User talk:Drpolich

Welcome!

Hello, Drpolich! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Addbot (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 70.131.107.176 for beginning to use your old account again. It helps to keep things in one place and will also help to avoid accusations of attempting to avoid scrutiny from other editors, a practice which is forbidden here. -- Fyslee / talk 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy warning

Please notice that homeopathy-related articles are under article probation. Because of massive edit wars on the article, the administrators, by consensus, have established additional ground rules for editing the article homeopathy and related articles. P.D.: Notice that by editing those articles you put yourself under the probation terms, since the talk pages have a notice at the top of them --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi. I realise that you feel strongly about this, but altering the Homeopathy article like this will probably just end with your changes being instantly reverted and you being blocked due to the special measures mentioned above. If you want to make a change, the best way would be to work at building a case and support on the talk page first. I'm willing to work with you on this, though we're from opposite sides of the debate, as I believe your knowledge may be valuable to wikipedia. We can discuss things here or on my talk page if you like, or keep to the homeopathy talk page (although we'd have to stay on point and topic there, as otherwise we'd get told off). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you the admin? If not who is? Drpolich (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I think the admin you want is User:PhilKnight. THe best way to deal with blocks is to keep calm and be reasonable (reminding me of the old saying "Forgive your enemies, for it is like heaping burning hot coals upon their heads). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The admin who blocked you is PhilKnight (talk · contribs). If you would like to have a second admin (not me, as I'm clearly involved in this dispute) evaluate the block, put {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page. To any reviewing admin: I believe this user was blocked for disruptive editing on Homeopathy, which is under article probation. Here are the diffs: [1],[2]. Context is available here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd just like to point out that I haven't undone your changes (look at the history on the homeopathy page). If you could correct your statement on ColW's talk page as soon as you're able I'd be most grateful. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The information that Sarcasticidealist provided regarding appeals possibly wasn't entirely correct, the process is explained here.--PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with you Phil. I am just glad that I know who you are. I thought that Ses was the admin and he clearly cares. My question to you Phil is how do you handle a case were there is no possiblity for concensus. Also, why not remove the offending passage until we get reasonable wording? Drpolich (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses- I can't edit anything now. I will change after my probation Drpolich (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses- Ok, yes I am biased because I practice homeopathy daily. First as a kindness take a look at the photos on my website. I particularly put up extreme photos that can't be otherwise explained. I like to use children whenever possible because of the placebo effect. http://www.dupagehomeopathic.com/homeopathic_photographs.html. I agree that there is not enough research on homeopathy. Some of it I can explain, and some of it I can't. First, there are very few in the homeopathic community that has a scientific background. I tried it somewhat by accident before I knew what it was. I am not sure that I would have tried it if I knew how impossible it was. My entire career in engineering was trouble shooting problem in manufacturing, design etc. I ended up being the director of engineering in the cellular world. Then I quit to practice homeopathy. I know that I look at things completely different than most of my colleagues. In generally, I have not been impressed by the design of the experiments that I have reviewed. This may be part of the problem.

However, the main problem is a fundamental law of homeopathy, like cures like, requires that different remedies be used for the same condition. This further complicated because that prescription is doctor dependant and many are poorly trained and have a relatively low accuracy rate. Let me explain. Lets say that 10 people come in with Ecema. I have to spend 2 hours trying to match their symptoms as closely as possible to a remedy. If I don't match the remedy properly then nothing gets better. If I do, the patient gets well. (On my web page I present a theory on why we must match it in the video). If 10 people walk in with Eczema, I might use 8 different remedies. Most studies try to show that a one remedy or a combination is useful for a particular condition and don't allow for the individualization. However, a fundamental law of homeopathy is the individualization, so the experiments don’t work. We are trying to fit homeopathy to the allopathy model and it will never work.

I believe that there are probably conditions that tend to be associated with remedies but I have not found any so far. Right now, I have had 2 cases of Plagiocephaly that have responded to the same remedy. If I get a 3rd, I may try to get funding for a study on plagiocephaly using that single remedy. You should realize that within the homeopathic community it is heretical to suggest that a medical condition might be dominated by a single homeopathic remedy. Anyway, if this trend holds true, it would be awesome because it can't be placebo due to the age of the kids and I don't think anyone will dispute bone remodeling.

I know this seems far fetched. Ask me any questions because I know I would have been skeptical had I not seen it work before I knew what it was. I know of some positive studies out there and I will try to reference them for you. I just have to find them. They may be at my office. Drpolich (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but a few positive studies are not going to overhelm meta-reviews from prestigious journals --Enric Naval (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"If I don't match the remedy properly then nothing gets better. If I do, the patient gets well." I think you may be putting the cart before the horse here. Brunton (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and 98% of those studies violate a fundamental law of homeopathy "Like Cures Like". We did not put this law into place so we could explain why homeopathy does not do well in double blind placebo controlled trials, it is what "homo" same "pathy" therapy comes from. Do you now understand why is is nearly impossible to use the weight of evidence to indicate if homeopathy works? It would be like testing Lexipro (depressive drug) on patients who have hypertension and saying it is useless.

Cart and horse thing, I don't get. Drpolich (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm understanding Brunton's comment correctly, you are placing the conclusions before the premise.

You should first make a theory an hypothesis, then devise the experiment to test that hypothesis, and then decide if the hypothesis works depending on whether it predicted correctly the experiment results. That would mean making a list of symptoms and making a hypothesis on which remedies work with each set of symptoms, then finding 15 people that have that set of symptoms (and that they have all the same symptoms, so you can overcome the problem that you mention about matching symptoms), give the remedy to 5 of them, give a placebo to other 5, and nothing to the other 5. And perform all the experiment according to the initial hypothesis without changing it half-way into the experiment to avoid distortions. Your experiences with patients are not controlled and there are lots of unaccounted for factors afecting them, and there is not a unified hypothesis, you are using different criteria for each case.

I'm not enough knowledgeable to explain the problems with trying to test "Like Cures Like". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank Enric you understand. However, the type of testing you suggest is not typical in medical testing where double blind, random controlled testing is the norm. Their fundamental believe is that everyone is the same. Furthermore, to do that type of study requires reaching out to many, many people and requires a considerable amount of money. That funding is not available. What has been done is some basic research which is a bit cheaper that looks at proving that there is a difference between remedies and water at potencies below 10 -23. This was published by material scientists (which I have a bachelors and masters degree in) Rao ML, Roy R, Bell IR, Hoover R. The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy. Homeopathy 96( 2007):175-182.

Regarding the cart and the horse. You are missing something. I practice this daily and this is what I see. I am not theorizing with that statement. Sometimes the remedy I give works sometimes they need a different remedy. Sometimes, I feel that I am beating my head against a wall because I can't find the remedy which will help them. Around 70% of the time the first remedy I try makes major changes, however, I am careful to tell patients that I won't know until after we try it. Furthermore, if you could see the degree of changes we make on a daily basis you would be convinced. These patients typically have seen many other doctors and why do they respond so well to homopathy and non of the other therapies? Trust me, many people come into the office very skeptical but despirate and it works regardless of their belief system. My ACL orthopedic surgeon who is the head of Northwestern Orthopedics, Michael Schafer, did not believe it would work until he saw the results of no anti-inflammatories and no pain medication after starting homeopathy.

I am working on some things that might provide the research, but since 98% of the research conducted requires us to violate a fundamental principle of homeopathy; we will never win the burden of proof. I just hope we can design an experiment that would be compelling enough to prove it. It is rare in homeopathy to have anyone thinking of research, less than .25% of the practitioners are involved. I have resisted it, but as an engineer, I constantly think about possible studies. Drpolich (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you're defining a correctly matched remedy as the one that was administered immediately before the patient improved (or in the case of an aggravation or healing crisis, immediately before the patient got worse). It's a classic example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Brunton (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Rao et al. paper, have you seen the comment on it that was published in the January 2008 issue of the same journal? Brunton (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I never took Latin, so I don't understand... Regarding the second comment, not having any knowledge of the details, I agree that they need to use the exact same purity and lot number for the ethanol. I may e-mail Iris Bell and ask her. If not, they should repeat it. The only reason I think it may not be impurties is that if you look at Figure 2 the data from 6C, versus 12C and 30C are actually different. If you assume that Hahnemann labs use the same purity ethanol then all of these should have been identical. Anyway, it is a good question. Drpolich (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. See my comment above about how you define a "properly matched" remedy. Brunton (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I may understand you Brunton. But, seriously that is not what is happening. Perhaps a story is best. When my daughter was 1 yr old she started having horrible, excoriating, diarrhea 1-3 times a day. If her diaper was not changed immediately, she would have bleeding diaper rash. This went on for over a year and her Dr. said “don’t worry”because he could not figure out what the problem was. Finally, I went to Whole foods to put her on a rice and water diet because I thought she might be allergic to something. While I was there, I stumbled on a homeopathic remedy that was labeled diarrhea so I picked it up. I tried a rice and water diet with a 2 year old and gave up after about 4 days. Then I remembered the homeopathic remedy, without really knowing what in the world it was. I gave it to her as directed on the vial and her stools became solid. She was 2 and thought it was candy, and I in no way had any preconceived notions on it's working or not. As a scientist, I realized that while I had no idea what homeopathy was it was NOT placebo.

There are 2 points. The patient does NOT need to believe the remedy will work and in general the changes are DRAMATIC. My typical response is 10 yr old anxiety better by 40% in one month, vomiting stopping completely, Menstrual cramps stopping within minutes of taking the remedy, bone remodeling, knees not swelling, etc.. These are not minor changes. The vast majority of patients are new to homeopathy. Why would their placebo response to homeopathy be so much stronger than any of the other meds and therapies they have been on?

I don’t have a good reference, but an excerpt of a news article was this… “Using electroencephalographs, which measure neuronal impulses, the researchers examined activity in a part of the brain -- the anterior cingulate cortex -- that is strongly linked with the self-regulatory process of conflict monitoring. The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine. Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed."” The article references political tendencies, but something that has helped me over the years is to realize that some people do not process things the way I do. No matter what signals are given, they won’t change. I just don’t think this article should be held hostage by those who are not willing to question their own belief systems and consider that they just might be wrong. There certainly is some evidence that this could be trueDrpolich (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anecdote is not evidence, and your one case study doesn't account for confounding factors (the changes in diet, that the illness had run its course, etc.) and the placebo effect (which can apply to infants/animals/babies). The brain scan news story you mention has been a recent fad that has been debunked, and is not good science. If your single case study could be generalised then there would be a huge amount of clinical evidence for homeopathy, which there isn't. You need to support your case with published scientific evidence in respected journals, and as yet this doesn't seem to exist. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Until we have the ability to perform studies that do not violate the law of similars, then the research won't be very positive. Any study that does not follow the "law of similars" is not truly a homeopathic study because this is one of 2 foundations underwhich we work. I know that in a clinical setting, if I am able to match the remedy well then it works better than anything I could ever imagine. Yes, I try to think of non-homeopathic studies using homeopathic remedies that will be close enough so they work, but I know I am cutting corners. However, we have no choice but to do it this way. Do you understand the law of similars and why the homeopathic research that you have reviewed violates this? I can go into more detail if you want. BTW-how is iceland? Drpolich (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Iceland is pretty cold and wet, and expensive, but I saw the geyser today and it was very impressive (the water and ground were so hot!) I don't see why the law of similars and individualisation can't be accounted for in trials of homeopathy. Anyway, my flight is early tomorrow so I'm going to bed. I hope you are well. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses, first let me thank you for listening (or reading). The law of similars requires a remedy to be chosen dependant on the specific symptoms of the patient. For example, if someone has Migraines, you need to know if they are worse in the sun, change of temperature, morning, 3-5 PM, or better while running, etc. For each of these there will be a different remedy prescribed for the same diagnosis of Migraines. If I give the patient who has migraines that are "worse in the sun" a remedy that instead is "better when running", it will not work. Western medicine treats all Migraines the same and they don't need to worry about the individualization. Sometimes we try to give a combination that will hopefully cover most of the ailments, but it seems to not work. We end up giving the patient who has migraines "worse in the sun" a remedy that is for those who are "better running", and it does not work. We know we are violating one of the fundamental laws, but we feel that we need to fit in the Western model. Unfortunately, it seems that our desire to fit into the western medicine model may have backfired.

For example, you are probably well aware of the data that shows that children are not affected by sugar (you seem to know research way better than I do). The results of this study are not surprising, but there are mothers that are positive that this is true. Why the disconnect? I suspect it is because they took a random sample of kids and tested them. Well, I suspect that less then 10% of kids are sensitive to sugar. When put in the general population, the results are negative. However, if you only tested kids whose parents are positive that they are worse with sugar, the results would be different. It would not be random, but you could double blind it and I suspectit would be positive.

Again, I thank you for considering my information. I will try to be as factual as positive. Ask me any question you want and I will try to answer it from a clinical perspective. Obviously, you run circles around me as far as review of research. Drpolich (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Drpolich, I'm a little puzzled that you object to testing of homoeopathy, saying that "a fundamental law of homeopathy is the individualization, so the experiments don’t work", when it appears that your basis for believing in homoeopathy was the efficacy of an over the counter remedy for your daughter's diarrhea. Surely a remedy of this type, which is not individualised to the patient, can be tested in a simple double-blinded placebo controlled trial? In any case, it is quite possible to design DBPC trials of individualised homoeopathy, and such trials have in fact been carried out. Brunton (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The remedy woking on my daugher was pure luck. It was like having blindly picking a medication from the wall of every drug out there and happening to find one that happens to treat you hypertension. Actually, the fact that it happened still amazes me because the probably of it is so low. Yes, there have been trials with individulization but their are very few relative to the number of non-homeopathically prescribed trials out there. Let me be clear for those who might read this who are on the homeopathic side. I don't fault the non-homeopathic prescribing trials. I know that it is something that must be tried for practical purposes. In face, should I ever perform research, I will probably try to find a situation which allows semi-homeopatic prescribing. Drpolich (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Drpolich, you might want to read User_talk:Sbharris#Homeopathic_dosing, as it also talks about homeopathic research and its problems, and what they are discussing could apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that we are saying much the same thing. Hopefully, my saying it in a slightly different way might be helpful for people to understand. Does everyone get the idea that I could treat one child with Sulpher for Eczema and the next child in won't react to Sulpher at all. Also, for those of you who are placebo experts, can you direct me to the research that says that children and pets respond to placebo. Also, how dramatic are the effects? Can you see bone remodel, painless ACL tear etc.? If someone is sensitive to placebo will they always react that way. What percentage of the population is susceptible? Drpolich (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses, come on you have mentioned a tone of times that recent research indicates that children and animals are suseptible to placebo. This is doesn't make any sense and it is different than the research I have heard of. You bug the living dailights out of me to pull research, so please can you give me the "weight of evidence" that proves that you are correct? Drpolich (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, bugging you hasn't been my intention. The problem here is I think that the effect is on the observers, and more correctly falls under observer bias. There are reams of publications about this, and the placebo effect on animals is (I'm told by vets) taught in veterinary school. I've given a slightly longer answer on the homeopathy page, although I think it was Brunton (talk · contribs) who brought this up (I may be wrong, I didn't reread the whole discussion). I'm sorry that I've upset you; I thought we were getting along well :( (we are, right?) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are getting along, but you give me so much grief about great research that when you referenced a parenting magazine I had to give you grief back! I even have better references than that! (lol) I can see the argument for parents reporting differences, because it follows the idea of placebo=wishful thinking. However, objective symptoms changes must either be spontaneous healing or the therapy. From my understanding from a well respected colleague is that there has been very little research on the placebo effect and I doubt they have ever done a test using infants where the symptoms were objective and not subjective. If you think about it, the infant or animal does not even know it is being treated so how can it be susceptible to placebo? Regarding observation, that is only true when you see minor changes. When you see ailmens go away completely, it is unlikely.

I also disagree that you need to have the weight of evidence. I go back to my reasoning. If we can show that homeopathy cures anything in the world, you have to consider that it may work. Now one case could be spontaneous healing, but many cases would be statistically improbable to be spontaneous healing. The more you show the better. There was no research on asprin for a long time but people knew it worked because they saw it. The research does not prove it, it only confirms it. Maybe before I die, I can help get some of that research out there.

I guess to summarize, I agree that more research needs to be done, but the lack of research does not mean that it does not work. Homeopathy seems to bring out hate in some people that is not found in other even weirder therapies. I would love to learn why. Ses- I enjoy our discussions, it keeps me interested. Drpolich (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with more research being carried out, so long as it is good research (large samples, controls, blinding, confounding factors addressed etc.) Unfortunately the kind of research carried out by the Faculty of Homeopathy in the UK amounts to no more than customer satisfaction surveys for repeat patients (of course they're satisfied, they've gone back!) Also, one positive result isn't enough, as in conventional medicine and all areas of science. The study would have to be replicable, by other researchers following a similar protocol. I assure you I request the same level of evidence from other therapies, although a lower threshold is held by some for therapies when the mechanism of action is understood. With regard to asprin, the research did prove it, and identified the chemical that was causing the benefit. This lead to better drugs and more research. Until the research was done it was believed, and that turned out to be right (although some of the reasons suggested were wrong). Asprin also had an easily demonstrable effect.

Changing the subject, I think you'd find reading some psychology textbooks very enjoyable. The mind is very powerful, and some of the studies that have been done have found truly shocking results. For example, if someone believes that they are about to be burned by a hot rod, when it is in fact only slightly cold, the persons body will produce welts where the rod touches them as though they have been burned. Also, see the famous studies on conformity and obedience. Surprising stuff, and relevant to your questions about homeopathy. Suggestion, altered state and hypnotherapy are also very interesting. I'd recommend an A-level study guide in the UK. I might study psychology as a 2nd ug degree sometime - great stuff.

As for spontaneous healing, it happens every day. People often mistake the healing for the actions of their doctor or off-the-shelf drugs, or their mothers chicken soup, but in most cases people feel better after a few days. Even with chronic conditions, people do just get better without any therapy. There is also the natural cycle of many conditions to consider, and the fact that people may unconsciously avoid the agent causing their problem, etc. The problem with homeopathy so far, and the balance of the research, is that there is always a simpler explanation which doesn't rely on shaken solvents with nothing in them having an effect. Occam's Rasor applies as always, and homeopathy currently fails here. I'd love for you to do research and prove it does work, but you need to be open to it not working too. Benveniste made this mistake, and came a cropper because of it. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A placebo-controlled double-blind study with children [3]. Found on footnote 8 of this review [4], see also corrections for the review [5]. I found the review on the talk page of the homeopathy article. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the spanish wikipedia there were giving a pair of references to studies of placebo effect on animals: Stewart-Williams & Podd, 2004 [The placebo effect: Dissolving the expectancy versus conditioning debate., Psychological Bulletin, 130: 324-340.] o en Vallance, 2006 [Something out of nothing: the placebo effect, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 12: 287-296]). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric, The first reference related to warts and children, not placebo, nor spontanious healing but natural coarse of the the disease. I agree that this must be verified with a control. So I don't see this telling me anything about placebo in children. Let me be clear, Controls are obviously really important in any experiment. However, in the case of children, when you have a measurable result, ie the size of a wart. It really does not matter if you ever give the child the "placebo" or not. Your control is the natural course of the disease and I would expect that you would find the same results in untreated children. Does that make sense? So, my proposal is that in the case of infants, your control is the untreated child. Since placebo is not the issue. For objective symptoms in infants, placebo does not matter. No let take the case of plagiocephaly. Sample size is one, but the results are statistically very significant. I am working on getting the data on a second. However, the control in this case is an untreated child and they don't typically see any change. This child was not helmeted, therefore the helmeted (which typically takes 4 months for similar results) is not the control.

Regarding your second on animals... I have not looked at it yet. Drpolich (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't realize this had moved off the main talk page, so my apologies for pursuing it there. Dr. Polich, if you would like to contribute some research to the debate and possibly account for the individualization problem you have mentioned, perhaps the group here can come up with a useful protocol. I'm curious how everyone feels about this approach. Just came to me, so I'm sure we'll find some flaws in it: You will need a large patient sampling, several thousand is ideal, but let's say 100 to be more practical. Would be great if they are all suffering from the same problem, but this isn't even necessary, as long as each has been identified by a homeopath as someone who can be potentially treated. You do your interview with each patient, preferably by a uniform questionnaire, and come up with their personalized treatment. You can re-evaluate as often as needed, as long as all participants are evaluated on the same time scale (weekly, say). After you make your choice of treatment, you will have no more interaction with the patients until it is time for the next week's assessment. A second person then divides the patient pool into two groups: 50 people who will get their personalized treatment and 50 who will get one of the remaining 50 treatments at random, doesn't even matter if it is a treatment for their ailment or for something else. After the randomization, a third person, who does not know which patients have been randomized and which have not (and who will have no interaction with you or the person who did the randomization), distributes the treatments in unmarked vials. After 3 months (or whatever is reasonable), we see who reports improvement and what they were taking when they improved. Only after all responses are in at the end of the trial do we find out who received their assigned treatment and who received one at random. I, as a skeptic, would suspect that the "cure" rate would be statistically identical for each group. I'm up around the Chicago area every once in a while, so if you want to put this together, I may be able to help.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if the same criteria for success could be used for all patients - this would make the results a lot clearer, so a single condition (or from the point of view of homoeopaths, patients with similar symptoms) would be a good idea. Homoeopaths routinely claim to be able to treat asthma, and it's a reasonably common condition. Brunton (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks Brunton. My protocol would only be conclusive if there is no difference between the two groups. It wouldn't tell os anything as to "why" if there actually was a statistical difference between the personalized and randomized groups. I'm simply expecting there to be no difference between the two groups, which I suppose is not a fair assumption, or at least not a scientifically prudent assumption.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help design the experiment, however, the issue will be money. What I am trying to find is a disease that by chance tends to be dominated by a single remedy. That will be far less costly to run. I have a couple that may work, but i need a bit more time. Then we will hopefully have the interest and money to do more extensive studies Drpolich (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

12 hour block

You have been blocked for disruptive editing in articles that are covered by the discretionary sanctions. In future, please use the talk page to establish consensus instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil, the problem is that as long as that language appears on the page, it seems that the other side is winning. Can we PLEASE, PLEASE remove it until the issue is resolved. It is better not not discuss it than have information which is really wrong Drpolich (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't going to happen, I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Consensus.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note that I am seeking clarity on the reasons for Phil's action at his talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Phil. I am also seeking consensus. However, many people who are editing this page do not understand homeopathy at all. It would be like having me edit a page on plasma wakefield acceleration which I know nothing about. In addition, the paragraph which I deleted is NOT according to concensus. So why do we keep leaving it there. I would not even mind if you just moved it down under a section labeled Critics. However, it does not represent a conscensus either way. Drpolich (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't really care about whose "side is winning" here, or about offensive language, or about whether editors understand or don't understand homeopathy (BTW, most do), we only care about NPOV, which requires that all sides of the issue be presented using Reliable sources, no matter if they are offending or not. Until you understand this (these wordings in our policies don't necessarily mean what they usually mean in the outside world), you're only going to continue to disrupt Wikipedia and get in trouble. It can also have unfortunate consequences for yourself in real life since your behavior here can become known in the real world. Please read our policies and follow them. BTW, "advocacy" is forbidden here. You are clearly advocating fringe beliefs rather than concentrating on working with editors who hold opposing POV in a collaborative manner to create an NPOV article. Please stop this behavior. -- Fyslee / talk 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:Fyslee's comments should be taken with a pinch of salt since he, and his fellow sceptics are responsible for much disruption in articles like homeopathy. Veteran edit warriors of this sort commonly bait their antagonists so please be on your guard. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF. I'm going to give you a chance to remove your personal attack above, or I will take this higher up. This is unforgivable. -- Fyslee / talk 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Also User:Fyslee's comment that "unfortunate consequences for yourself in real life" seems way, way out of line. He or she or whatever pronoun fits should read WP:LEGAL. Philknight is clearly a bully and a troublemaker and sooner or later should be blocked and/or banned from the wikipedia community. --128.97.251.98 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Enric (below) understands precisely what I meant. I was giving Dr. Polich a friendly warning for her own good. Anyone who does a Google search on her is bound to find this and will naturally lose confidence in her. Being new here, she probably isn't aware of how editing at Wikipedia can impact negatively on one's real life situation. I was passing on that wisdom gained from hard personal experience.

Your comments are gross personal attacks and your attack on a respected admin is especially dubious. -- Fyslee / talk 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going assume good faith and interpret that he means damage to Drpolich's reputation on RL, meaning his reputation as homeopath, as doctor, as researcher, or as whatever reputation is relevant to the issue.

If you are in doubt of whether someone is saying something on good faith, please first ask the user for a good faith interpretation of his comment. If he was really talking on bad faith, either he will change apologize, or he will make abundantly clear what he really meant, and at that moment you can really complain. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Very wise advice. Thanks Enric. -- Fyslee / talk 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Colonel. Phil's actions here don't really bother me, I am glad because at least I know what official is watching the page. Regarding "real life", I'm a homeopath, I am used to people thinking I am strange!!!! Regarding the page. I advocate an accurate representation of what homeopathy is and what it does. I don't disagree that there is not enough research. However, as I have explained above there are excellent reasons for this. If you truly understood the principles of homeopathy these problems would be clear. Obviously, you also need to understand your topic so those that do not should not be editing either. I would like to petition the Wiki admin to remove the paragraph that is considered offensive since it does not represent a consensus. Then we can find more balanced wording. Otherwise, it does not represent all parties fairly. Drpolich (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't designed to "represent all parties fairly", but to tell all sides of the story using reliable sources. You really need to study those policy links I provided above before you utter another word here. You are digging your hole deeper and deeper, and it can never be expunged. Everything you do here at Wikipedia is kept for posterity. What the edit history reveals would shock you, which is why many experienced editors here start by checking the edit history, then reading the text and codes written there, and finally the final product. Please, please, please read those policies! This advice is for your own good. You have already been blocked once, and that's on your permanent record as a very bad start. It will always count against you, but if you learn our policies and learn how to edit and comment properly, you can still become a valued contributor. -- Fyslee / talk 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My advice about consequences in real life are addressed here:

• Wikipedia is in the real world

-- Fyslee / talk 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not attacking the admin. I thought that one of the contributors who cleary has strong opinions was the admin. Since that is not true, I have no issues with the admin. Also, the admin has repeatedly asked for consensus. Thus, we need a consensus. Anyway, so far I have not done or said anything of which I would be ashamed. I am clearly a physician who has a unique perspective having been in the scientific world and the clinical world. I will give my honest opinion, but while I have read more research than the average homeopath, I do not pretend to be well versed in this area. If I decide to do more research, clearly this will have to change. Drpolich (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic Materia Medica

As you are a practising homeopath, perhaps you could look at the HMM page linked above and give your opinions on it's talk page. Maybe you can provide more information about the use of HMM and whether there are actual standard ones. At the moment the article just describes Materia Medica, but with homeopathy in front! The second paragraph seems a bit irrelevant to me as it isn't about HMM, but rather SH using a non-Homeopathic MM. Other pages you might be able to help on are List of homeopathic preparations and the The Organon of the Healing Art article, which isn't very good (I recently tried to improve it with a large copy edit). Also, don't just stick to homeopathy - try Engineering articles and other stuff too. :) Thanks. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look at the HMM page. However, I have not practiced engineering for over 10 years and my last position was Director of Engineering had very little real engineering. Regarding the standardization, a practicing homeopath uses a book called a synthesis far more than materia medica in day to day practice. It is a a computer database of all of the symptoms that a patient may identify. For example "Head ache worse with the sun" would be a listing. The materia medica is used to initially learn the remedies and to look up things as we try to see if the information in the computer database really matches the person. The materia medica portion of the computher program has thousand and thousands of references to symptoms of remedies which range from reliable to ridiculous. I can provide the reliable references, but there is no standard. Drpolich (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that kind of information is useful and could be put to use in wikipedia, in the pages mentioned above and others. For example, what's the software (hompath?), what's a good definition of a "homeopathic sythesis", and should it have it's own article? Thanks. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I really like your additions to the HMM article, thanks! I've tried to add a relevant wikilink, but wasn't entirely successful (I can't get it to link to the subsection on provings, only the section). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)