Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Impasse

Dear All,

Despite appearances to the contrary, I have not avoided this page. It has taken me this long to figure out how it works. OK, here is my problem:

What is written is not often factual, nor often a fair rerpreserntation of homeopathy (especially the parts that relate to scepticism). If it is an encyclopedia article, we need to stick to things that can be backed up. I would suggest we all take the burden of proving what we state where it is challenged so we can sort out opinion from fact. Given that it is homeopathy, we should at least disinguish what the founder of homeopathy said and what later followers have said and done. I have studied and practiced this art for many years, have written extensively on it and am prepared to back uop everything I say. I can go through in detail what is in the introduction and lay out what is the problem there, then do it for all the other paragraphs. Here is my edit of the summary:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial [this is editorializing, not factual unless it is put in all articles on alternative medicine, when it is meaningless] system of alternative medicine, best known for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients [this implies all remedies are so used, which is not true as many are used in mother tincture form or in potency below Lochschmidt's Number]. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but neither its empirical nor its theoretical foundation is accepted by any major scientific or medical organizations [again, same problem - unless applied to all alt med articles, not fair, but then effectively useless- better to simply note here that it's principles challenge accepted scientific notions as well as the principles of conventional medicine - that makes the point and is factual]. Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail, with equal emphasis placed on both physical and psychological symptoms [I guess no one here practices, because this is not accurate - better to remove "equal"and add "to determine the image of the disease in the patient" - as the symptoms, as Hahnemann made clear, are not the disease, but the totatlity of characteristic sx gives us the image or complex]. The practitioner then prescribes very small, nontoxic doses of a selected substance [this is very vague and uninforming - more accurate would be to say "of a substance that matches the disease image or complex in the patient"]

OK, a start. I'd like to hear from anyone as to whether what I have suggested is in any way inaccurate or well-founded. rudiverspoor

lets go through your point one at a time then. 1. Throw in the word frequent then 2. There are some non contiriversal forms of alt med ie the dead ones that everyone thinks are quackery 3.the point that is ment to be made there how hard it is rejected. 4. that would dpend on what version of homeopathy you follow (anyone who is thinking of mention bach flower remedies shut up)5. sentace should probably read "a remedy that they belive will be effecctive". Geni 15:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Guys - I truly believe that between all of us, we can turn this into a good article that will work for everyone. But I'd like to propose some rules of the road:

• Rudi
  • Build from the general to the specific in defining what homeopathy is. Your view is perfectly valid, but it's one of many, and you have to learn to "write for the enemy" and describe all in an even-handed way
  • While the German expressions (and I happen to know German) are helpful in some ways, it is better to describe things in plain language
• Geni
  • Try your hardest to avoid letting your skepticism/hostility creep in. For example, you object to the term "complete medical system," because homeopathy doesn't include CPR. Legitimate objection. But you may want to try to understand what homeopaths mean by such an expression

• personaly I'd rather deal with what the english language means by by that term.Geni 14:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Avoid strawman arguments, such as holding all of homeopathy today responsible for a) what Hahnemann wrote somewhere; or b) what you think homeopathy stands for

• I have done neither.Geni 14:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • A nit: all forms of alternative medicine are controversial; by writing that homeopathy is a "controversial form of alternative medicine," you are trying to compound your point. Homeopaths may appear here disputing that homeopathy is alternative medicine at all, and will also argue that even if it were, it's probably the least controversial type. You're inviting trouble by phrasing things that way, and we'll never get anywhere

• I never wrote that. As I have repeatedly said little of this article was writen by me.Geni 14:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• All
  • Let's try to restructure this into the proposed organization.
  • It should be up to the reader to decide on the merits or lack thereof of homeopathy; our job is to present facts - and facts include assertions you may disagree with. --Leifern 14:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Now for Leifern
  • Stop trying to play the neutral outsider. You convinve no one.Geni 14:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you disagree with any of these points? Clearly, I want to hold myself to the same standards as I hold everyone else. --Leifern 17:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Response to Rudiverspoor re lead section:

• It's not editorializing to report the fact that homeopathy is controversial. There is a significant difference between methods of treatment that are generally accepted by the scientific establishment and those that are not. For some readers, who think the establishment is inertia-ridden or in the pay of the drug companies or whatever, it won't be a big negative and might even be a positive, but there are enough people who think otherwise that the distinction must be noted prominently. We aren't going to say that chemotherapy is a medical treatment that... and that crystal healing is a medical treatment that... and mention this difference only several paragraphs later.
• The phrase "best known for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients" doesn't imply that all remedies are so used; it merely mentions the one feature of homeopathy that's most prominent in the public consciousness. The details can come later in the article.
• I think that the lack of mainstream scientific acceptance should in fact be in every article about a form of alternative medicine. Your language about "challenge" is too vague. The unexplained wobble in the orbit of Uranus was a challenge to nineteenth-century astronomers -- an anomalous fact that didn't fit with their theories and so needed to be investigated. That's not the case with homeopathy. It has been investigated, and mainstream science has rejected it. This sentence explains the earlier reference to "controversial" by stating the facts, that homeopathy is widely practiced but isn't accepted by the orthodox scientific/medical establishment.
• In response to your comments on the lead section's summary of homeopathy, what if we substituted the following:

Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner considers the physical and psychological symptoms to determine the image of the disease in the patient. The practitioner then prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of a substance thought to match the disease image or complex in the patient.

I've said "thought to match" because we can't endorse the theory, by saying it actually does match. In the body of the article, where an entire section is devoted to the exposition of homeopathic beliefs, this context is clear, and we don't need to say "allegedly" or "homeopaths claim" every sentence, but in the lead section we need to take more care. JamesMLane 17:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered reply to my points. Allow me to reply in return:

1. re "controversial", I accept your point, but given that it is alternative, that already states that it is not accepted by the medical establishment and therefore controversial in their minds. This would be like stating in an article on the Reformation, that it is still controversial and not accepted by the religious establishment (ie. the Catholic church, which has a claim to universaility, even if obviously disputed). I'm not sure who the medical establishment is here, except the AMA. Surely, the word alternative tells us it is controversial, otherwise we could use the word complementary.

2. So, ditto my response re the reference to acceptance by the medical establishement. I think it would be front page news when that happens and factually we can change the article by removing the word "alternative".

3. Re "best known for", I can concede the point, but if we are going to be accurate, and not misleading, because many people won't read past this summary, we could with a little economy achieve some useful and greater clarity, as this only cements the idea that homeopathy is about the "airy nothings" that the "establishment" rejects. Fine, but that doesn't negate the law of similars.

4. Fine for your redraft of the last part. Won't argue that.

So, can we live with:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, best known for its use of certain remedies without chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but its principles go counter to accepted scientific notions as well as the principles of conventional medicine. Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner considers the physical and psychological symptoms to determine the image of the disease in the patient. The practitioner then prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of a substance thought to match the disease image or complex in the patient. --Rudi 21:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)rudiverspoor

Does "alternative medicine" tell us that it's controversial? Well, it tells you, and it tells me, but I don't think it tells everyone. The Manual of Style, after pointing out that our readers have widely different backgrounds, says: "State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader." (Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#State the obvious; the whole section on thinking of the reader is worth a look.) Not everyone will be familiar with the concept of "alternative medicine". That's one reason the term is wikilinked at its first occurrence. If we desperately needed to save one word, I would sooner eliminate "alternative" than "controversial".

The idea of "best known for" was one that I inserted. Here again, you and I may have different ideas of the reader's level of expertise. I'm thinking of a reader who, for example, is vaguely aware of a branch of alternative medicine that involves different patterns in the eye, and has heard the term "homeopathy" associated with alternative medicine, and comes to this article thinking it might have what he's looking for. It may seem inconceivable to you that anyone would confuse homeopathy and iridology. Well, little babies are being born every day who've never heard either term, and some of them still won't have mastered the details by the time they come to Wikipedia. One goal in the lead section is to give the reader a quick idea of which alternative medicine practice the article is about. In fact, it might be that the use of successive dilutions is the thing most readers would recognize, so on reflection I think that ought to be mentioned as the reason for the absence of chemically active substances.

Also, for clarity, I think this lead section should be broken into two paragraphs, and I've made some wording changes from your version (I didn't like "scientific notions", for example). So what about this version:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine, best known for its use of certain remedies that are so highly diluted as to have no chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but its principles are contrary to accepted scientific beliefs as well as to the principles of conventional medicine.

Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner considers the physical and psychological symptoms to determine the image of the disease in the patient. The practitioner then prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of a substance thought to match the disease image or complex in the patient.

JamesMLane 23:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Dear James, thanks for the comments. I can live with what you have written with the exception of "controversial," unless you can show me that similar articles on let's say, chiropractic, naturopathic medicine, TCM, etc. have this adjective up front. I would think that the reference a few lines down pretty well tells the uninformed reader that it is controversial. In fact, it does impune the average intelligence mightily to imply that by reading the term "alternative" that this does not mean it is in dispute, otherwise it wouldn't be "alternative" but part of the mainstream. I could live with "controversial system of medicine." With that, we might just have a good intro unless somehow has some further issues to raise. --Rudi 02:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia is that there's a limit to how far one can go with inter-article comparisons. We have no editorial board that supervises all the articles in a given topic area. All our articles are written and edited by volunteers -- self-appointed volunteers. It's not uncommon for the editorial team for one article can be substantially or even completely different from the group working on a comparable article. As a result, very similar issues can be resolved in completely different ways. I'm inclined to think that the articles on most alternative treatments should note the controversy early on, but I just don't have time to take that up as a crusade.

I'll admit to having made some edits to the article on Reiki. It begins:

Reiki is said by its practitioners to be a form of complementary or alternative medicine, developed (or rediscovered) during the Meiji period (the late 19th century) by Mikao Usui in Japan. It has gained widespread popularity throughout the Western World. Nevertheless, because of the lack of objective evidence for its theories or its results, the scientific establishment considers Reiki to be quackery.

That paragraph doesn't say "controversial" but it also doesn't accept as fact the practitioners' characterization of their field as a form of medicine; it reports that that's what they say. Furthermore, it provides a more forthright statement of the controversy in its concluding sentence. If you want to use this language as the model, I'll go along with you.  :)

The trouble with "controversial system of medicine" is that it loses the important information that homeopathy is clearly part of alternative medicine. I would've thought that was one of the few things everyone could agree on. There are medical controversies about the safety of breast implants, the relative merits of Salk versus Sabin polio vaccine, etc. The phrase "controversial system of alternative medicine" tells the reader succinctly that this isn't a dispute of that type, i.e., one among mainstream scientists, and also provides the early wikilink to the alternative medicine article for readers not familiar with that important concept. JamesMLane 06:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think that the point about homeopathy and where it stands regarding conventional medicine is adequately stated for the reader in the last sentence. I don't understand why you are insistent on the word controversial. It is too general. The last sentence is more precise as to where the problem lies. Anything anyone doesn't agree with is controversial. The WHO lists homeopathy as one of the world's systems of medicine and the second most popular. It is accepted by many governments, doctors, etc. so it is not universaly controversial. The last sentence tells the reader something valuable. To add "controversial" simply aounds like it's not legitimate. What is accepted in science today was once very controversial. Quantum physics was for a long time controversial, as is chaos theory now, or other new ideas on the edge of science. So, I don't see much value in this word, especially since the later wording tells the reader up front what he really needs to know. If he can't extract from that that it is controversial, (but at least them knowing what the issue is), he shouldn't be reading this encyclopedia or reading at all. So, can't we just go with your excellent re-draft earlier, without the word controversial?

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, best known for its use of certain remedies that are so highly diluted as to have no chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but its principles are contrary to accepted scientific beliefs as well as to the principles of conventional medicine.

Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner considers the physical and psychological symptoms to determine the image of the disease in the patient. The practitioner then prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of a substance thought to match the disease image or complex in the patient.

--Rudi 10:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh dear. It's been a while since I looked at this page and it seems to have gone downhill a bit. Rudi -"its principles are contrary to accepted scientific beliefs" - Science isn't a belief system. unlike homeopathy and religion it is not founded on dogma, your phrasing is totally unacceptable. I'll come back and discuss other issues further when I have time. Jooler 10:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jooler, please note that the term "belief" was not mine, but offered by JamesMLane to replace mine (notions). It would pay to read the material here before rushing to judgment. I don't mind been criticized, but not for something I didn't do or say. I personally think science is as much about belief (what Kuhn calles normal science - the establishment) as religion, but I didn't insert that. --Rudi 10:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of science, Rudi, is worrisome. As far as I know, the only good example of a theory that was long resisted and later turned out to be true is plate tectonics. Quantum physics was never controversial in this sense. Scientists struggled with it for several years, but it was immediately recognized by the scientific establishment as being an approach worth considering to several long-standing problems. The only thing controversial about chaos theory is the extent to which some people oversell its applications. Nobody doubts its validity as a mathematical theory or its applicability in certain circumstances. Stick to what you know. (As far as the extended bickering over the word "controversial" goes, you have an uphill battle anyway, so why don't you start with the point you consider most important?) Art Carlson 11:05, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

My problem with asserting that homeopathy is "a system of alternative medicine" is that I don't consider it a system of medicine of any kind. I consider it unadulterated quackery. To assert flatly that it is a system of alternative medicine is to accept its adherents' claims at face value, which violates NPOV. It's acceptable to me to say that it's a controversial system of alternative medicine, which adequately qualifies the assertion, or to follow the Reiki model and say that homeopathy "is said by its practitioners to be a form of complementary or alternative medicine", which attributes the opinion. JamesMLane 12:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • Well, this is becoming rather nonsensical. I thought it was about what was fact, not opinion. It's not about whether you "think" it is a system of medicine, but whether it is or not more broadly. This is what I took from the US government-funded National Institute for Health website, which shows it IS a system of medicine. The WHO says the same thing, in fact that it is the second most popular system in the world:

"NCCAM classifies CAM therapies into five categories, or domains:

1. Alternative Medical Systems

Alternative medical systems are built upon complete systems of theory and practice. Often, these systems have evolved apart from and earlier than the conventional medical approach used in the United States. Examples of alternative medical systems that have developed in Western cultures include homeopathic medicine and naturopathic medicine. Examples of systems that have developed in non-Western cultures include traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda." --Rudi 00:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"I thought it was about what was fact, not opinion." Yes, but we report facts about opinions. NCCAM's opinion doesn't establish the point as fact. The fact is that many scientists consider homeopathy worthless. (Many of the same people also consider NCCAM itself to be worthless, as it happens, but that's beyond the scope of this article.) The fact is that homeopathy is controversial, so we should state that fact. Something from NCCAM could be included in the article if attributed to NCCAM. If all the money we're pouring down the NCCAM rathole has produced any properly controlled, double-blind studies of whether homeopathy actually benefits patients, that information should certainly be included. JamesMLane 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, James, that's your opinion, and though I realize you share it with many others, your view that it is "unadulterated quackery" is really irrelevant to what we're doing here. If someone wrote that conventional medicine was a big scham, that would be equally irrelevant. We should report what homeopathy claims to be - just like we report what physics, surgery, or psychiatry claim to be, and make note of objections to it. If you can give me examples of alternative medicine that aren't controversial, we should surely write "controversial alternative medicine," but since it appears that all forms of alternative medicine are routinely denounces as "unadulterated quackery," the "controversial" qualifier really only serves to promote your opinion. --Leifern 19:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the article shouldn't say, "Homeopathy is a form of quackery...." I was mentioning my opinion only to make the point that calling it a system of medicine is also an opinion. Your argument that all forms of alternative medicine are controversial is probably correct (no counterexamples occur to me offhand). The key point, though, as I stated in one of my responses to Rudiverspoor, is that not every reader knows that. You say, "We should report what homeopathy claims to be...." Fine, I'll go along with "Homeopathy is said by its practitioners to be a form of complementary or alternative medicine." That reports and attributes the claim. Similarly, the charge of quackery shouldn't be stated as fact, but the opinion should be reported and attributed. JamesMLane 19:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's be careful about the qualifers here - practitioners and supporters actually accept it as a complete system of medicine comparable (or even superior) to what they term allopathic medicine; this acceptance is certainly disputed, and that should be noted. I am actually unsure whether it is true that the conventional medical community rejects it as categorically as Geni seems to assume - according to some homeopathic sources, a large number of medical doctors wittingly or unwittingly prescribe homeopathic remedies, especially in Europe. This needs to be confirmed, obviously. Having said that, we also have to make it clear that among skeptics there is a wide range of views: from agnostics to militant opponents. "Quackery" is a serious accusation that we should be careful to use. --Leifern 20:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lets be very clear about this. Most GPs will tell their patients if something makes you feel better, whether that be praying to a plaster saint, or wearing a copper band, or chanting "Ommm" - then go ahead and do it. They know full well the placebo effect works. Jooler 20:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In most european countries doctors can't legaly prescribe placebos anymore. I have seen reports that some use homeopathy to get around this.Geni 21:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about placebo. Placebo exists in all medicine. How else to explain that when a new medicine is introduced that is said to be better than an old one, the efficacy drops dramatically. Also, almost all new drugs introduced using drug trials are barely better than placebo, and if one adds in the side-efects, one wonders if it is not better to give placebo, or indeed, if the drug's effectiveness is not due to placebo. In any case, that is neither here nor there.

this article isn't about conventional medicine either. I was simply adding to Jooler's remark

Surely, we can agree that homeopathy is an alternative system of medicine, and then later in the paragraph state clearly that it goes counter to received ideas. Everyone's points are taken into account. --Rudi 00:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Whats wrong with makeing it clear it is contiversal from the first.Geni 00:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Study after study shows that homeopathic remedies are no better than placebos. Homeopathic remedies are placebos and GPs sometimes prescribe them as such. The ethics of this are questionable (controversial?). When GPs rely on homeopathic remedies, in preference to proven effective treatments they get themselves in to hot water ([1]). Homeopathic remedies contain nothing that can do the patient any good/or harm to the patient and there is no mechanism in which they can work (controversial?). Homeopathy is an "alternative medicine" in the same way that Shamanism or crystal therapy or Reiki is. By any standard, a therapeutic system that has been demonstrated countless times to be ineffective is controvesial. Jooler 08:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your conclusions are rather one-sided. While some studies show it is no better, others show it is. Inconclusive. Science continues to study it. The point is rather to be precise about what is in dispute, which is in the paragraph. Controversial has the element of judgment, not fact. To state what the dispute is is more accurate. Controversial is a word that hides a value-judgement. If I introduce a speaker as "the controversial author of a book on morphogenic fields" that is different from "the author of a book on morphgenic fields that goes counter to current accepted theories of physics" that would be more valuable to the reader. This insistence on controversial simply highlights a hidden agenda it seems to me that is biased against homeopathy from the get go. --Rudi 10:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

(Indent reset). I have to agree with Rudi about this. Please keep in mind that there are people - a small but growing minority - who would characterize conventional/allopathic medicine as "controversial" as well. If you're going to include a value judgment upfront here based on what some people think, you have to allow it elsewhere. What Geni (or was it someone else) wrote about the results of "clinical trials" on homeopathy is at least inconclusive, and others might argue that it provides evidence that homeopathy in fact is effective. This is a difficult point for some, but we actually don't have a precise yardstick that tells us what is true and what isn't. The pharmaceutical industry applies a methodology to test drugs that is based on the scientific method, but anyone who designs, executes, and studies the results of these trials (and I've worked with many) will tell the confidence you have in the results is surprisingly low, both when it comes to efficacy and safety. --Leifern 10:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The last few mete analyisises have come in negative for homeopathy. Post 2000 there was a load of research into homeopathy includeing some pretty good studies. the results were pretty negative.Geni 11:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, you're correct that there are people who would call conventional medicine "controversial". There are also people who think the Trilateral Commission runs the world. [2] The NPOV policy doesn't require that we assume a cosmic skepticism and treat all views as equally likely. There is a scientific/medical establishment and, as you recognize, its critics are a minority. If there's some notable minority opinion that criticizes Dialysis (for example), it could be mentioned in that article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead section. Homeopathy isn't in the same situation as dialysis.

I thought we were coming close to a consensus on the lead section here, but your latest edits take us farther away. In your version, the information about the scientific status of homeopathy would be greatly watered down. You would also eliminate the information that homeopathy is "best known for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients". In fact, your whole first paragraph, except for the etymology of the word, could be the first paragraph to the article about pretty much any "alternative medicine" system. What we had before did a much better job of introducing the reader to the subject of the article. JamesMLane 11:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fresh Start

Ok, we need to get a basis here that gets past everyone's ingrained beliefs. How about we take what is already said about homeopathy by government and other official bodies. I have edited the intro based on what is stated by the US Government National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the NIH. Congress mandated this and they don;t look at things that are too controversial to touch, but only what is worth loooking at. Surely we can get past our individual beliefs and accept this rather neutral description. --Rudi 11:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This would be the same goverment where homeopathy was gradfathered in right? Homeopathy can't pass the standards set by the FDA. If it could it would but it cannot. That is your goveremtns last word on the issue for all the messing around.Geni 11:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This addition from NCCAM is merely the general description of alternative medicine. We handled that much better before, by describing homeopathy as "a controversial system of alternative medicine", so that a reader unfamiliar with the concept could just follow the wikilink. Furthermore, the lead section isn't the place to give details about the popularity of homeopathy, any more than it's the place to give details about the controlled studies that support the scientific consensus against homeopathy. JamesMLane 11:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

So now we can see who is pushing a personal agenda here. Do we have a reasonable group of people here, or just people trying to impose their personal beliefs? If Geni can just dismiss what a reputable government body has stated about homeopathy, then this whole project is rather pointless. This rv to something that this less accurate and descriptive in her latest rv of the article seems an abuse of process, now that I understand how things work better here. Is there a process to complain about this. This imposition of one's personal view, against a very accepted official statement seems like a petulant child, which kind of mind should not be involved in this process. --Rudi 11:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How do I know that NCCAM is reputible? I certainly don't accpt them as such but then if we follow NPOV it doesn't matter since we mearly report their opinion.Geni 11:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I made an honest attempt at creating an introduction that wasn't blatantly biased. You reverted without addressing the effort, without making any attempt to build on it, simply asserting that you're right and everyone else is wrong. The way it stands right now, the introduction is both insulting and a farse. If I followed your lead, I would do the same thing to the medicine article, forming an introduction that pointed out that in terms of curing illness, medicine is an abysmal failure. I am reverting to my version, and I would advise everyone to do their best here. You, Geni, are doing your worst and I feel nothing but contempt for you. --Leifern 12:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why exatly do you think the introduction is biased? Comeone can you outline it's exact failings?Geni 12:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that you simply revert good faith efforts at coming up with a version we can all agree on, here's an answer to your question:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine

As I've pointed out before, "controversial" is redundant to "alternative" - if you can find a form of alternative medicine that isn't controversial, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, putting in both terms is simply a way of instilling prejudice.

DO's could be aruged to be technicaly alt med and they are pretty non controversial. I asmit that extreamly controversial

There is no "technical" definition of alternative medicine. And if you read the hack who writes at quackwatch, he denounces DOs as quacks, too. --Leifern 16:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

We define alt med in the alt med article

In addition, it is debatable whether homeopathy is "alternative" or "controversial." I think it's both, but it depends on your point of view. You will find people who can present a very strong case why regular medicine is really alternative and certainly controversial.

False dilema logical fallacyGeni 13:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, it's not a false dilemma logical fallacy - read up on what rhetorical fallacies are before you throw them around.

you were trying to make an argument about conventional medicine this is not relivant. Most theoretical branches of homeopathy fit mopst defintions of alt med. As practiced it is often closer to complimenty med but that is harder to pin down.Geni 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

, best known for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients.

That is simply false, and we've gone over it before. Yes, there is a debate about dilutions that supposedly "defy" Avogadro's Law, but the basic premise is that tiny quantities of active ingredients trigger a healing response in the patient. I explicitly address this in my latest version, but you want to present the most extreme view as if it were the mainstream. That's called a strawman argument and has no place here.

Depends on your version of homeopathy. Clasical homeopaths would talk about remedies working on the level of the vital force. A significant number of homeopaths just admint they don't know. Clasical homeopathy is pretty mainstream . Now if I were to talk about dowsing for rewmedies you might have a case.Geni 13:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Classical homeopaths do not talk about remedies working on the level of vital force. Stop fabricating. --Leifern 16:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

wrong[3]Geni 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that homeopathy is "best known for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients". It may be an overgeneralization or a misunderstanding of your favorite version of homeopathy, but it will be the first reaction you get if you ask "the man onthe street". There is no agreement about the "basic premise" of how homeopathic medications work, but you will be hard put to find any homeopath today who believes that remedies must have chemically relevant concentrations. Art Carlson 13:16, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

No, it is not a "fact" - it is your twisted interpretation. Homeopathy is best known for using very small amounts of active ingredients. Poll any number of books, websites, etc., and you fill find the same thing. --Leifern 16:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

homeopaths have an obvious motive to hide that facts. They also write most most of the books and websites.Geni 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but neither its empirical nor its theoretical foundation meets the minimum criteria of the scientific establishment.

The "scientific establishment" is not a monolithic entity that has published "minimum criteria," and any serious scientist will tell you that. Your assertion is unprovable, because a) scientists (unlike you) understand that if there is a mismatch between reality and their models, it is their models that are wrong; and b) there are things that are disproven, things that are proven, and things that remain unproven. Nobody has disproven homeopathy; some say that it is unproven (and are therefore skeptical); and c) some say it is in fact proven. The AMA and similar organizations overseas would not publish a statement that said what you just wrote: they would avoid writing anything about it all; and if forced on the issue, they would say that a) homeopathy is outside of their field of inquiry; and b) they have no evidence to indicate whether it's efficacious or not. In other words, you're overreaching in your interpretation, and you're not allowing the opposition to voice their view. --Leifern 12:44, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

a) irrelivant. b) false you can't prove a negative c)when i9t comes to medicine we know what science's minium criteria are since the principle that NICE, the FDA and various european bodies use are pretty simular. It is the double blind placebo controlled trial (ok so NICE makes some descissions based on cost but homeopathy is cheap so that doesn't matter). When properly tested in this way homeopathy fails [4]Geni 13:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There are many criteria that separate good from bad studies, but the minimum requirements' are randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. (a) There is no mismatch between the results of clinical studies on homeopathy and the view that homeopathic remedies are equivalent to pure water. (b) and (c) What serious scientists can debate is whether homeopathy has been positively disproven or only not proven. You are "overreaching" extravagantly when you write there is no evidence concerning the efficacy of homeopathy. Art Carlson 13:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. What skeptics claim is that homeopathy hasn't been proven by the standards set by the skeptics, but they are in no position to say that it hasn't been disproven. Even the metastudies cited previously by Geni point out that the biggest problem is insufficient data. But it is worth noting that a) homeopaths don't claim that homeopathic remedies work the same way that conventional medicine does - if one were going to test the claims of homeopathy, one would have to test them against the claims that were made, not the claims other people think they are making; b) medical science also relies on clinical experience - also known as "anecdotal data" for is practices. MDs make off-label prescriptions; there are a number of treatments that can't be tested with gold standard trials, etc.; c) I am not trying to convince anyone of the merits of homeopathy - I am simply requesting that this be a neutral article. You guys are insisting that the article be written from the point of view of the most ardent opponent of homeopathy. --Leifern 13:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

niet the latest one does not there was a lot of reasher in the early 2000s. This article in not writen from the POV of homeopathy's most ardent oponent. Trust me on this.Geni 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Minimum criteria of the scientific establishment is polite shorthand for saying that it has no merit scientifically because it is incompatible with the basic principles of biology, physics and chemistry. I have no "firm beliefs". I am a sceptic about all things. This is the position I start from. From that position one must move logically from proposition to testing showing that it is demonstrable, until there is a body of evidence to support the initial hypothesis. But the problem with homeopathy is greater than simple proof of a hypothesis. There is no logical or scientific foundation behind any proposed mechanism of how it could possibly work. I could just as easily propose that if I dip my finger in a glass of water, the water it will work just like a homeopathic remedy. It is not that Homeopathy is proven or disproven, it is that is is a proposition without any logic or reasoning behind it, it has not been demonstrated that it is effective (the only evidence of its effectiveness is anecdotal) and it has certainly been demonstrated that it can be ineffective. Jooler 13:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There are may things in nature that are incompatible with basic principles of biology, physics, and chemistry. This is why a), which Geni offhandedly dismissed is highly relevant - homeopaths will argue that if homeopathy doesn't agree with scientific models, it's because the scientific models are incomplete. Let's be clear here that gold standard clinical trials are the pharmaceutical's way of approximating the scientific method; it is impossible to create a controlled environment for medicine, for reasons that are pretty obvious. Having said that, homeopaths point out that "science" does not understand how a lot of conventional medicine works, but can only say that it does in ways that are often uncertain; they are speculating why remedies that are so diluted still seem to work, but that's no different from other speculation you'll run into among others. I also want to be clear that an MD is not automatically a scientist, just as someone with an MBA is not automatically an economist. I have run into several great clinicians who do not understand basic statistical reasoning. --Leifern 13:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

"There are may things in nature that are incompatible with basic principles of biology, physics, and chemistry" - Like what? Jooler 14:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Gravity. Nobody understands how gravity works. --Leifern 14:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Er... Gravity IS one of the basic principles of Physics - how can that be incompatible with it?!? I think you must be the one kidding. As we understand it Gravity is the warping of space-time, as described in Einsteins's General Theory of Relativity, this may not be the whole story, but it fundamentally and accurately describes how and why gravity works as experiments have demonstrated. An understanding of how gravity works is used as a foundation of for an awful lot of science. This a million miles from a theory about disease which has no foundations in science whatsover. Jooler 14:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You asked for an example, and I gave it to you. We can all observe that gravity exists, and describe how it appears to work, but we can not explain why it works. Homeopaths would make the same argument: they observe that homeopathy works, and they can describe how it works, but they can't fully explain why it works. The whole field of physics is nothing but an field into inexplicable anamolies. --Leifern 16:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Utter poppycock. I asked you to support your claim that "There are many things in nature that are incompatible with basic principles of biology, physics, and chemistry" - and you refered to Gravity, which is patently NOT something incompatible with basic principles of biology, physics, and chemistry - It IS one of the basic principles of physics. You also said "Nobody understands how gravity works" - to which I explained that gravity appears to work by warping space-time, and this explanation has been demonstrated through experimentation. You now say "We can all observe that gravity exists, and describe how it appears to work, but we can not explain why it works. Homeopaths would make the same argument". I can do experiments and demonstrate the power of gravity in different conditions using assumptions based upon general relativity, but this cannot be done for Homeopathy, we only have anecdotal evidence. Homeopathic descriptions of how it supposedly works are pure guesswork and it does not stand-up to the briefest of examination. Any complete explanation of gravity would have to be compatible with our current understanding so that those expermiental results could be encompassed within the theory. The whole point is that gravity is demonstrable, whereas homeopathy is not and not only that but the explanation of how and why it works given by homeopaths is incompatible with basic physics chemistry and biology. Jooler 16:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, I have studied economics and finance; and the thing that always amazes me is how many people express themselves with great confidence but very little knowledge on this subject. So let me give this to you in small teaspoons, since you and Geni seem to have such great difficulty with it.

First, though, neither the general nor specific theory of relativity explains gravity; in fact, they only point out that gravity affects light, which was thought to have no mass. So you, like Geni, are throwing around scientific jargon with no substance behind it.

Now, on to the point: gravity is an observed and measurable phenomenon. We have formulas to describe it, and within our realm of experience, we can fairly accurately predict its effects. But we have no idea how two bodies far apart with vacuum between them react to each other's movements instantenously. None at all. Any physicist will say they can only speculate, but the speculation is very weak at this point. Homeopaths claim that their remedies are an observed and measurable effect (you don't have to agree with them); they have some ideas why they work, but they are not sure. They are not citing their ideas as proof that homeopathy works; their proof is in the pudding, they observe that it works. Now, your argument against this is that a) their observations are invalid and haven't been validated (they would beg to differ); and b) their explanations defy your understanding of physics. I am not trying to convince you - or anyone else - about it. In fact, the two of you still have no idea what my opinion is of homeopathy.

Surely the key point here is the trustworthiness of the observations. Anecdotal evidence from practising homeopaths is just not in the same category as published and peer-reviewed observations by physicists. --Ryano 16:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to help create an article that doesn't start with the premise that homeopathy is invalid. You guys believe that the objective truth is that your intellect is so superior to the millions of people who subscribe to homeopathy that you don't even have to consider their arguments - they can safely be dispensed with as "poppycock" or "quackery," or whatever. (In the meantime, Geni abuses statistical concepts and confuses rhetorical fallacies; and you throw around Einstein with great confidence but no knowledge). As a result, Geni simply reverts any and all efforts to edit this article into something we all can agree to, simply because he thinks he's right in his judgment of homoepathy and everyone else is wrong. I will ask once again: try to be constructive here. --Leifern 19:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Neither the general nor specific (sic) theory of relativity explains gravity; in fact, they only point out that gravity affects light" - Sorry this is just rubbish. The effect of gravity is that objects appear to be attracted to each other dependent upon thier mass, the reason for this attraction is what Einstein explained in his General Relativity theory, and this is that the mass of an object warps space-time. This warping of space-time means that the path upon which an object in space is travelling is modified by the prexsence of neighbouring bodies. Go read Gravity.

"we have no idea how two bodies far apart with vacuum between them react to each other's movements instantenously" - Again, in general relativity, gravity is not a force acting over a distance, it is the warping of space-time. The speed at which this affects bodies has been measured read speed of gravity.

If I say that I dipped my finger in a glass of water and "I oberved" that the water cured my dog of cancer, who is to know whether I'm right or wrong? What's to stop me selling my finger-dip remedy for $1000 a pop? The only way to know is to have scientifically controlled trials. Surely if homeopaths want to treated with respect and not as charlatans they would accept that no-one is simply going to take their word for it that they work? Hovever Homeopathic remedies have consistently failed to show any evidence of efficacy and what's more given what homeopaths claim about how they are supposed to work, there is no way that they could work. That is the end of the story.

The article doesn't start with the premise that is is valid or invalid it starts with the undeniable facts that that it is controvesial (which it is, without any shadow of a doubt) and that is claims to be medicinal and yet has not been proven to have any medicinal value whatsover. These are just facts, and very important ones. You are removing parts of the text that have been in the article for some time and are the results of similar discussions about wording. The consensus that was reached was the wording on the page before you began tampering with it. Please don't try to read my mind you might get a headache. I don't claim to have a superiro intellect to anyone. I simply start from a position in not believing in anything. be it God/ghosts/little green men from mars or homeopathy. As for me throwing around Einstein, you brought up the subject of Gravity. You are the one being destructive, you are deleting text that was agreed by consensus before you ever started editing this article. Jooler 20:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I proposed a wording that I thought took all this into account. Geni simply reverted it. I have explained every single one of my edits at great length; you and Geni simply revert back to the original, without making any effort to find a version that is acceptable to all. I have better luck finding common ground on articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict than here - that says more about you than about me. Please try harder, and so will I. --Leifern 20:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

What was there before was ALREADY the result of compromise and consensus. You are trying to disrupt that consensus. I am reverting back to an agreed wording and you are trying to impose your own view that is not shared by the rest of us. Jooler 20:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my right to edit, as it is yours. I for one value accuracy over a previous consensus, which I imagine was reached either by beating people like me into submission or simply getting together people who were in violent agreement with each other. --Leifern 21:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, I suggest you be a bit less censorious of Geni on your charge that he reverted without discussion. I noted some of the problems with your version in this edit, but you reverted to your version without responding. Let's bear in mind that we're all volunteers, and concentrate on the content of the article rather than on attack and counterattack. JamesMLane 01:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Allegations

I did a random search on the internet to find definitions on pages on doses and "chemically active." The first five I found said the following:

• Remedy is taken in an extremly dilute form
• …administered in a minute dose
• ..used with small or infinitesimal doses
• ..ultra minute doses
• ...in very small dose

Nothing at all about the remedy's "vital force" at all. In fact, the term "vital force" in homeopathy refers to the body's ability to heal itself. I suspect that all medical practitioners subscribe to that concept, whether they use that term.

At this point, Geni, it is becoming clear that your allegations and assertions lack substantiation. I will start deleting things that lack proper references. --Leifern 16:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

google is not god.Geni 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is typical of your behavior: you make strawman assertions, when they're refuted, you question the sources, when other sources are drawn in, you question that. Well, you're right: Google is not G-d. But neither are you. Now try to play a constructive effort here. There is simply no basis for the allegation that homeopathy relies on chemically inactive ingredients. None. --Leifern 18:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of any system of homeopathy that does not use remedies above 24X and 12C. 30C is pretty common even in european homeopathy. In the case of some remedies (Carcinosin comes to mind) I have been unable to trace anyone selling at below those levels. Most sites on homeopathy are run by homeopaths. Homeopaths have an obvious motive to hide that particalr embarising fact about homeopathy. If we look at helios (a major homeopathic phamacy in the uk) we see that that any remedy can be obtained in ultramolecular levels[5]. Incerdently when it comes to the vital force I have found there is so much difference of opinion between homeopaths that no useful defintion vcan be formed (although there are a few things it seems that it is generaly accepted it isn't).Geni 19:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine - let's explain this in the article, along with the explanation of potency. I am not trying to hide the objections to homeopathy; I am simply trying to explain what it's about in a non-judgmental way. But your argument, you realize, makes no sense. If homeopathic remedies are no more effective than diluted water (i.e., effectively are a placebo), then homeopaths would have every incentive to sell the remedies in lower potencies (i.e., less diluted form) and avoid this "embarrassing" argument. A couple more points: your points on the interest of homeopaths is an ad hominem attack that has no place here. And if "vital force" is so ambiguous, why do you even use it? (As a matter of fact, it isn't, but that's another discussion). --Leifern 19:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Não. I tend to accept that most homeoapths belive thier system. As such they can't ajust it for fincial gain (I've had this belife shaken a few times but I'm prepared to give them the benifit of the doubt. Secondly there are certain remedies that could not be sold at low potency (Carcinosin and Mercurius for example) athough the problem copuld be solved by grafting that gets us back to the problem of them just being water. My point on the interests of homeopaths is very significant here. Every system trys to show it's best face to the outside world and we should not pretend that homeopathy is any different. Finaly my use of the word vital force it is no more ambigious than homeopathy so I see no reason not to use it just remember that different homeopaths mean differen't things when they use the term.Geni 19:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I think all the objections should be noted; but the article should start with a neutral description. As it is now, it is not neutral. I have made several efforts at a version; you guys keep reverting back to one I find objectionable for reasons I have detailed, though you have voiced no objection to my version. --Leifern 20:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

You notice that I changed it to saying "notable for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients". hmmm lets look at your last version. A lovely acusation against big phama with no evidence whatsoever. Do I even need to explain why I reverted?Geni 20:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully expected you would revert, and I would have done it myself. But the current version is just as biased as the one I proposed, except the other way. I don't see why one biased version is better than the other; I would like to try to work toward a neutral version, but you don't. --Leifern 20:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

So you admit atemptiing to put dilibertate POV into the article? Where I come from we call that tolling.Geni 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You probably mean "trolling?" The wording is provocative, but just as factual as yours. I think it is possible to arrive at a wording we all can agree on and prefer to do so. I still haven't heard what was wrong with my previous attempt. You just reverted it, without any explanation. --Leifern 21:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINTGeni 21:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

factual analysis of the opening paragraph

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering),

This is widely accepted.

is a controversial system of alternative medicine,

see this page for evidence that it is controversial. It fits with alternative medicine as defined by our article.

notable for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients.

Homeopathy uses remedies above 24X/D and 12C. It is pretty much the only system to do this with the except isopathy and Bach flower remedies both of witch were derived from it.

And Anthroposophy. Art Carlson

The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796.

Tricky this one. I have seen reports of someone in Ireland coming up with something similar first but nothing convincing. Homeopaths have a tendency to claim all sorts of people as "the first homeopath" (including Mohamed) but I'm not convinced.

It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today.

does anyone disagree with this?

It seems tautological that it is popular where it is practiced. I also distrust the "growing popularity" until I see it better documented. The most important point, at least for the intro, is that it has not died out like so many other alternative ideas have. Art Carlson

but neither its empirical nor its theoretical foundation meets the minimum criteria of the scientific establishment.

No homeopathic remedy has ever got past the testing procedures of NICE or the FDA.

Another Factual Analysis

I've tried to make this short and sweet and include all ponts of view, but keep it factual as well.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is one of four systems of alternative medicine identified by the World Health Organization.[THIS IS A FACT] The guiding principle of homeopathy is the ancient law of similars (similia similbus), whereby a medicinal substance is given that would produce similar symptoms in a healthy person (termed provings) to the symptoms in the patient. [THIS IS A FACT] While it is part of the health care system in various countries, such as England, India, Germany, France, homeopathy is controversial within science because of the use in most cases of remedies having no chemically active ingredients, which goes counter to established scientific principles. [THIS IDENTIFIES THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY. IT'S NOT THE LAW OF SIMILARS, WHICH IS USED, ALBEIT UNCONSCIOUSLY FOR EXAMPLE IN RITALIN, AN AMPHETAMINE, FOR HYPERACTIVITY] It was developed in modern form by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796, although the law of similars had long been known to medicine. [ANOTHER FACT - HAHNEMANN DID NOT INVENT THE LAW OF SIMILARS, BUT ITS MODERN APPLICATION] - --Rudi 10:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed

This article:

• References sources selectively, to avoid giving a complete picture
• Distorts information provided in those sources
• Omits information of relevance to the subject matter
• Is organized in a way that is confusing to the reader
• Relies on original interpretation of the sources, violating the no original research policy

So, yes, it's totally disputed - another term that comes to mind "raped and pillaged." And since other editors automatically revert any attempts at improving it, it will stay that way. --Leifern 00:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

"selectively ... Distorts ... Omits ... confusing ... interpretation" That may all be, but it all has to do with neutrality or editing in general. Which facts do you dispute? We may not be able to resolve our differences about what constitutes bias, but questions of fact can be resolved by half-way rational people by citing references. The "factual accuracy" of the article is more serious than "neutrality", so we should settle this first. Art Carlson 05:52, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Please read my various comments on pretty much everything Geni has proposed as "factual." If you provide only some facts, distort what facts you do present, omit certain information, and provide interpretation, you are left with an account that is factually wrong. It doesn't help that Geni blindly deletes or reverts any attempt at hammering out a better version in favor of his own point of view. The Totally Disputed tag must stay. --Leifern 11:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

so you can't show any factual errors in the article. What you have described in a NPOV problem.Geni 12:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm slow, but if you don't present a list of specific factual inaccuracies here, I will routinely revert the Totally Disputed tag. Art Carlson 12:21, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Lead section -- proposal

Based on the comments and edits, here's my attempt at crafting consensus language for the lead section:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of medicine, best known for its use of certain remedies that are so highly diluted as to have no or virtually no chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today. Like most other forms of alternative medicine, however, it is not considered efficacious by the medical and scientific establishment.

Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner considers the physical and psychological symptoms to determine the image of the disease in the patient. The practitioner decides what substance would produce those symptoms if given in large quantities, and prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of the same substance.

Some explanations:

• Rudi said, "I could live with 'controversial system of medicine.'" I used that language, and then later included the point he was making, that most or all aspects of alternative medicine have this same kind of controversy, about scientific acceptance.
• I stuck with "best known for" instead of "notable for" because what's notable about homeopathy is more of a matter of opinion. I think it's clear that, to the general public, this is the distinguishing characteristic, even if some homeopaths think it shouldn't be.
• I qualified "no chemically active ingredients" by making it "no or virtually no chemically active ingredients". My suggestion also includes the idea of dilution to explain this fact.
• There are two major arguments against homeopathy: that its principles conflict with scientific principles (because the original substance is so diluted and because water just doesn't have a memory), and that it's unsupported by data that meet scientific criteria (because only a few studies found any effect, so they were probably outliers). Instead of trying to convey either of these specific arguments in the lead section, though, I simply reported the conclusion: that homeopathy is not considered efficacious by the medical and scientific establishment.
• For the last sentence, I used a variation of Leifern's language, spelling out that the substance chosen would produce the patient's symptoms if given in large quantities.

Any material not in the lead section can be considered for the body of the article, but lead section should be just a terse summary. We have to resist trying to pack all the details into the lead. JamesMLane 06:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Two minor comments, though.

• I'm still bothered by "popularity in areas where it is practiced today". How about "popularity in many parts of the world"?
• "The practitioner decides what substance would produce those symptoms if given in large quantities, ...." Most proving are now and, except for Hahnemann's early years, always have been done with highly diluted doses. (I know it doesn't make sense. Don't blame me.) Maybe try "The practitioner decides what substance is capable of producing those symptoms in healthy individuals, and prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of the same substance."

Art Carlson 07:56, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

On your second point, I think "is capable of producing" can be shortened to "could produce". OK, with that change, I have no problem with your changes, so my revised proposal is:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of medicine, best known for its use of certain remedies that are so highly diluted as to have no or virtually no chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in many parts of the world. Like most other forms of alternative medicine, however, it is not considered efficacious by the medical and scientific establishment.

Homeopathy essentially treats "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner considers the physical and psychological symptoms to determine the image of the disease in the patient. The practitioner decides what substance could produce those symptoms in healthy individuals, and prescribes extremely small, nontoxic doses of the same substance.

If there are a lot of edits to this, I'll set it up as a subpage on my user page, but first let's see how other editors react to this version. If we're close to something we can go with, a subpage won't be necessary. JamesMLane 08:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

the last sentace is fase since many provings are carried out at entirely ultra molecular levels. there is also the issue that there is nothing in the rules of homeopathy that says the dose has to be so small as to be non toxic. The law of minium dose doesn't quite do that.Geni 10:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? Perhaps "The practitioner chooses a substance reported to produce those symptoms in healthy individuals, and prescribes this substance in an extremely small dose."? Art Carlson 10:21, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

the current article version "The practitioner then prescribes a remedy that they believe would produce the same symptoms in a healthy person"Geni 10:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Geni, I don't understand your first point. The whole subject of "provings" is best left to the body of the article. The intent here is to convey the basic idea that the practitioner is deciding what substance would work. The lead section shouldn't get into how the practitioner makes that decision.

the problem is that "remedy pictures" rarely if ever match the symptoms you would get if you gave a healthy person a bulk dose.Geni 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On your second point, the trouble with your language is that it doesn't make clear that the dose is very small and is intended to be nontoxic. (I suppose it's possible that some homeopaths somewhere have messed up and given people doses that were insufficiently diluted, but I don't think that's a significant concern. Any evidence along those lines can be included in the article but doesn't need to be summarized in the lead section.) This passage is summarizing homeopathic practice. It's certainly intended that the doses will be so small as to be nontoxic, so I think that's what we should say. JamesMLane 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Zicam is regulary sold in potencies on 1X or a dilution of ten to one. That isn't a small dose.Geni 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's getting better, and thanks for the effort. A couple of suggestions:

• The "chemically active ingredients" part is misleading. Homeopathy believes that the remedies are active precisely because the dosage is so small, so saying there is an absence of something active contradicts their assertion. Perhaps, "diluted to the point that the active components are small or infintisemal (sp.?) (As a side note, I've noticed that people say there are "no" molecules left with a high dilution; strictly speaking, that isn't accurate, because the molecules don't disappear - the point is that there is a low probability that there are molecules left.

and no chemical reaction goes to completion. The oodss of faind one molecules of th4e original substance in a 30C remedy are so close to zero that they can safely be ignoreded.

• I would propose that we simply describe the three principles of homeopathy upfront: like with like, small doses, individualization - in bullet point.

hey what happened to miasms? have they dgone out of fashion? It should be noted that your pinciples only hold true for certian forms of homeopathy.Geni 10:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• It is the medical community that renders opinion on efficacy; not the scientific community. And we have to be precise - the medical community does not accept evidence that it's efficacious - that doesn't mean they have decided that it isn't. In other words, the medical community says they are willing to be convinced, but also say that nothing has convinced them so far (and many will privately say they never will be). Also, the scientific community - which I have pointed out many times before - is not a monolithic organization. Homeopaths produce scientific journals, do research, etc. It would be more accurate to say that mainstream scientists do not accept the approach employed by homeopaths to test the efficacy of their remedies.

Have you ever read a homeopathic journal?Geni 10:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• I still don't know why my formulation earlier was so objectionable. Geni simply deleted it without discussing. --Leifern 10:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Another Factual Analysis

I've tried to make this short and sweet and include all ponts of view, but keep it factual as well.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is one of four systems of alternative medicine identified by the World Health Organization.[THIS IS A FACT] The guiding principle of homeopathy is the ancient law of similars (similia similbus), whereby a medicinal substance is given that would produce similar symptoms in a healthy person (termed provings) to the symptoms in the patient. [THIS IS A FACT] While it is part of the health care system in various countries, such as England, India, Germany, France, homeopathy is controversial within science because of the use in most cases of remedies having no chemically active ingredients, which goes counter to established scientific principles. [THIS IDENTIFIES THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY. IT'S NOT THE LAW OF SIMILARS, WHICH IS USED, ALBEIT UNCONSCIOUSLY FOR EXAMPLE IN RITALIN, AN AMPHETAMINE, FOR HYPERACTIVITY] It was developed in modern form by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796, although the law of similars had long been known to medicine. [ANOTHER FACT - HAHNEMANN DID NOT INVENT THE LAW OF SIMILARS, BUT ITS MODERN APPLICATION] - --Rudi 10:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with your characterization of the law of similars as practiced in homeopathy as a significant principle in medicine before Hahnemann. Calling it an "ancient law" tries to legitimize it in a way it doesn't deserve. I also have a problem with the suggestion in your commentary that the law of similars has more than a coincidental correlation to modern medicine. Art Carlson 11:37, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• "guiding principle of homeopathy is the ancient law of similars" - the wording of this "law of similars" suggests it has some value as a physical law of the universe - like the law of gravity or the laws of conservation or the laws of thermo-dynamics, since no such physical principle has been established I object to this wording.

• "..of the health care system in various countries, such as England" - You are confusing England with the United Kingdom, but it is sadly true that homeopathic remedies are available on the NHS and there are five Homeopathic hospitals in the UK and the Royal Homeopathic Hospital in London has been part of the of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. What a waste of money. I'll be writing to my MP about it. Still apparently NHS spending on all complementary medicine (including osteopathy and accupuncture) in 1999 was apparently around £55 million out of a total of £44 billion, so the total spent on homeopathy is a tiny fraction, but it seems like an awful lot to spend on sugar and water. Jooler 20:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

blame the royals for that one queen victoria was a fan and we've kinda beenn stuck with it ever since.Geni 21:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'm uneasy about this sentence, too. It is true that homeopathy is legally recognized in Germany as a "special form of therapy" (along with anthroposophic medicine and phytotherapie). This is a political decision that these disciplines are allowed to prescribe substances that have not met the otherwise required scientific proof of efficacy. "part of the health care system" sounds to my ears like it is officially recognized as effective, whereas something nearly opposite of that is the case. Art Carlson 21:55, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Ironicaly it recently became illegal for vets to use homeopathy on animals in the UK.Geni 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Facts and fallacies

I think that the dispute here centers on what different people consider to be facts vs. allegations, and that tricky problem of assertions.

As far as I can tell, Geni et al do not want to give homeopathy unwarranted legitimacy. While they are not asking that their stated opinion (that homeopathy is quackery) should be stated as a fact, they do point out that central premises of homeopathy are so at odds with established medical and physical science that this point must be made up front.

It is always hard to write about a subject you have a strong opinion about, and my objection to their presentation of the issue is that not enough effort has been made to remove the bias Geni and others admit to holding. An article such as this one is never going to be agreeable to everyone, but everyone should feel that their side has been presented fairly and accurately.

The introduction is the trickiest part, because it defines the terms and the premises for the rest of the article. The body of the article can reach some level of balance and neutrality by way of organization, but the introduction needs to be scrupulously neutral.

So let me summarize the points and counterpoints. Geni et al's main points, stated as facts, have been these:

• Homeopathy has no credible claim of being medical, complete, or a system.
  • It has not medical value because clinical trials have failed to conclusively prove its efficacy.
  • It is not complete because there are a number of illnesses, disorders, and conditions it does not have a treatment for
  • It is not a system because it rests on certain disputable premises
• Homeopathy is not scientifically valid
  • Its theoretical foundations violate principles of physics, chemistry, physiology, etc.
  • In particular, the method of potency removes the active ingredient from the remedy to the point that it is likely not to be found at even a molecular level

These are completely legitimate as objections (and should be thoroughly treated in the article), but they are fallacious as a means of establishing facts. Here's why:

• Strawmen. The objections are not raised against what homeopathy actually claims; they are raised against one (uncharitable) interpretation of homeopathy. Geni et al have consistently deleted attempts at presenting the homeopathic point of view as false and have therefore held the strawman up. There are countless books, websites, etc., on homeopathy that show great conformity on the essential nature of homeopathy, but Geni keeps quoting selected sections from Hahnemann's work. In other words, if you're going to argue against someone, you have the burden of proof of showing that you understand their argument.

sorry but you are the one who claims to know what true homeopathy^tm is. The times I have brough up hannmens work have either to show how broad the amount of stuff that could be described as homeopathy is or becuase someone was making a direct claim about hanneman. You were the one who claimed to be able to speak for all clasical homeopaths and then all homeopaths in general.Geni 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Begging the question. Homeopathy does not claim to meet the criteria of what they term allopathic medicine, because they take a different view of illness, diagnosis, and treatment. Someone who believed homeopathy was superior to "allopathy" could rip apart the article on medicine by applying his or her standards to the field. Clinical trials are a legitimate way to test the safety and efficacy of conventional medicine, but since homeopathic medicine has an entirely different approach, tests with equivalent purpose and rigor should be designed differently. In other words, homeopathy's safety and efficacy should be evaluated against its own claims, not against claims that another field would make. One can certainly critique the homeopathic approach to testing the efficacy of their approach, but that is a complicates subject that probably deserves its own article.

the claims of proving require almost no modifcation of the standard RDBPC trial to test them. treatment is a bit harder to test but it is doable and has been done.Geni 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know how hard it is to construct a clinical trial for something as simple as headache medication to make a statement like that. Or that it costs hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars or pounds to do it right. --Leifern 14:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)--Leifern 14:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Appeal to authority. Aside from the fact that the "scientific and medical establishment" is a non-existent entity, those who could be said to belong to it are generally very humble about the state of their knowledge (have you ever read the material that accompanies a simple bottle of medicine?) But even if they weren't, it would be fallacious to dismiss claims of homeopathy as false simply because somebody said so. Similarly, clinical trials are the best we can do given very real constraints to test the efficacy and safety of drugs - as recent events clearly show, they have their limitations. We should clearly state who is skeptical, opposed, or agnostic about homeopathy, and why - but that doesn't mean we should treat it as true.

A system that has been shown to let through false posertives still doesn't let homeopathy through? I fail to see how that strengtens homeopathy's case.Geni 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The few "clinical trials" that have been undertaken actually show a preponderance of evidence in favor of homeopathy if you read the sources you cite yourself. --Leifern 14:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Burden of proof. This is a bit complicated, so bear with me: homeopaths claim to have observed that greater "dilution" leads to greater potency of the remedy. They have observed this even when the dilution reaches the point that Avogadro's Law would make it highly probable that not even a single molecule remains in what is being administered. Homeopaths try to explain this by speculating that certain molecular properties persist in the solution even after the active ingredient no longer is there. This explanation is rejected by Geni and many many others as being at odds with known principles of physical science; therefore they reject the principle of potency and the whole field of homeopathy. This rejection is a fallacy, because homeopaths a) admit that the phenomenon can not be explained with known principles of physical science; but b) hold that the phenomenon is as observable to them as gravity; whether or not it can be satisfactorily explained, it is still observed. Geni et all may certainly argue that there is no phenomenon to explain, in which case they are disputing the testimony of the homeopaths and their patients - certainly a point of view; or they could say they don't buy the explanation, in which case they must either concede there is none, or must come up with another one.

There is more to be said, but this should suffice to make my point. --Leifern 12:55, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

a) there you go again claiming to be able to speak for all homeopaths.Geni 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I have never claimed to speak for all homeopaths - the accusation is baseless. Other than that, I believe your arguments against these points pretty much confirm them. So, thanks. People might think I set you up to it. --Leifern 13:35, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

to quote you directly "homeopaths a) admit that the phenomenon can not be explained with known principles of physical science" You are claiming to speak for all homeopaths here.Geni 13:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

1) I did not write that "all homeopaths" say this; and 2) this is indeed the prevailing consensus where I have looked. --Leifern 14:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

1)in common english "homeopaths" means all homeopaths and 2) no original research.Geni 14:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeterminate article homeopaths does not mean all homeopaths - you really are running out of arguments, aren't you? It is not original research to consult sources to ascertain common themes. Read the policy. --Leifern 14:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Running out of arguments? hmm I don't think so. For a start you are ignoreing Milgrom & Walach's [6] claims. While his papers have been laughed at by the physicists I have shown them to (chemists shouldn't try messing around quantum thoery) it would appear that Milgrom, Walach and a few other belive them (Walach is an interesting guy btw he a homeopath but is pretty good at desighning decent tests strangly the negative results he gets don't seem to worry him). then there is this lot [7] sure the problems with this theory are pretty clear but people belive it. then we go onto the more general mutterings about memory of water, vibrations and frequency (there is also the ones who try and bring in "nuclear processes" but to describe them as a frindg group would be chariterble)Geni 15:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing you are citing contradicts what I've written. Please try to read and understand my arguments above. --Leifern 15:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

what your attempt to try and get out on a technicality. If you had meant some or most homeopaths you should have said that but you did not. Oh and I fogot to add to the above ther e is that book "A New Physics of Homeopathy". It would appear that that there isn't as much agreeement on this subject amounst homeopaths as you would suggest.15:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to get out on a technicality. I am trying to "get out" of what you would like me to say to strengthen your point, in other words, rejecting your false and fallatious reading of my arguments. --Leifern 14:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Provings

As conducted they don't provide useful data on what a healthy person would experence if they took a remedy.Geni 11:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Basic Principles" section needs more focus

There's now a great deal of overlap between the "Basic Principles" section and the "Practice of Homeopathy" section. Part of the problem is that Basic Principles doesn't stick to principles but wanders all through the history of homeopathy giving much too attention to medicine at the time of Hahnemann and who did what when. Basic Principles should just be basic principles (Like treats like, miasms. psoras, etc.) without going into all the historical context which would be much more appropriate for the Hahnemann article. --Lee Hunter 12:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that not all homeopaths would view miasms and psoras as basic principles.Geni 12:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope we don't have to have the signed agreement of every last homeopath on earth before we can make some general statements. :) --Lee Hunter 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for comparison, here's the homeopathy article at Encarta. It doesn't have as much information but it's got a reasonable NPOV. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561148/Homeopathy.html --Lee Hunter 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Why this article is Totally Disputed

A careful reading of both the discussion page and revision history of this article will show that attempts at arriving at a factually accurate and neutral presentation of this topic have failed, because:

• Editors who openly admit to considering homeopathy "quackery:"
  • Revert and/or delete any proposed versions that present a neutral or balanced view of homeopathy
  • Present only those facts and allegations that support their point of view
  • Delete facts and allegations that directly contradict their point of view
  • Present allegations as facts though they have no basis in literature

only the last would introduce any factal errors. Can you give any examples?Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• The same editors refuse to engage in a constructive dialogue on how to improve the article

It has become impossible for any other editors to make contributions here, and the article is stuck in its current form, which is to say useless for any encyclopedic purposes. At best, it is a satiric polemic against homeopathy. Its content can not be trusted for anyone who is interested in the topic. --Leifern 14:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Leifern has posted on my talk page the following list of statements he feels are factually inaccurate:

• That homeopathy is best known for its use of chemically inactive ingredients

The article doesn't claim thisGeni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• That Hahnemann's texts are the final word on homeopathy

Err to start with the article mentions James Tyler Kent.Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• That homeopaths explain potency of extremely diluted remedies as a "vital force"

some do and that is what the article says.Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• That there is a scientific establishment that rejects the "theoretical foundations" for homeopathy

Can you prove that this statement is false?Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• That the guy on quackwatch has any credibility

the article does not claim he does. You also can't provew that he doesn't.Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of these apparently do not refer to concrete statements in the article. For those that do, we are now in a position to discuss what the actual facts are. (No time today, sorry.) Art Carlson 16:30, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

It would appear to me that no factual inaccuracies have been established, so the appropriate tag is NPOV rather than Totally Disputed. --Ryano 12:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, because of the nature of homeopathy...

No it's dead easy to test for proving symptoms. Testing treatment is more difficult but it has been done.[8]Geni 21:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

And why exactly is it so "dead easy?" --Rudi 09:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

becuase you have a straightforward claim that can be tested by using any one of a number of of the shelf protocols. See this stuy for example[9].Geni 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

latest revision

"Homeopathy has been and remains controversial, mainly for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients, which goes counter to the prevailing principles of science. Also, because of the nature of homeopathy, it is difficult to assess its efficacy using the generally accepted approaches of current medical research, and proven efficacy also remains problematic." - poblems with this para:-

• "Homeopathy has been and remains controversial" - short form "Homeopathy is controversial"

Fair enough. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• "which goes counter to the prevailing principles of science" - prevailing principles ? - common sense would be more apt, but the word prevailing suggests that it runs counter to principles that are "in vogue" - "counter to basic scientific principles" would be more precise.

Common sense used to be that the sun revolved around the earth. But I can live with this change. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• "because of the nature of homeopathy, it is difficult to assess its efficacy using the generally accepted approaches of current medical research" - total poppycock - I could just as well say "due to the shy nature of the litle men that live inside my TV set it is difficult to prove that they exist".

Is there a bias poking out here? The gold standard is the randomized clinical trial. We won't go intot he methodological problems associated with them, but they assume a particular condition, then match a substance to see if it is effective, ie better than placebo. Well, homeopathy does not treat "arthritis" for example, so to test a remedy to see if it is effective against arthritis makes no sense and you will generally find it is not effective - there can be literally hundreds of remedies that might work or not work depending on which disease in homeopathic terms is causing the arthritic condition. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• "generally accepted approaches of current medical research" - you mean "well-established and rigorous medical research techniques"

Yes, they are, as far as one accepts the current medical definition of disease. This wording implies that because it is well-established and rigorous that it is correct. The fact that homeopathy is alternative, suggests that it cannot necessarily be tested by these standards regardless of their "well-established and rigorous" nature. That's besides the point. How about "the approaches of conventional medical research" ? --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• "proven efficacy also remains problematic" - it is not problematic - it is non-existent

Jooler 21:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Come now, that does tend to show an intolerant side. Some studies have shown effectiveness. You may have your opinion, but it is at least a factual statement. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree with Jooler, but add:

• A small nitpick -- homeopathy's use of remedies without chemically active ingredients doesn't go counter to basic scientific principles. The placebo effect has been documented experimentally. What contravenes basic scientific principles is the homeopaths' assertion that such remedies are efficacious in the sense normally meant, i.e., better than a placebo.
• The use of the "a)" and "b)" in the first paragraph is kind of distracting. For the lead section, could we just go with a)? We could say it's "the term popularly used to describe" etc., or "widely used". Then the body of the article could explain that the term is also used by practitioners in another sense.

Not sure why this is distracting, as it is an important fact and should be identified up front. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• It might be useful to include the idea of dilution in the identifying portion of the lead section. (I know it's in Rudiverspoor's final paragraph but I suggest below that that paragraph should perhaps be moved to the body of the article.) One possibility: "Homeopathy has been and remains controversial, mainly for its use of remedies without that are so highly diluted as to lack chemically active ingredients...."

I can live with that. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Popularity claim should be documented with reference to source of statement re WHO. What exactly is a "system of medicine" for this purpose?

I'll post on that separately. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm dubious about including the last paragraph ("Homeopathy as a system includes various other elements such as diet and nutrition....") in the lead section, but even if the rest is kept, the last clause, about "official pharmacopeias", should go, because it's too vague and confusing if unexplained and too lengthy if explained. JamesMLane 22:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What is vague about saying that there are three officially accepted (by governmental legal systems) pharmacopeias? --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Acceptance could mean: agrees proven efficacious, agrees proven not toxic, not a controlled substance, eligible for reimbursement under government health plan, and probably a couple others I could add if I weren't too tired. JamesMLane 10:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess a suspcicious nature can be tiring. :) I take your point. How about dropping "accepted"? --Rudi 11:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Query about technical term

Sorry for this insert but does anyone know the technical term that is used to discribe the method by which when diluting water, the "memory of water" effect is achived by knocking the diluted substance against your hand a certain number of times? I have read the article present and I cannot find it covered here.

"Succussion" --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Also I must say as an outsider to the discussions Geni (although under flame from most of you) seems to have the most factual arguments presented in the discussion. The very basis of homeopathy is "like cures like" and I cant understand why that fact is indispute, let alone why anyone would want to take that out of the intro to this topic. Regards Peter Allebone (feel free to axe my insert here but I did not know where else to put it...)

It's not in dispute. It's included in the reference to the principle of similars and the latin term "similia similibus" . If you like, you could add "like cures like" just after the latin term. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The article says: "Liquids are successively diluted (with water or occasionally alcohol) and shaken by 10 hard strikes against an elastic body, a process called succussion." Is that the term you're looking for? By the way, this isn't exactly the right place for your question, since this page is supposed to be for discussing the article rather than discussing homeopathy. In general, if you want to know something, it's considered most appropriate to post a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. JamesMLane 09:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

10 would be consistant with Hahnemann's intial work but I belive he latter switched to 2. Of course many modern homeopathic pharmacies use vortex mixers.Geni 11:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No more time

OK, Geni, you win, at least for now. This article will stand as a misleading piece of polemic against homeopathy and as a testament to the potential demise of Wikipedia as a result of people who are more interested in winning an argument through any means than contributing to a good encyclopedia. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Thanks to your destructive tendency to simply delete everything that doesn't agree with your point of view, this article is worthless. --Leifern 10:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Quantum physics?

"His supporters see this result as suggesting that the experimenter may have an effect on the water sample, which could explain why some experimenters are able to reproduce his findings and some are not, which is consistent with Quantum physics understanding of the uncertaintly principle and various new understandings of chaos theory and the working of fractals in mathematics."

I'm not a scientific type, but the above sets off my bullshit detector. If there is any truth in it, can somebody rephrase it so that it doesn't read like deliberate obfuscation and techno-babble? --Ryano 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

someone is tryiong to use quantum physics on the macro level. It's rubish.Geni 12:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

All of this controversy will be rendered moot in another hundred years when the science of string theory, nanotechnology and quantum physics finally sheds light on the interaction between matter and energy in the universe. Homeopathy is a science 400 years ahead of its time. All of you high-minded scientists fail to realize that it was Samuel Hahnneman himself who laid the groundwork for the scientific method with his systematic provings. Enjoy your warring. Meanwhile, I can keep my family and friends healthy at a fraction of the cost that you are paying for your pharmaceutical wonder drugs. Signed, a fifth generation lay homeopath who has signed on briefly to see what is being said here.

Rudi's proposed intro

Rudi,
You have proposed changes that you say "take into account Talk:Homeopathy discussion". Looking through Talk, I don't see much that looks like a consensus, so I think it is legitimate (whether or not helpful) to simply revert to the status quo ante. You also refer to your version as "more complete, factual". While your version is unquestionably longer, you have not documented any factual inaccuracies in the previous version. While it is not perfect, the old version succintly says what homeopathy is, where is came from, and where it is now in terms of popularity and controversy. Your version tends to be long-winded: "the term used to describe" is superfluous, and the "other elements" you list, while common in practice, are not essential to homeopathy. You will have more luck getting your edits accepted if you make them one at a time and if you generate some support for them in Talk first. It is true you have been actively participating in the discussions, but I still don't know just what "problem" you are trying to fix in the old version. Art Carlson 07:49, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

OK. let's take a look at the status quo ante.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine, notable for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients.

This doesn't really say what is controversial about it, and doesn't make clear that it is due to its use of highly diluted remedies. It also doesn't make clear that the term was coined by Hahnemann and that it has two meanings within his writings. It further doesn't make clear that the term was coined in relation to a principle in medicine from the Greeks at least called the law of similars (similia similibus).

But I don't see why that this is a problem. It's only an introduction. All those things you mention can be covered in the body of the article. In particular, the fact that it had two meanings in Hahnemann's writing is gettting far too detailed too quickly. --Lee Hunter 12:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but neither its empirical nor its theoretical foundation meets the minimum criteria of the scientific establishment.

The first sentence is accurate, but the last is rather vague and tautological in the first phrase, and latter too general and sweeping, ignoring that it is accepted by various medical institutions, governments and professional societies in a number of countries, which could not be the case if what is stated here is true. "medical establishment" is also an abstraction. Who is this medical establishment. Can I go and visit them? Do they have a name?

Homeopathy essentially claims to treat "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner then prescribes a remedy that they believe would produce the same symptoms in a healthy person.

Using the word "claims" is like saying conventional medicine claims to treat using substances that have been shown to work in at least a few randomized trials. The second sentence here is almost useless in terms of what it says. It does not get at the esssence of what homeopathy means (psychologists get a patient to describes sx in detail, as do naturopaths, etc. and even allopaths depending on the meaning of the word "detail"). The last sentence implies that homeopathy is a belief system, which is hardly NPOV. Even if you don;t agree that they do prescribe this way, it should be written more neutrally.

I agree that the word "claims" is entirely redundant. Homeopathy treats like with like. There is nothing controversial or disputed about that. One can argue whether or not the treatment is "effective" but it's absurd to dispute whether the treatment takes place. --Lee Hunter 12:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

not true since in order to make that stament you have to accept the resutls of provings wich is very POV.Geni 12:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You are being pedantic to the level of absurdity. Whether or not you believe the information in the provings is useful or accurate you cannot argue that the information is not there. This is the information that was acquired in the proving process. Whether it is pure fantasy is not relevant. This informatin is used to treat the patient. The fact that you or anyone else doesn't see the likeness is utterly irrelevant to the simple statement that homeopathy treats like with like. The validity and value of the provings can be disputed. The efficacy of the treatment can be disputed. But you cannot dispute the fact that some homeopaths treats skin conditions with a snake remedy and part of the rationale is that snakes shed their skin. In other words like with like. --Lee Hunter 13:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

your argument only supports the claim that homeopaths think they treat like with like. It does not support the claim that homeopaths do treat like with like.Geni 15:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. We're only talking about a theoretical model here, not whether it actually works. The observations in the provings are real (in the sense that they exist as reported information). The complaints of the patient are real. The homeopath really does try to match the provings to the complaints. The treatment (in the form of a remedy) is real. In other words he is treating like with like. --Lee Hunter 15:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

but an examination of proving protocls shows that they are very very unlikely to be able to provide useful information. further more your versiopn rules out those homeopaths who use dowsing and various other methods to chose their remedies. In short homeopaths claim to be using like cures like. They certianly belive they are but there is no solid evidence that they really are (in fact all attempts to reporduce the results of proveings under properly controled conditions have failed (all two of them)). In short like cures like is a claim. We can't repersent it as a fact.Geni 16:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My draft was an attempt to build on the status quo ante but to provide a little more detail, without increasing the length too much. The discussion history has shown dissatisfaction with the status quo. There were only a few miner objections to my last edit, and yet it gets reverted without any indication as to what has been said as being wrong.

Now, given that the status quo ante has been shown not to be acceptable as well, and not just by me, can we also show in detail what is wrong or not factual about what I have proposed in good faith, instead of just reverting to the status quo, which seems to be the only response of some on this list, which makes any discussion impossible. It seems that some are simply wedded to the status quo and nothing short of it is acceptable, which is dogmatism, not a reasoned discussion, a point made at various times by others on this talk group. I have asked those who revert to indicate what is wrong with what I have proposed to build a consensus and this has not been done. Seems like a one-way street to me. --Rudi 10:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Three line description of practice

OK. Let's try to cut this into teeny-tiny pieces we can all chew and swallow, starting with the last one, which is an attempt to describe the practice of homeopathy in three lines. This may not be possible, but seems like a good idea if it is. Rudi's version mentions the "principle of similars" and "other elements", but does not really attempt a three-line summary. The status quo has this:

Homeopathy essentially claims to treat "like with like". The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail. The practitioner then prescribes a remedy that they believe would produce the same symptoms in a healthy person.

What are the problems?

• The word "claims to" snuck in without commentary on May 18. I agree with Rudi that homeopathy really does apply the principle of similars as they understand it, so "claims to" should be dropped. You could say "claims to cure" or "attempts to cure", but that is what treatment is about anyway. I also don't know what the word "essentially" is good for.
• The second sentence is intended to emphasize the importance of the anamnesis as the basis of one of the "likes" in homeopathic treatment. That doesn't come across to well in this formulation. The real difference to other systems of medicine is that all symptoms on put on an equal footing, without "censuring" them to fit an expected syndrome.
• The third sentence tries to explain the other "like" without going into details on provings. There is a serious disagreement over the word "believe". Any formulation that implies that homeopathic remedies really do produce any symptoms at all in healthy subjects will surely and properly be blocked. On the other hand, some editors feel that this formulation implies that homeopaths are deluded. (They are in my POV, but that shouldn't be stated here.)

My attempt at accomodating these points:

Homeopathy treats "like with like". The practitioner first considers all symptoms reported by the patient to determine an "image" of the illness. He then chooses a remedy that has been reported to produce the same set of symptoms in healthy subjects. The substance is given to the patient in an extremely low dose, achieved by a special procedure.

Watcha think? Art Carlson 13:20, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I think it's pretty darn good. My one quibble: I'm not sure about the word "same" in "to produce the same set of symptoms". My understanding is that the rubrics for a given remedy versus the information presented by the patient are rarely, if ever, an exact match. The information generally requires a very high level of interpretation. How about "to produce a similar set of symptoms" or "to produce a corresponding set of symptoms"? --Lee Hunter 14:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to achieve a consensus. So, let me comment on your effort in an attempt to reach one. The second sentence is not accurate. First, not all symptoms are used, nor only those reported by the patient. It would b more accurate to say 'considers the totality of characteristic symptoms of a given case, reported by the patient and observed by the practitioner.' The last sentence would be a little more accurate as 'This similar remedy is then usually given in low dilutions prepared according to a special procedure known as potentisation, as it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power. [to be explained later, but at least there is a term for it and sets out the basis, even if deluded. The word special leaves it all vague, when it is quite precise] Thus I would propose the following edit:

Homeopathy treats "like with likes" (law of similars). The practitioner considers the totality of characteristic symptoms of a given case, reported by the patient and observed by the practitioner. This similar remedy is then usually given in low dilutions prepared according to a special procedure known as potentisation, as it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power. --Rudi 15:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

How about

Homeopathic treatment is based on the principle of treating "like with like". The practitioner first considers all symptoms reported by the patient to determine an "image" of the illness. He then chooses a remedy that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce the same set of symptoms in healthy subjects.

of course this isn't the case with all forms of homeopathy but if we don't want the opening paragraph to read "homeopathy is whatever a homeopath defines it as" we are going to have to upset a few groups.Geni 15:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of confusion as to what is homeopathy, which is why I wanted to make the distinctionup front between its general meaning and its specific meaning, so this could be explained. I agree with you regarding the essence of what homeopathy means in terms of prescribing remedies, but would add the changes I proposed wrt Art's edit attempt. So I'd like to propose:

Homeopathic treatment is based on the principle of treating "like with like" (law of similars). The practitioner considers the totality of characteristic symptoms of a given case, reported by the patient and observed by the practitioner. He then chooses a remedy that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce the same set of symptoms in healthy subjects. This remedy is usually given in low dilutions prepared according to a special procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power. --Rudi 15:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

whould you be ok with changeing the last sentace to "This remedy is usually given in low dilutions prepared according to a procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power."?Geni 16:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I take it you are proposing to delete the word 'special?' If so, that seems fine with me, as it wasn't my term and is not really necessary here. --Rudi 16:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be making progress, at least on this bite-sized challenge. In the second sentence I don't know what the word "characteristic" is supposed to convey and suggest deleting it. I also don't see what information is added by the last phrase (except in contrast to the old version of the intro) and would delete that as well. The term "high/low dilution" is ambiguous, so I propose using only "high/low concentration". In this case I think it is important to specify that the concentrations are generally "extremely low", but without giving details at this point. I have made the appropriate changes, I hope to everyone's approximate satisfaction. Art Carlson 19:27, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I can appreciate the need for brevity but not when it comes at the cost of accuracy. Homeopathy does not take all the symptoms, but only the characteristic ones. This is a common enough word in English meaning [from One Click Answer]: A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably; a distinguishing mark or trait. This should be left in, otherwise we get so general that it is meaningless or misleading. --Rudi 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My source (certainly not definitive) says "Special value is placed on characteristic symptoms, symptoms that are relatively rare, strange, or peculiar, and hence tend to distinguish the patient from others with the same chief complaint." This use is nearly opposite to what I think of when I hear the word "characteristic" in this context. Leaving the word in without further explanation would be "meaningless or misleading". It would be clearer to say "the totality of symptoms of a given case, with special consideration given to rare or peculiar symptoms", but I think it is better to leave this detail out. Art Carlson 08:24, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

I don't agree that homeopathy actually "treats" anything, because "treats" implies some sort of relationship between the action being taken and a beneficial outcome. I think "claims" is perfectly accurate. In Rudiverspoor's version ('Homeopathic treatment is based on the principle of treating "like with like" (law of similars).'), some variant of "treat" occurs twice, which is not only POV but redundant. Couldn't we say:

Homeopathy is based on the principle of treating "like with like" (law of similars).

If the problem is that "homeopathy" is more than what's based on this principle, then it could read:

Homeopathy calls for treating "like with like" (law of similars).

That seems to convey the idea in fewer words, even aside from the POV issue. Also, on another point, I think the term "potentisation" is too jargon-y to be usefully included in the lead section. I suggest this revision of the last sentence:

This remedy is usually given in extremely low concentrations prepared in multiple dilutions according to a prescribed procedure, which homeopaths believe gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power.

This wording also avoids the weaselly "it is held". JamesMLane 06:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree your version of the last sentence is better, but I'll give others a chance to comment before changing it. Art Carlson 08:30, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Gee, that went so well maybe we could try another bite, say the opening sentence, whose status quo version is this:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine, notable for its use of remedies without chemically active ingredients.

Points of contention are:

• Calling homeopathy "controversial" at this point.
• Not specifying the nature of the controversy.
• Whether homeopathy is "best known" or "notable" for extreme dilutions, and whether this is an accurate characterization of homeopathy as a whole.
• Whether various meanings and ancient origins of "homeopathy" should be mentioned.

I agree with Lee Hunter that the last point is too much detail (and possibly not entirely accurate). I agree with JamesMLane that the extreme dilutions must be mentioned in some form in the first sentence to allow quick orientation, and I believe it is a reasonable characterization of homeopathy as a whole, leaving the if's, and's, and but's to the main text. My humble proposal to take these points into account:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, controversial for its use of remedies that have been diluted to the extent that there is no known mechanism by which they could work.

Art Carlson 20:00, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I don't see why we're getting into controversy in the very first sentence. In my mind, a good opening statement simply explains the topic of the article. The controversy needs to be covered somewhere, of course, but we shouldn't forget that the controversy is only one of a number of subtopics in the article. The controversy might be important to one or two people editing the article and to a small handfull of people in the medical community, but it is really not so important that it has to be made in the first sentence. The natural course of an article is to explain what the topic is and where it comes from before descending into pros and cons, controversies etc. --Lee Hunter 20:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Realizing that I have put in a polite version of "considered nonsense by any scientist worth his salt", maybe we could also include the popularity here by saying

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is the second most popular system of alternative medicine in the world today, controversial for its use of remedies that have been diluted to the extent that there is no known mechanism by which they could work.

Is it actually true that homeopathy is "the second most popular system of alternative medicine in the world today" (as claimed by Rudi)? If we can agree on this, then we still need the second sentence (on Hahnemann), but can delete the controversial third sentence. (My money says this won't actually fly.) Art Carlson 20:29, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I'm going to need to see some very good evidence that homeopathy is the second most popular form of alt med in the world today. Off the top of my head TCM and prayer would both be a lot more popular.Geni 21:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there's any way to document the "popularity" of an approach. I would guess that massage, vitamins, herbs etc. are also more popular --Lee Hunter 00:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It comes from an analysis done by the World Health Organization recently and refers to systems of medicine, not just therapies. While all stats are open to question, it is something that can be quantified and if we add, 'according to the WHO' as well as he word 'system' this makes clear what is being said, and is factual. I'm trying to locate the WHO report on-line. --Rudi 02:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

the next issue is that homeopathy is contriversal for more than just the high dilution thing.Geni 01:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could specify what you have in mind. --Rudi 02:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It is also controversial because there is no solid evidence for efficacy. Homeopathy would remain controversial even if it stopped using ultra-molecular dilutions. I realized this as I made my proposal, but thought it exaggerated to add "among other things". On the other hand, this is an important point that should perhaps be mentioned in the intro. How about this suggestion , which could make Lee Hunter happy by moving all controversy to the second sentence:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a popular system of alternative medicine, first published by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 and notable for its use of remedies in extremely low concentrations. It is rejected by mainstream science because there is no known mechanism by which it could work and no clear evidence that it does work.

Art Carlson 08:47, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

so despite turing one sentace into two I fail to see any improvement over the original. to go through the oringinal points. 1) the new versions are doing that anway 2)that can go latter in the article 3) since only homeopathy and a couple of systems derived from homeopathy do this it is the most notable thing about homeopathy. everything else can be found in other systems. Geni 14:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

one word

"Prescription": Homeopathy is based on far more than like cures like. Since the rest of the paragraph dealis with homeopathic prescription it makes sense that the opening sentance should as well.Geni 15:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm totally confused. Here you write ""Prescription" homeopathy is based on far more than like cures like." but what you wrote in the article is "Homeopathic prescribing is based on the principle of treating "like with like" (law of similars)." Either way your point is unclear. --Lee Hunter 18:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

sorry "Prescription" is not part of the sentance.Geni 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say there are exactly two concepts essential to homeopathy: the law of similars and the law of infinitesimals (not exactly "far more"). The argument that homeopathy depends on more than similars doesn't make sense here because the paragraph also deals with infinitesimals. If you like we could expand the first sentence to say Homeopathy is based on the principle of treating "like with like" using "infinitesimal" doses. Just what that means is elucidated in the following three sentences. Art Carlson 19:09, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

There is only one concept essential to homeopathy, namely the law of similars. It can be applied regardless of dose. In fact, the founder used mother tinctures as do many homeopaths today. Hahnemann talked about small doses, but that is not defined. It might be better to say that a principle of homeopathy is the "optimum dose" but that principle is no different than other systems. That the optimum dose in homeopathy can lead to doses that are beyond any material substance is true, but this is not essential, though many current homeopaths, in their less their grounded view, think so. --Rudi 00:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the vital force? miasms? suppression of illness? Juding by the amount of space it takes up in the organon "allopathy is evil"?Geni 01:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the descriptive, sociological point of view, essentially all homeopaths use similars and infinitesimals and consider both to be important. That is not the case for other concepts like miasms. Can we get around this point by accepting JamesMLane's suggestion, Homeopathy calls for treating "like with like"? Art Carlson 07:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

ok with me.11:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro change

I changed the last line of the second paragraph of the introduction, "...usually given in extremely low concentrations prepared according to a procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power. Higher potentisation yielding greater therapeutic power is an incorrect generalization. Different potencies have different applications in homeopathy, so it is not correct to say that a potency of 1 M is "stronger" than 30 CH, or vice versa.

Also some minor grammar and clarity edits.

What you have writen is not consistant with the claim of aggrivations.Geni 11:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)