can stimulate an insect then go right ahead and dig up some respectable references for it, we'll be waiting. Jefffire (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's fairly clear that there is a big difference between insect olfaction at a measure of parts per million, and a cold remedy at a dilution of 10^60. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, 'a few molecules per cubic mile of air' MIGHT have been an exaggeration. I had the impression it was something like that from some reading a few years back. However, why not use your knowledge to enhance the encyclopedia? Give us some refs to show what the concentrations are that insects can detect. You say you have the entomological knowledge, so why don't you give us the latest studies and tell us what typical ppbs many insects can detect? That should be easy for you. I will look for some refs as well. It is certainly less than a few ppms and 6x is 1 ppm; 9x is 1 ppb. These are well within the limits of homeopathic potencies. We don't even need to consider 30c remedies. They were not even in use before 1830. Peter morrell 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll cut to the chase on this silly tangent. No-one claims that a low concentration cannot elicit a biological responce. A concentration of 10^-9 could easily elicit any number of responses depending on what it was. Claiming this as evidence that homeopathy doesn't run counter to scientific theories is nonsense, since homeopathy runs concentrations that are vastly greater. Jefffire (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There it is. The fact that homeopathy runs contrary to scientific principles is evident, and the article does provide sources that call homeopathy "pseudoscience" and "quackery", which is not exactly an endorsement of compliance with scientific principles. So, the lack of sources that utter the exact sentence is moot, and striking that part of the sentence on that basis would amount to a disruptive edit given how homeopathy is an article in probation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pity you couldn't use your extensive knowledge of this field to contribute something useful with citations. Here is what I found in just ten minutes (none of it early dodgy studies):

• Science Daily July 1 2006

[28]

• "Action potentials of insect olfactory receptor neurons (ORN) were picked up ... a few ppb (parts per billion) and about 100ppm (parts per million) in air," article dated December 2000

[29]

• "Documented limits of olfactory detection for the dog range from tens of parts per billion to 500 parts per trillion." current

[30]

• "In a test run with Alan, the virtual nose easily detects the difference between plain air, non-explosive DNT and methanol. The machine can smell odors at concentrations as low as 10-20 parts per billion, but the scientists hope to get it down to one part per billion. Then it would rival a real dog's nose," current

[31]

• "researchers have shown that dogs, whose noses can pick up odors in the low parts-per-billion range," New York Times, 17 Jan 2006

[32]

So it is not just insects, it is also dogs! Proven biological activity of molecules at levels of the 9x homeopathic remedy. What more do you need? Peter morrell 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that I explicately say exactly that in my previous message. I'll repeat myself then - "A concentration of 10^-9 could easily elicit any number of responses depending on what it was. Claiming this as evidence that homeopathy doesn't run counter to scientific theories is nonsense, since homeopathy runs concentrations that are vastly greater." Jefffire (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We are getting increasingly confused here. Look, obviously some of the ideas in homeopathy are quite reasonable and well within the support of current science. This includes the ideas of 1X, 3X, 6X or even higher potency remedies (both before 1830, and even some now in current use; consider Zicam for instance). This includes some instances of the method of similars. This includes some of the ideas associated with "proving". This includes some of the ideas associated with the causes of Cholera. This includes some of the ideas associated with holistic treatments. This includes some of the ideas associated with cleanliness. This includes the still mysterious placebo effect.

However, some of the ideas from homeopathy are less well supported. This includes some of the very high potency remedies (potencies beyond 12C). This includes the "general" theory of similars.

Ok so some ideas in homeopathy are reasonable, and supported by science. And some ideas are less reasonable and not supported by current science. So we have to word this very carefully to be accurate. Right?--Filll (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, depending on the reliable sources (still haven't read our current sources yet), I would be very happy to say something stronger about the second kind of ideas than just "less reasonable and not supported". --Hans Adler (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, nowhere in the article does it say that a concentration of 1:billion cannot elicitate a response, it says that the ideas are unsupported by science. Those ideas are: law of similars, miasmas, and increasing effect with dilution, and they remain unsupported. Jefffire (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, I think you are correct. We have to be clear what parts of homeopathy are not supported by science, and what parts are.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a reword from "ideas" to avoid this semantic quagmire. My suggestion:"many key principals". Jefffire (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "many key principles," don't you? Peter morrell 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that change. It looks NPOV enough to me, and actually more neutral than "ideas". I would be happier with "the key principles" since I don't know of any key principle of homeopathic that doesn't contradict science, but, oh well, I don't know in detail all principles of homeopathy anyways. The ones not contradicting science and the reasons/proofs for this can be listed somewhere on the article (out of the lead, if possible, to avoid filling it with stuff, and then making a short mention to them on the lead) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're on the right track here, and obviously there is probably a better wording. The tone and general message looks to be spot on though. Jefffire (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time, what principles does homeopathy contravene? it is not similars or miasms or small doses or provings. Something that has never been investigated by science cannot be construed as negated by it or running counter to its ideas. Even Hahnemann accepted the normal dose law, it was only when he started using drugs as a close match for a person (rather than a 'disease') that he saw weird things happen and so had to reduce his doses to remove the excess activity and aggravation. Miasms have never been investigated, so how do they contravene anything? similars is mostly based on toxicology...you smoke tobacco it makes you dizzy, nauseous and with palpitations. That is a proving. So, no, none of these empirical homeopathic phenomena have even been investigated by science, they just don't believe it, period. Absence of proof is NOT disproof and nor is disbelief. Until they are investigated thoroughly and disproved then I'm sorry but they contravene nothing. Peter morrell 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been done before. Homeopathy, at least in "potencies" beyond Avagadro's limit, violates the principle of atomicity. On the other hand, nothing you describe in your previous paragraph as a "proving" is a homeopathic "proving". In fact, I don't see anything you wrote above, including the reference to Hahnemann, which relates to homeopathy as presently described. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there significant schools of homoeopathy that say that only remedies at less than 12C/24X have any effects? If not, it is a fair comment that homoeopathy contradicts basic scientific principles. Even if such homoeopaths do exist, the vast majority of homoeopaths (including all those I've so far encountered as far as I'm aware) would appear to follow principles that contradict basic science. Brunton (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated all homeopathy before 1830 was using low potencies and yes there are today significant numbers of homeopaths who use only the lower potencies, 3x, 6x, 6c, 12c etc, all below the Avogadro limit. There has been a lot of ill-informed opinion aired but no citations and no reason given why or how homeopathy breaches any scientific principles. The sentence needs modifying to reflect the facts not opinions. But the anti-homeopaths here who control this article just don't want to see any changes made. Peter morrell 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

i) 12C is not below the "Avogadro limit"

ii) Do you have references for these "significant numbers of homeopaths" please?

Brunton (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You've already been answered on this. The fact that lower potency could in theory have a biological effect does not change the fact that many key principles of homeopathy are unsupported by science. Jefffire (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that homeopathy is scientifically implausible, that is an OK statement, but the 'conflict with science' bit needs amending IMO. Ideally that needs doing to reflect the reality of the situation, and also regarding lower potencies still in widespread use that don't abrogate even basic chemistry. Maybe someone can suggest a possible rewording for people to comment on. Peter morrell 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did propose and alternative wording. Jefffire (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Am sorry but I cannot see it. Maybe you would kindly consider repeating it here? The issue has still not been settled. Nobody has given referenced submissions detailing where science has disproved even ONE principle of homeopathy. And not one scientific principle has been listed yet that homeopathy stands in breach of apart from the high potencies, which has already been dealt with. We just seem to be going round in circles getting nowhere. We need a clear rewording for folks to look at and decide on through genuine consensus. thank you Peter morrell 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you did see my proposed reword. You were even so polite as to correct the spelling. Jefffire (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Jeffire is talking about this comment of yours [33]. Also, I don't agree that the high potencies issue has been dealt with. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, right, sorry I must have missed that! No problem changing ideas to key principles but what I think it should say is that neither the alleged 'key principles' of science or those of homoeopathy are demonstrably in conflict EXCEPT for the high potencies. The phrase implausible can be kept as that is correct. I would say something like: Most scientists regard homeopathy as highly improbable and implausible; the usual dose law of chemistry and pharmacology appears to be in conflict with the high potencies, but the lower potencies (below 23x & 12c) are not in breach of that because some natural substances (e.g. some hormones, pheromones, sex attractants in insects, flower scents that attract pollinating animals, odours that dogs can detect, etc) can show significant biological activity even at doses of 1-10 parts per billion (add cites), which is equivalent to 9x or 4c potency. How does that sound now? Peter morrell 15:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And you can also add that significant numbers of homeopaths, especially in continental Europe still use these low potencies below 12c. Peter morrell 15:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lower doses are still demonstrably wrong because homeopaths claim that they has greater effects because of the dilution. The fact that some highly acute systems can respond to such dilutions is frankly irrelevant. Jefffire (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone else can chip in on this one? Please explain how that info about molecules at low dilution is irrelevant, in your view? thanks Peter morrell 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths claim that their remedies have a greater effect because of the dilution. This is the key principle of homeopathy that we are discussing. This principle is in direct contradiction to established scientific theories. I take it that you concede this since you are not discussing it in your edits. We are not discussing whether it is possible for a biological system to respond to very low concentration. It is clear that some can, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Jefffire (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We have touched on this point before but I would not call it a key principle. As I said before the only situation in which a diluted drug becomes so important is towards the patient who needs that remedy. This was Hahnemann's original observation that a person is sensitive to nothing in particular BUT the substance that matches their symptom totality. On that basis I would disagree that homeopaths have made a general law from that, a law that applies to all potencies; rather they believe that a substance only becomes actively therapeutic for the person whose symptom totality it matches. This is why anyone can take a homeopathic remedy and it does nothing. It does nothing for everyone except the person who needs it. This can also be an interpretation of what you mean when you say 'acute systems.' Molecules can be detected and have great power when they match an acute system. That is another way of describing the acute sensitivity to a remedy that certain persons have. So I disagree that the small dilutions of pheromones are irrelevant to this discussion, quite the contray they are superbly relevant as they show that the phenomenona explored in homeopathy are also 'out there' in other realms of nature whereby living systems can acutely recognise a certain molecule at incredibly low dilutions. Therefore, I disagree with your entire line of argument as it is not rooted in a deep understanding of what homeopathy is and how remedies act in patients. Peter morrell 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that dynamisation is not an important part of homeopathy is fringe PoV. Most homeopaths believe it is important. Your belief that insect pheromones are comporable to homeopathic remedies is OR (not to mention [absurd]). Jefffire (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Even for low potencies, the "law of infinitessimals" conflicts with science (incidentally, should we refer to these as "laws"? They barely qualify as hypotheses). Ask any pharmacologist. you can go back as far as Paracelsius on this one. The stuff about insect pheromones and dogs is just irrelevant to homoeopathy. Using this as some sort of analogy is just like Dana Ullman's claim that Darwin's experiments with Drosera and ammonium salts were somehow "homeopathic" simply because they involved low concentrations. Brunton (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy vs. science in the lede

This discussion is way too unfocused. As far as I can tell, the passage in question is this, from the lead:

The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience[17], quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

No one seems to care to much about the original question of whether to use the word "ideas" or "theories" or "principles", nor does anyone object to calling them "implausible". So it's really a question of just these phrases:

... directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine. ... contradiction of basic scientific principles

As near as I can tell, no one is claiming that all the principles of homeopathy contradict basic scientific principles. The principles of similars might be wrong, but there is no fundamental reason it couldn't be right. So what "contradictions" are we discussing? These maybe?

1. The use of doses beyond the Avogadro limit.
2. The idea that higher dilution can result in more effective remedies.

I have my own opinions and comments about both these points, but I would like to first ask the active participants if this is a correct identification of the major issues. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only issue where science and homeopathy diverge is the issue of sub-molecular doses. Homeopathy holds that effectiveness increases with "potency", without positing any limit on this relationship. While medical science does allow for unusual dose-response graphs, there is a definite limit to that relationship, at <1 molecule. This is because medicine is based on biology which is based on organic chemistry - in other words, on chemical reactions. No chemical, no reaction. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for refocusing us. I am happy with your description of the problem.

• 1 has a weak form ("possibly due to the placebo effect") and a strong form ("more effective than placebos"). Weak 1 is absolutely plausible. Strong 1 is severely implausible, but saying that it contradicts the fundamental principles of science is unfair. If we use such a low standard for such a strong statement, then the existence of life contradicts the fundamental principles of science, and therefore proves the existence of God.
• 2 has a weak form ("possibly due to the placebo effect"), an intermediate form ("for some substances there is a range where this holds and is not due to the placebo effect"), and a strong form ("it's generally true for all substances, over the full range up to C1000"). Weak 2 is almost certainly true, intermediate 2 is plausible, and strong 2 is so severely implausible, that I am not sure if it contradicts the fundamental principles of science. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there are no supporters of #2 here except Jefffire and I hope he will reconsider. As Sheffield Steel points out, there are a number of unusual dose-response relationships known to science, so it seems a stretch to find a direct contradiction there. (But a red flag, maybe.) I would like to limit the discussion to #1, if we may, in its strong form: Homeopathy claims that remedies diluted beyond the Avogadro limit can have a specific (beyond placebo) medical effect. This is the fact that we have to say something about, and about which we should reconsider the best formulation. Peter Morrell correctly points out that homeopaths also use remedies that are not so highly diluted, but I doubt that any of them would go so far as to say that ultra-molecular solutions cannot have any effect. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that unusual dose relationships don't exist. I think a lot of my meaning has gotten confused in the ridiculous tangent up above. But it is clear that succession as a method to increase effectiveness of all remedies is unsupported by science. Incidentally "unsupported by science" is a pretty good wording IMO. Jefffire (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wordy and tangential discussions are a good way to obfuscate meaning. I think throwing succussion into the ring has the potential to do that, too. Do you really wish to treat succussion to the same category as ultra-molecular dilutions? Remember that shaking is a standard technique in chemistry when mixing substances, so I don't think you can support it as being in contradiction to basic scientific principles (even though it may be wrong as applied by homeopaths). If we can agree that the biggest problem is ultra-molecular dilutions, then we can give the sentence much more stylistic impact, something like this:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. In particular, the use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its reliance on remedies without molecules, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

Of course, we need to re-examine the sources to make sure we are reporting their statements rather than reading our own ideas into them. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art, what I'm trying to say is that the claim that succession always increases the potency of any given remedy is wrong. It's possible to find specific examples where a lower concentration could produce a greater result, but I'm objecting to the strong claim. Jefffire (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say that homeopathic remedies don't have any potency under any circumstances. And most homeopaths would say that there is an optimum potency to use in any particular case. But can you make a clear statement? Is it OK with you to limit the discussion of contradictions in the lead to ultra-molecular doses, or will you be unhappy unless we mention succussion? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be a more elegant solution to reword the "contradictions" bit to "many of it's key principles are unsupported by science". I think the ultra-molecular stuff would be best left in the main body of the article. What do you think? Jefffire (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Art, you still need to say low potencies are in breach of nothing in science, and maybe mention the well-known biological activity of other tiny dose phenomena as discussed in the fruitful but allegedly "absurd and ridiculous tangent" above. Peter morrell 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, thank you. Jefffire (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about saying "the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted" in the lead and saving a discussion of low potencies for the main text? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted" is much better. It is the weakest spot of homeopathy, but it is so weak that apparently not all homeopaths believe in it. It's fair to attack it, even though this is a bit like using the perpetual virginity of Mary to attack Roman catholics. But at least we should not insinuate without clear evidence that all homeopaths actually believe in sub-Avogadro super-placebo effectiveness. It just might be that many believe in the law of similars and a strong placebo effect. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't truthfully say "many of it's key principles are unsupported by science," unless you say which principles and how they purportedly lack such support and/or add cites to qualify this absurd claim. Peter morrell 10:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an intro, details are in the main space in the section Medical and scientific analysis, and fully cited. Jefffire (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an important point. We should perhaps fix that section before fixing the lede. Currently the discussion under Homeopathy#High dilutions insinuates that the high dilutions are fundamental for homeopathy. This is not made explicit, and it is not referenced. I have no doubt that we can find references for that, but I would expect that we can also find references that play down the importance of high potencies without contradicting it explicitely. That's what I would expect from a homeopath who doesn't believe in them but 1) doesn't want to get into trouble with his more radical colleagues, and 2) doesn't want to spoil a potentially larger placebo effect associated with: "Wow, such a large number. He has never prescribed me such strong stuff before!" --Hans Adler (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that I am only talking about a minor wording issue. 10:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

That's ONE principle (high dilutions) not principles plural. Peter morrell 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your claiming that the law of miasmas and the law of similars are supported by science? Jefffire (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before in the "absurd and ridiculous tangent" lack of proof does not equate to disproof. They have never been investigated by scientists, but obviously a certain judge and jury here has decided in advance in an evidence-free manner that they are disproven. Where is the "science" in that? We should be reporting what is or is not, rather than leading the reader on and suggesting or implying things that have never even been studied. That's OR and POV. Peter morrell 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say "disproof". My prefered wording is "unsupported by science", which encapsulates your view that it is unstudied. Jefffire (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The word unsupported clearly means it lacks support which further implies that it has been investigated and no proof has been found. That is not a correct statement of the facts. A simple rewording is needed. It would be easier to say high potencies are not supported by science and leave it at that but you want your cake and eat it of course. Suggest a more neutral and factual wording. Peter morrell 11:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unsupported" is accurate, factual and neutral. Your view that it intimates disproof is PoV. Jefffire (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say "its key principles are unsupported by science" is fair. Unless anything that one would normally call a key principle of homeopathy has actually been supported by science, which doesn't seem to be the case. (It's not as if there hadn't been any attempts to scientifically prove water memory.) It does have some mild connotations towards "contradict science", but I consider that OK given the Avogadro question. But with any stronger formulation I would insist on spelling out the problematic key principles. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

Allow me to summarize. I see two proposals with different content (not just different wording):

1. Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. In particular, the use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine.[14][15]
2. Many of the key principles of homeopathy are unsupported by science.

The first one makes a strong statement about a single, specific aspect of homeopathy. The second one makes a weak statement about many, unspecified aspects. Both statements are defendable. Which one is more helpful to the reader? Which one is better supported by the sources? I think the first statement is more helpful, but I can live with either one. If we choose to use the second statement, I would want to consider supplying a short list of exactly which principles are meant. (If that is considered an inappropriate level of detail for the lead, it may alternatively be put in the main text, in a footnote, or even spelled out in a hidden comment or on the Talk page.) If I remember previous discussions correctly, there are some voices that will insist on the strong statement here. Is there any editor out there to whom one or the other of these statements is not acceptable at all? --Art Carlson (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I support consensus and object to neither, which seems to be consensus. Peter morrell 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not use both? Jefffire (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The second version doesnt't fit into the position. ("Claims … are unsupported …. … key principles … are unsupported.") Apart from that I am happy with both. But let's be clear that this would mean we are losing the part about characterisations of homeopaths by others. (We had only discussed part of that sentence.) Currently it is too strong to be neutral, but I wouldn't be opposed to a sentence explaining that homeopathy is controversial. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I had intended to retain the sentence, The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its reliance on remedies without molecules, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21], after version 1, 2, or 3, if that's what you are referring to. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Additional contributions to this thread have been moved to #Quackery in the lead.)

Like this? (edit conflict)

3. Several key principles of homeopathy have no scientific support and are indeed scientifically implausible. In particular, the use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine.

I have no objection to that. What about the other editors? One might ask if we should be more succinct in the lead, and I would still like to see those principles enumerated somewhere. I think all three version speak to Peter's objection that the present version makes it sound like homeopathy fundamentally contradicts science in several ways, while there is really only one aspect that does so. (There is still plenty of room for homeopathy to be unscientific in less fundamental ways.) --Art Carlson (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have achieved something between consensus and boredom with this question. I conclude that any of the three proposals is acceptable. My personal preference is #1, so I will proceed to change the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead from this:

The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

to this:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible.[14][15] In particular, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its reliance on remedies without molecules, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[17] quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]

As I recall, at some point we had references directly supporting the "contradiction" language, but I have lost track of them. If someone can dig them out, it would improve the passage and head of quarrels in the future. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Go ahead! Peter morrell 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

controversial edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=next&oldid=201354707 <-- This was a controversial edit. It removed well written text and then added some new text. The original text and the new text have there advantages. I suggest we restore the original text and also add the new information to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how it is controversial? Nobody complained prior to the edit being made and the changes were fully and minutely discussed here beforehand, ad nauseam. Peter morrell 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is controversial because the edit removed quality text. The original meaning is lost. I agree with Jefffire. We can use both. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the previous method conveniently adopted, perhaps you can suggest here what you regard as an improved wording, for people to make comments upon? thanks Peter morrell 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly no problem with further improvements and am eager to see your proposal here. Are you advocating variation 3, or something new? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the current text is a consensus version after an extended discussion over almost a week. You initiated this discussion with your edit, and you had the chance to take part in it. We have toned down some statements and we have made some more precise, both in order to get this article closer to NPOV. In my eyes putting the old POV statements back in would definitely not be an improvement. You will probably find it much easier to convince me (and the other participants in the discussion, I guess) to undo the changes or reinsert removed passages if you give detailed reasons for each passage. Here are the two versions, to facilitate this discussion. Previous text:

The ideastheories behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience, quackery, or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Current text:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. In particular, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and its reliance on remedies without molecules have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience, quackery, or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

--Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC) / 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of the "current version" above is an unsupported controversial statement -- there are many more facts "in particular" such as the lack of double-blind studies confirming effacacy during remedy development, so to include only one is misleading. It has been established that the first sentence of the "previous version" is well-supported by its peer-reviewed sources, so I have reverted. CKCortez (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about a previous consensus that I was not involved in. Can you please give me a pointer to the archive where I can find it? Thanks.

I would like to make clear what the issue is from my point of view. I have no doubt that one can find peer-reviewed sources that make phantastic claims such as "The [i.e. all] theories behind homeopathy are [scientifically implausible and] directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine." But we have editorial discretion to ignore obvious cases of scientists going over board and losing all their caution once they are talking about a fringe topic. Fortunately we are not forced to say that "it has been proved that homeopathy works", just because one or two peer-reviewed publications say so. But the same holds for fringe claims at the other end of the spectrum.

Also, we are talking about the lede. If you think "in particular" is misleading because it can be read as something else than "for example", then in the current constructive atmosphere I don't think anybody will object to changing this. Lack of confirmation in double-blind studies is already addressed in the same paragraph in the two sentences preceding the changed passage.

If you can find real improvements I have personally no problems with trying a BRD style editing mode (although I doubt it's wise to try it). But if you just revert to the previous text I will consider this a serious regression towards an unscientific POV. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: This was in response to an earlier, unedited version of CKCortez' post in which he announced the revert but had not done it yet. He reverted while I wrote my response. [34] --Hans Adler (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the definition of "in particular" is "specifically or especially distinguished from others" but there are several reasons that homeopathy is at odds with science and medicine, the missing molecules from high dilution being only one. In my opinion and in the opinion of the articles cited in that paragraph, that molecules are missing is a lesser issue than the lack of reproducible double-blind studies. Therefore the dilution is not "distinguished," specifically or especially, from those more substantial problems. CKCortez (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies. Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that most of these studies suffer from serious shortcomings in their methods. Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. For example, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of natural science, chemistry, and modern medicine. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and and its reliance on remedies without molecules have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience, quackery, or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Here is a blend of both versions above. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I made this change and this change. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

after the revert

I consider this revert a serious regression and have tagged the offending sentence as POV. As a scientist I am disappointed that what I consider to be the first irrational escalation in which I am involved in connection with this article was started by the "debunking" side.

I have notified CKCortez and myself about article probation. QuackGuru and CKCortez, please read my message above and explain, if possible, why this was not a regression to an unverifiable claim that masquerades as science. I am planning to undo this change, and replace "in particular" by "for example", to take the only concrete argument for it into account. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)