Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

picosecond

I removed the picosecond from the lead as a bit of a poor wording - not really adding anything. I believe I've retained the original meaning and improved readability a bit. Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree in part. There's legitimate (non-homeopathic) research on water structure and we should acknowledge it. Granted "picosecond" is too technical but we could replace that with "fraction of a microsecond" or something to that effect. Also the "would seem to permit" language is too squishy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've edited it to remove "would seem to". Brunton (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Fraction of a second" or "small fraction of a second" is perhaps preferable to "...microsecond"? Brunton (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I kinda think it's better the way it is now - I think the desire for precision can come across as a bit pejorative if we're not careful - personally, I think the piped link to the water memory bit is enough? Privatemusings (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing for the enemy

I'm thinking of writing for the enemy. I'd like to mention the million dollar prize by magician James Randi. I'd also like to add that homeopaths are cheating people, just after the pseudoscience and quackery sentence, in the lead. I'm gonna add a lot more negative stuff, but I just thought I'll discuss it first.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

If you want to make changes of this nature, especially in the lead, it is probably a good idea to discuss them here and reach consensus first. You will need to find reliable sources for these statements, especially potentially contentious ones such as that homoeopaths are cheating people. Also, the lead is supposed to summarise the article. If you want to introduce new information it should go in the body of the article. Brunton (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would object to it. I'm sure you can find references for what I posted! I'm gonna bring a lot more negative stuff here soon.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
Attempting to insert a POV into the article will be regarded as unconstructive, even if that POV isn't your own. If you want to insert material into the article, in particular potentially contentious material, you will need to support it with reliable sources. You will also need to show that it is relevant and notable enough in the context of homoeopathy - the JREF paranormal challenge, for example, applies to any claim considered to be paranormal by the JREF, so I doubt that it's notable enough WRT homoeopathy to include here. Brunton (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"writing for the enemy" sounds like an interesting approach, though I'm not sure what you hope to achieve, nor why a skeptic's view of homeopathy needs to be viewed as an "enemy" stance. I am always amazed and disheartened by how people are so willing and eager to push their own agendas and beliefs, even when faced with the fact that common sense, thoroughly established theory, and (most importantly) the vast majority of properly culled evidence, contradict and negate them. What is more disconcerting is how many people don't seem to see anything wrong with this approach to defining reality. I imagine that one goal of "writing for the enemy" would be to make the article sound excessively caustic and hostile towards homeopathy so that believers in homeopathy will then be able to dismiss it as such when they are challenged with it (as they currently do anyhow). Sounds like an insidious plan. Of course, I can't say that this is indeed your motive and it is not my intention to insinuate as much.
A great deal of nonconstructive material has been cut away from the article over the last few years, and much of this was negative comments about homeopathy which were simply derogatory POV. Keep in mind that much of the unreferenced negative commentary has been cut away by editors who are clearly skeptical of homeopathy, but are continually acting to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the article. The article stands today as the result of the tireless efforts of a handful of these editors (and others) to have it reflect the best available evidence on the claims of homeopathy, which unavoidably casts the the claims of homeopathy in a dubious light. The lack of supporting evidence for the claims of homeopathy in the article reflects the fact that such evidence, based on appropriate and honest investigations documented in reliable sources, simply does not exist. Anything in there which proponents of homeopathy find offensive or contentious is not intended to be so, it simply reflects the best available evidence on the matter. Adding statements which are unreferenced and intentionally inflammatory won't accomplish anything and it won't be tolerated by the other editors, so save your efforts.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an important point. There's no need to debunk homeopathy -- simply describe what homeopathy is, in an accurate and dispassionate way, and homeopathy will debunk itself. If someone still believes in homeopathy after reading that it contains no active ingredients and so on, well, natural selection can take over from there... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Patient's symptoms vs. Disease's symptoms

I recently changed the lead to indicate that homoeopaths consider any symptoms exhibited by the patient rather than symptoms specific to a particular disease that they may have - this was reverted on the grounds that "A patient doesn't have symptoms. A disease exhibits them" (which I don't think is necessarily the case - surely symptoms are exhibited by the patient). The lead itself says that "Apart from the symptoms of the disease, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state", indicating that it is not just disease symptoms that are considered, and there are plenty of examples of homoeopaths stating that homoeopathy "treats the patient not the disease", for example here is a document from the (UK) Society of Homeopaths stating this (it just happened to be the first hit on my Google search), and here is a prominent US homoeopath (and Wikipedian) stating that "practicing classical homeopathy does not require a specific diagnosis of disease". Does anyone object to my replacing the reverted wording? Brunton (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead, your reasoning is correct. Fences and windows (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. There can be no doubt that patients present symptoms, and there is no need to phrase this in a way that is objectionable to homeopaths when it can be phrased so that no reasonable person can object. I am sad that this type of unconstructive, impulsive reverting has started again. The reverter does not have email enabled, but a likely earlier incarnation does. I contacted the old account by email a few hours after the revert and have not received a response. But the reverter has calmed down considerably. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would object to any implication that non-homeopaths "only" treat the symptoms, and not the "whole person", as that's nonsense. However, I don't see a problem with stating that holeopaths claim to treat the person etc. Verbal chat 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Good edit, Hans. Brunton (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That showed up in my feed as "Good Hans". I agree. Verbal chat 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

mass action

Mass action is when there is a chemical reaction - use physiological action if you must, in the Lead.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Which would be completely different from what the source says. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
so find a source for the 'law of physiological action' or delete the term 'mass action'.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
The Nature article is the source. here it's quoted a bit. Basically, in Benveniste's experiment the biological activity fluctuated rithmically, while the law of mass action predicts that the activity should decrease steadily as the solution decreases and that the activity should disappears after no antobodies molecules remained in the solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm only saying that physiological action is a more appropriate term.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
I don't really see your point. It doesn't matter whether a chemical reaction is taking place in a beaker or in a (human) body, it's still chemistry. The sentence you're referring to says "Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules violates fundamental principles of science, including the law of mass action." Chemistry is science, so - besides not agreeing that it is true - what's your problem with this sentence? Six words (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Law of mass action is a well-defined term; there is no law of physiological action. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before, in particular the sections titled Basic understanding, The book Snake Oil and the debate about Fundamental principles, 11 May reverts, and violation of fundamental laws. In the contribution dated 11:05, 22 April 2008, Shoemaker's Holiday cites the exact passage in question. I argued at that time, and still hold now, that

Or, in the words of Law of mass action, "the rate of an elementary reaction (a reaction that proceeds through only one transition state, that is one mechanistic step) is proportional to the product of the concentrations of the participating molecules." That's all well and good, but it only applies to "elementary reactions", and it seems embarassingly naive to call any biological system "elementary". Besides, the standpoint of homeopathy is not that super small concentrations have in proportion super large effects, but that the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not molecules but something we do not yet know how to measure. That view can also be described as embarassingly naive, but the connection to the law of mass action seems to me to be extremely tenuous.

and

One editorial opinion is not enough for us to write that the claims of homeopathy really do violate any fundamental principles of chemistry, or even that the scientific establishment thinks they do. I think that even the claim of Maddox that homeopathy would violate the principle of mass action is internally too inconsistent to be included in the article.

The discussion at that time did not really reach any conclusion. I still believe that the statement in the article is not adequately supported by the (one!) source cited. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Because one of the biggest journals' posiion statement is meaningless. And, by the way, it's only beencut down to one reference because we're trying to avoid the mega-multi-overreferencing of the past. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not a position statement from Nature (if they even have such a thing). It is an op-ed piece by John Maddox. Would you mind citing here a sampling of those mega-multi-over-references on the law of mass action in relation to homeopathy? Maddox is the only one I am aware of. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass action is way too jargony for the lead. Should be converted into something comprehensible for the general reader or tossed. The law of mass action article is not any help here, since it's a load of jargon as well. II | (t - c) 17:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We can probably change it a summary, like "the claimed behaviour of homeopathic dilutions lacks an objective explanation". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
At the end I went for "and the claimed memory effect of very high homeopathic dilutions lacks a substantial basis.", using also the Maddox-Randi-Stewart article in Nature as a source. Sums up the core problem, and avoids jargon. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a roundabout and confusing way to say that homeopathy is scientifically implausible, which is already stated clearly earlier in the lead (first paragraph, third sentence). "Very high homeopathic dilution" is rather ambiguous: does that mean less dilution (high in homeopathic ingredient) or more dilution (few to zero)? II | (t - c) 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that mass action is a problem for homeopathy, Art Carlson has raised the point that we can't assume that simple molecular interactions are responsible for the proposed (though experimentally absent, and therefore not requiring any justification) actions of homeopathic dilutions. We can't prove mass action must be a factor, just like I can't prove that pixie fairies aren't playing some kind of role in the process. However, I have a couple of other issues that I'd like to throw out there for discussion. I'm probably missing something obvious here, but this just came to mind, and I'd appreciate anyone pointing out the weakness of this argument for me. We may not be violating the law of mass action (though I believe we are), but what about the laws of thermodynamics? Propagation of information is an energy intensive process, as it implies a certain degree of order and it therefor comes at an entropic cost. When a molecule is dissolved in a solvent (water), the entropic hit from organization of water molecules in a solvent shell can be greatly offset by enthalpic contributions from beneficial solvent/solute interactions (dipole-dipole, hydrogen bonding, ion-ion, etc.). Here's my thought: once we remove the solute molecules, where does the energy come from to offset the entropic necessity of any sort of imprint of structure/information? The principle of Brownian motion states that any organization of the solvent molecules must be lost at this point due to random motion in the absence of any enthalpic energy barrier. Careful collection and combustion of all of the solute molecules will show that there has been no net transfer of energy to the solvent from the solute. So where does the energy needed to impart information through the remaining solvent come from? It seems to me that we are asking to violate the laws of thermodynamics, which is a little more disconcerting than violating the law of mass action IMHO. I suspect I'm missing something obvious here but, in lieu of a nap today, it seems like a mildly compelling point.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no natural laws being violated. Doesn't cavity QED information store as bound photons? —Whig (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course there aren't any laws being broken, as homeopathy doesn't do anything (accepting the use of "laws", and the impossibility of violating a natural law anyway... :) ). Information entropy and Maxwell's demon might be what you're after, pudding. I'd not thought of applying information entropy to homeopathy, and it's one of my areas. Could be informative. Verbal chat 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Answer the previous question, please. If homeopathy doesn't do anything why do people keep using homeopathic medicine? —Whig (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do people do lots of things that don't work? Then there is the placebo effect, which can be powerful. Verbal chat 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Marketing, for one. David D. (Talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How many products are repurchased repeatedly without perceived benefit to the customer? —Whig (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Many (eg Vitamins, Laundry balls, etc). However, please direct your comments to improving the article per WP:TALK, thanks - let's not digress any further. Verbal chat 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, only homeopathy derision is allowed in talk? Do many people buy laundry balls repeatedly, or do they just get suckered the one time? —Whig (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not derision, that's how business works. People buy fortified products all the time because they think they are better. Can they tell if they are better or not? Even if it is better, I doubt anyone is going out and reading scientific studies to confirm it or not. They buy it becuase it says so on the box. People are influenced by marketing all the time. What about the expensive hand creams with additives such as DNA and collagen, people pay extra for that. As the adage goes 'you get what you pay for', so it must be better. Also product placement. I've seen homeopathic hayfever products at the entrances of stores. This is an established marketing tactic. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
But there is a perceived benefit, so it does something. That isn't to say that it is better than something else, or that marketing cannot persuade people to buy things that aren't good for themselves. What I think Verbal's point was that he doesn't believe that a physical basis of homeopathy has been established, though my first question was quite to that very point. —Whig (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"But there is a perceived benefit, so it does something." Non sequitur. There's sometimes a difference between people's perceptions and actuality. Brunton (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As to the product placement and all that, sure we've all bought some crap that didn't do anything for us, but the question is do you buy that product again the next time you see it? —Whig (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion on "why do people keep buying homeopathic medicine" has no apparent relation to editing the article. Per WP:TPG, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject." It's hard enough to keep this talk page civil and on track. If there is a relation to a proposed edit, please make this clear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Whig, please expound on your QED comment. I'm particularly interested in what it has to do with obliterative dilution of solute molecules leaving behind a persistent excited state. You may have a really good point there, but it was briefly worded and I'm having a hard time making the connection.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC).
Isn't cavity QED information created by cavitation in the preparation of homeopathic medicine during succussion? Cavity QED information stores as bound photons when an atom or molecule is trapped within a cavity and cannot emit. —Whig (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
First, there's nothing to support that cavities are "created" by succession. Cavities exist in eternal flux within bulk water, but have never (to my knowledge) been shown to linger on account of a previously contacted solute molecule. I can't see any way that shaking of a sample of water could have any effect on the regular appearance of cavities. Second, even if cavity formation were somehow effected by succession, I don't see how you make the jump to the incorporation of QED information. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that quantum mechanics plays any role in the molecular mechanisms of homeopathy's supposed action. The only writings I've seen on quantum mechanics and homeopathy come from Milgrom and are, to say the least, comically inept projections of his own wishful thinking. Finally, as far as excited state molecules being trapped in solvent cavities, the excited state has to be the result of some earlier input of energy, generally absorption of an incident photon or collision with a high speed electron. Where would this energy come from? Simply dissolving a solute molecule in water does not generally lead to this sort of electronic excitation, as there is not enough energy transferred between ground state solute and solvent molecules upon simple collision. If such an energy transfer and excitation did occur to any appreciable degree, EPR could be employed to detect the excited states, but none exist. So, again, where does the energy come from which is required to transmit the "message" of the once present solute molecules to some ultimate site of pharmacological action? And let's not forget that we are still trying to come up with explanations for a phenomenon (homeopathic efficacy) which the preponderance of evidence suggests doesn't even exist.Puddin'head Wilson (talk)
You ask where the energy comes from, as if succussion does not input energy. Cavitation creates QED information, and in some cases even visible light emission. Cavity QED photon binding occurs on very short time scales. —Whig (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Whig, please send along a reference for me. I'm interested to see the details of what you're suggesting and I'm afraid it will take too much space for us to clear it up here. I'll see if I can respond better after seeing a couple of papers on the subject. I have a hard time believing shaking water around in a box can lead to electronic excitation, and if the QED phenomenon you are suggesting is too short lived to be detected by EPR, how can it last long enough to have any pharmacological effect?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of papers which discuss homeopathy in these terms but there is ample experimental proof of cQED photon binding in laboratory apparatus, and cavitation is a well recognized phenomenon. I would expect coherence to be short lived but it could be restored by microtubules or some other structure. This will be my last comment on this thread so if you want to continue conversation we can take it to personal talk pages or off-Wiki. —Whig (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well alright, I found some papers on cavity QED and the phenomenon does indeed rely on relaxation of excited state molecules. The problem is, you'll never find any references which suggest that simple agitation of a bulk liquid will lead to any appreciable degree of electronic excitation (or any at all), because it simply doesn't happen. The energy of shaking is not channelled into these sorts of excitations but is rather dissipated throughout the bulk solvent through more macroscopic means.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You are not correct. You need to read up on cavitation and sonoluminescence. Let's stop here, take it to personal or off-Wiki. —Whig (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Whig, what you are arguing is that A sometimes causes B, and B sometimes causes C therefore A always causes C. Feel free to point out where your logic has broken down. Shot info (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The law of similars

Would anyone object to a clarification to the "Law of similars" section, in an effort to state that it is, in fact, not actually a natural law? Scientific laws are stated as such because they have been established as unchanging in the face of extensive experimentation. The law of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics are considered laws because they are invariable and serve to govern the action of other fundamental physical processes. The "law of similars", on the other hand, was apparently designated by Hahnemann based on his erroneous (or at least unsupported) assumptions of the relationship between chinchona bark poisoning and malaria. It can hardly be passed off as a law, but is often referenced as such in attempts to validate homeopathy. I think a clarification of this is important for establishing a clear description of the parameters of homeopathy.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

I do believe that science has abandoned the term "law" altogether. Science has moved on from Newton's laws, and medicine has moved on from Homeopathy (but at least there was some truth to Newton's laws). I don't object to such changes to the article to make it clear that this is simply a name he coined, but we should avoid the technically incorrect description of "scientific laws". Maybe the laws of cricket are closer? (j/k) Verbal chat 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
From wikipedia's article on "Physical laws"
A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.
While I appreciate the point you're making, and comparison to "valid" laws is not necessary to establish the "law of similars" as nothing more than a coined phrase, the statement that science has abandoned the term law altogether is simply not true. No need to go into it here but, Giancolli (probably the most widely used college physics text in North America) still referes to Newton's laws of motion and certainly maintains that there are laws of thermodynamics. Wikipedia even has an article entitled "Laws of thermodynamics" with no indication that it is a dated concept. These are referred to regularly in just about any discussion of physical processes, so I'm a little confused by the claim that the term has been abandoned.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC).
The idea of "laws" as fundamental, immutable, etc, has been abandoned. Newton's laws have very well known limitations. We now use other terms, but for historical reasons only keep these terms (and they are well used outside of science). Modern "laws", such as Godwin's law; Murphy's law, and Moore's law, use the term for this reason. Scientists now generally talk of theories, which has a slightly different meaning to the main public understanding of the term. I agree though that most of this is an aside, I just thought it was interesting. Verbal chat 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's entropy for you, rather like WP. Only when applied energy is organized does it accomplish anything ;-) LeadSongDog come howl 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead (again)

I've edited the first two sentences so that "first expounded by Hahnemann in 1796" applies to homoeopathy rather than homooepathic preparations. If anyone thinks this makes the opening sentence too long or unweildy, possibly the historical note should be expanded into a sentence of its own. I've also changed "preparations" to "remedies" in the second sentence (this is certainly how homoeopaths refer to the preparations) and removed a bit of editorialising that has just been introduced. Brunton (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow we've arrived at a version that buries the controversy in the third para. In some fashion or other it belongs in the first line.LeadSongDog come howl 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable enough to have the lead set up as it is, starting with a (relatively neutral) description of what it is, followed by the criticisms. Not quite sure about the opening sentence of the second paragraph though - this is what homoeopaths claim to do, surely? Brunton (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I very much like the current structure of the lede: define the thing, then give the scientific perspective. It's in keeping with NPOV and is less likely to turn off the audience that most needs to read the article, i.e., the poor souls who believe in this nonsense. So we win both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SBHB. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I would like to add the word "controversial" in the first sentence. I never understood the objections to that; I guess it's something along the lines of claiming that this word can only be read as saying there is a scientific controversy. Is there an alternative word without this problem?
I don't see a big problem with the first sentence of the second paragraph. They seem to consider this very important. Brunton, do you have any evidence that it's not widely followed? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really - I just think it's a bit "handwavy" in its use of terminology like "psychological state". They're really just collecting symptoms and impressions and then trying to match them to the materia medica rather than assessing the overall state of the patient and then using that to decide on an appropriate treatment. Brunton (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What does the one-sentence reader take away? That it's a kind of medicine. Harry Potter identifies in line one that it is fiction. Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence is clear, the reader should find out what it is and why it is notable. "If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so." Well, most of us realize that homeopathy as medicine belongs squarely in the realm of fiction, though somehow it has escaped into the real world. I don't much care if it's characterised as controversial, magic, faith healing, confidence game, talk therapy, or system of placebos, but something in that sentence should make it clear that it's not just another branch of medicine. LeadSongDog come howl 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Note the first sentence characterizes homeopathy as alternative medicine, not just "medicine." In fact the current lede of Homeopathy nicely parallels the lede of your Harry Potter example -- the first paragraph identifies the books as "fantasy novels" and tells what they're about, then later paragraphs talk about their popularity, critical reception, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget it says alternative medicine. I think most people have made up their mind either to trust their regular physician and not waste money on something that's not covered by their health insurance; or to try everything else first because regular medicine is evil. Therefore I would expect most people to realise the significance of this word. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely nobody uses homeopathic medicines for conditions that orthodox medicine is unable to treat? —Whig (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Find a reliable source for that suggestion and perhaps we can add it to the article. Brunton (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is there a reliable source to the contrary? —Whig (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That’s not how it works. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
How what works? I'm not arguing for an addition to the article, but was replying to the unsourced speculation above. —Whig (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My bad. I thought you were implying that content should be added without a reliable source just because there’s no reliable source against it. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy can cure a lot of conditions that allopathy is unable to treat (e.g.Cancer)!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
I'd love to see the WP:MEDRS that homeopathy cures cancer. I'm pretty sure it would have made the news though... Seriously, writing that homeopathy cures cancer fully justifies the tag of quackery. Verbal chat 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It is completely false and irresponsible to say that homeopathy cures cancer, even if it might cure a particular patient of cancer. The distinction is important, because homeopathy does not cure diseases but patients on the basis of their particular symptoms and no one remedy is correct for all patients with a cancer diagnosis. Using homeopathy to the exclusion of other modalities is risky and inappropriate in many cases, though I doubt any serious medical doctor no matter how orthodox would object to it being used in a complementary fashion. —Whig (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
“Allopathy”? Homoeopathy curing cancer? You’re joking, right? — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Hans, but "alternative medicine" is jargon that will mislead many casual readers even if it is wikilinked. A large proportion of worldwide readers have no health insurance. Even more have no drug coverage. It's at least part of the reason why quacks can prey upon the poor. (I can't explain the choice of the British royals, it makes no sense to me.) LeadSongDog come howl 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Only poor people use homeopathy? People with health insurance never use homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
going off-topic --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Certain possible explanations come to mind for the popularity of homeopathy among royalty. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this kind of denialist speculation improve the article? —Whig (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest finding some reliable sources and using them as a guide for the first thing to say in this Wikipedia article. Example: What is homeopathy? from the NIH. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor pet peeve - the abovelinked article is from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. As well say it is from the Department of Health and Human Services as say NIH.
Going back to the original topic of this section, remedy is being used as a term of art, and should be defined when it is introduced. We definitely should cover use of the term, but given the already unwieldy length of the lead, perhaps it would be better left to the body? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There are billions who've benefited from homeopathy through the centuries (including my patients). You guys aren't allowing me to mention the positive studies. I also saw that 498 studies have been mentioned in the archives earlier, probably there have been thousands mentioned before, but you guys don't want it to be mentioned, but I wonder why?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
I’d like to see where you get that number from (“billions who’ve benefited”) and how exactly your “patients” have benefited (are you even a medical doctor?). I haven’t been keeping track, but the reason why the “positive studies” aren’t mentioned is probably because they aren’t up to any serious scientific or academic standards, or the conclusions drawn by the homoeopaths just aren’t at all supported by the data. I mean seriously, I’ve seen studies where the homoeopathic treatment was only as successful as a placebo, quoted by homoeopaths as being successful.
Anyway, I’ll humour you if you humour me. Can you post or link the studies you want to insert into the article here on the discussion page? — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:NootherIDAvailable's activities raised at NPOV Noticeboard

NOTE: User:NootherIDAvailable has been indef banned as a sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The advocacy of homeopathy by this professional homeopath has become the subject of an NPOV noticeboard discussion. It may be time for a complete topic ban for this user. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And we have another talk page participant, just a few lines up on this page, who advocates calling homeopathy quackery. As long as editors here are working to provide Wikipedia readers with an informative article about what homeopathy is then they are welcome to participate here. I suggest that efforts be directed towards identifying reliable sources and making sure that Wikipedia fairly reflects what experts on homeopathy have previously published. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy has been labelled quackery by WP:RS, but that has been dealt with elsewhere. Claims that homopathy cures cancer, or has cured any cancer, are clearly irresponsible. Re NootherIDAvailable, I wonder if he might already be banned? This is a distraction though. It is right to raise the NPOV dicussion here, as it concerns this page, but from now on posts should concentrate on improving the page (not a WP:FORUM for Whig, NootherID, etc)Verbal chat 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
At some considerable risk, I'm going to comment here. Homeopathy has almost certainly cured some cancer, and many other conditions; the question is modality. The reason I can say this about cure, with confidence, is that the Placebo effect is powerful, and is known to be efficacious, if it can be triggered. The debate is over whether or not there is another effect beyond this. Would homeopathic treatment work in a double-blind situation? Mind you, I think homeopathy is pseudoscience, though there are a few worrisome burblings out on the fringe, whiffling through the tulgey wood, about Water memory. The "irresponsible" argument is often used to repress some current unpopular position in science; for some years, for example, evidence that the cholesterol hypothesis was bogus, that natural saturated fat was probably good for you -- in the right context --, that low-carb diets were more effective for weight loss than other alternatives, and that they were heart-health safe, was actively repressed as "irresponsible," based on theories from the early 1970s that are now generally discredited, since roughly 2000; but when you raise an entire generation of nutritionists on bad science, the ideas persist. Verbal, I know from Cold fusion, and, ironically, the same author, Gary Taubes is known for writing on both topics, the cold fusion situation (almost twenty years ago) and the situation with diet, Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007). Both books are meticulously researched; but the first, on cold fusion, was written before the science had actually settled, something that didn't happen until quite recently, if, indeed, it has happened. None of this means that something in particular should be mentioned in this article, but it's not our job to determine if a reliably sourced fact is "irresponsible" or not. If it's deceptive, presumably it can be balanced from another reliable source or by appropriate framing, such as "It's been reported that the moon is made of green cheese,[RS] but this has not been independently confirmed," even if there is no RS saying that it's not been independently confirmed. That's the magic of editorial consensus and how it can cut through Gordian knots. Please seek consensus here, folks, we need it everywhere. --Abd (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Then it wasn't homeopathy that caused the "cure". The rest is irrelevant for a Wikipedia article. Homeopathic organisations describe claims of cancer cures as irresponsible, and they are illegal in may jurisdictions. Verbal chat 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

New source

Enjoy :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Succussion

Split from above section by Verbal chat

Can we at least define succussion not as shaking but as the process of forcefully striking a homeopathic remedy against a firm surface? It does make a difference. —Whig (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, as there a WP:RS for this and it is discussed later in the article. Is it that some use one rather than the other? There is a great variation in the practice of homeopaths. I propose the text "are prepared by serial dilution with shaking and banging ("succussing") after each step" for the lead, simply adding "and banging", and any changes to the succussion section should be well sourced. Verbal chat 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Every dictionary I can find defines "succussion" as shaking, typically vigorous or violent shaking, for example here and here and here. Nothing about striking a surface. We need to make it clear that this is at minimum a non-standard use of the word, much as more "potent" remedies are more heavily diluted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Succussion is not defined as mere shaking by Hahnemann. I think the fact that various descriptions exist does not change the fundamental process which he described. —Whig (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
"Shaking and banging"? That's not very good. It is literally striking the remedy against a hard surface like a book. There may be many ways that homeopaths describe it but this is what is done if Hahnemann's method is followed, and striking force causes cavitation. —Whig (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
To go into further detail in the lead is unnecessary, the process is detailed in the appropriate section. Verbal chat 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that the lead is inaccurate and a straw man. —Whig (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When edits are being discussed please don't just make a different edit than those being discussed, without achieving consensus. What is "straw man" about saying the process involves shaking, when multiple sources say that it does? I note from your archive that you have had a 6 month topic ban from this article in the past. I would suggest being a bit nicer, and assuming good faith of editors and their edits, discussing things in a collaborative fashion with other editors, and being constructive rather than argumentative. To make this relevant to the article, I do not support the change Whig made. See my proposal above. What Hannerman did is interesting, but may not be for the lead if RS say homeopaths now do otherwise. Verbal chat 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I made an appropriate change and another editor improved upon it. This is how Wikipedia works. Please do not try to stir up old controversies which are not constructive to working together to improve the article. No reliable source will say that modern homeopaths no longer follow Hahnemann's method of succussion. —Whig (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
As the editor who "improved upon"your change, I may improve upon it further by deleting it altogether once I've finished surveying the sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That is unfortunate and if you would remove accuracy to give a straw man description then the article should be flagged for POV. —Whig (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please desist with your accusations and unhelpful behaviour. You are aware of the special editing restrictions in force on pseudoscience pages, and if you continue with this you will be reported. Please try to be helpful rather than confrontational. What is wrong with my proposed change to the lead, with full discussion happening later? Verbal chat 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have violated no restrictions that I am aware of, and made no change without discussion. Please do not threaten me, it is inappropriate and not constructive. Your proposed change, "shaking and banging" isn't very serious as far as I can tell. —Whig (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Banging is another way of saying striking. I have read succussion described as shaking and and then banging against a "stout, straw filled, leather pouch" (from memory). Please see WP:AGF. Verbal chat 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Banging is not a clear way of describing forceful striking. That you say you have seen various descriptions is irrelevant to what succussion actually is, and how Hahnemann performed it. You do not have to tell me to see WP:AGF, please do the same. —Whig (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhapse there is some subtle of meaning between "forceful banging" and "striking" which I have forgotten about, please feel free to fill this in. It would help a great deal if you could provide the WP:RS from which you get your description or definition of succussion, as WP is built on these RS and it would hopefully end any argument. Verbal chat 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is at all obvious what banging even means. I don't believe Hahnemann ever referred to banging, and I would give the Organon as a RS on what the procedure of succussion is. Would you like me to find the exact place? —Whig (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • reliable sources more often mention shaking than striking <-- Let's compile a list of reliable references that explain what homeopaths mean by the term "succussion" in the context of homeopathic remedies. The article already links to this website where it says Succussion: "The process of agitating a freshly diluted solution by rapping its container hard against a hard but elastic object such as a leather-bound book." --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Compiling a list seems excessive, and this is far to detailed for the lead. The article gives the detail, the lead should be a short summary as I proposed above. Verbal chat 18:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Is the Creighton page a reliable source? I have my doubts. The original versions were "author unknown" and the latest revision is by Lawrence Faziola, whom Creighton lists as a recent graduate in psychiatry.[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you don't trust the Creighton University School of Medicine then provide additional sources. "this is far to detailed for the lead" <-- Do you mean that hitting a solution against a surface is just a fancy way of shaking a solution so we can use "shake" in the lead and explain the real process later in the article? --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The simple fact that a web page is housed at a university does not make it a reliable source; in fact there is not even any indication that it reflects the official position of the university. As for Do you mean that hitting a solution against a surface is just a fancy way of shaking a solution so we can use "shake" in the lead and explain the real process later in the article? - I would agree with this. The overwhelming majority of academic sources I've found so far define succussion as vigorous shaking and say nothing about striking against a surface, which indicates that the essential meaning element is "shaking" and that striking is a subsidiary detail. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SBHB, and I meant that going into a full discussion in the lead is going into too much detail. I'm not against it saying "shaken with forceful striking" or banging (if supported later in the article), but anything more is undue. Verbal chat 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If there is no dispute with the current wording then it seems like we have consensus. —Whig (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The current wording looks good. If anyone wants another reference, Kayne & Caldwell's Homeopathic Pharmacy which is already used as a reference elsewhere in the article describes succussion as "vigorous shaking with impact" on page 93 (I can't actually see the page itself in the available view of the book, but the wording "the vigorous shaking with impact known as succussion" comes up in the search results for the word "succussion" in the book). Brunton (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Just to give some background on what I've been talking about, this NIH grant abstract mentions "succussion (vigorous shaking)", this article published by a researcher at the British Homeopathic Hospital says "particularly when shaken vigorously, a process known as 'succussion'". This reference, on the other hand, refers to "pounding (succussion)." So I'd say we're doing OK to emphasize shaking but also parenthetically mention striking (or pounding, banging, rapping, whatever word fits). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Striking force isn't parenthetical, even if not every homeopathic researcher recognizes or describes it. Without striking force there is no comparison with the method of Hahnemann. Since we already have consensus there isn't much point in further debate, but I think it is important to recognize that Hahnemann never ascribed any increase of potency to the dilution step, only and exclusively to the succussion step. It is succussion which causes the remedy to imprint according to Hahnemann, and it is striking force which causes cavitation and all the physical consequences that follow. —Whig (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this mean that homeopathetic rap is better than homeopathetic blues or jazz? ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you are completely out of bounds and this is not constructive. —Whig (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You apparently didn't notice the smiley. That was a joke. Lighten up. I'll spell it out for you: rap = to strike, pound, or bang. It was a comment mostly in humorous response to SBHB. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Full marks to Brangifer for catching the pun. I wondered if anyone would get it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the smiley, but the reply appeared to be to me and the "homeopathetic" nonsense is also not helpful. This is not a comedy stage and it would be best if we try to communicate clearly with one another. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW Whig, I think you really mean that succussion is what makes the remedy effective, while dilution increases the power, IOW you have mistakenly (a typo sort of thing) got it backwards. At least what I describe is standard homeopathetic theory, and theory (I use the term very loosely here...) it is, since no research has shown it to actually happen. It's all a game of manipulating imaginary sand castles, and violates the concepts described by these famous individuals:
  • "Entire vocabularies of esoteric jargon, based on circular reasoning and ignorance, have been invented by true believers to describe their imagined version of reality." - Brangifer ;-)
  • "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist
  • "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
  • "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell
-- Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I said that correctly. Hahnemann believed that dilution removed the toxicity and succussion increased the potency. Your various quotations don't seem on point to this discussion. —Whig (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he probably believed that dilution somehow selectively removed toxicity, but also believed that dilution increased the potency, otherwise there would be no difference in effect between different dilutions. The succussion is what supposedly makes it potent at all in the first place, but dilution then increases it. Succussion is necessary to reactive the potency at each step. There is no discrepancy. In the end it really makes no difference, since there is no evidence for either one. One can state one or the other and logic really is irrelevant, since it is already significantly violated in many ways. BTW, your ally, NootherIDAvailable, has just been indef blocked as a sock of Dr.Jhingaadey. I say "ally" because you happen to make many of the same arguments in efforts to advocate for homeopathy.
The quotations are relevant to why belief in homeopathy violates some basic rules of logic and critical thinking. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"In the end it really makes no difference" <-- I lost track of your argument and I'm not sure what "it" is. I thought the issue under discussion was how to make an informative article about homeopathy. If homeopaths make a distinction about what succussion is and how a remedy should be prepared then it seems to me that makes a difference to how we should describe homeopathy in this Wikipedia article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course. I just disagreed with Whig and thought that he had made an innocent typo-type of error. Apparently not. If Hahnemann really said that, then I'd like to read it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My ally? [2] We don't have to guess what Hahnemann believed, we can read what he wrote and he explains himself very clearly.

We hear daily how homoeopathic medicinal potencies are called mere dilutions, when they are the very opposite, i.e., a true opening up of the natural substances bringing to light and revealing the hidden specific medicinal powers contained within and brought forth by rubbing and shaking. The aid of a chosen, unmedicinal medium of attenuation is but a secondary condition. Simple dilution, for instance, the solution of a grain of salt will become water, the grain of salt will disappear in the dilution with much water and will never develop into medicinal salt which by means of our well prepared dynamization, is raised to most marvellous power.

— CFS Hahnemann, Organon § 269, Sixth Edition

—Whig (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ally? On the cancer matter, apparently not, otherwise nearly identical.
Right about the quote. "There is no discrepancy", as I stated above. That statement doesn't conflict with what I said. It doesn't address the difference between different dilutions that have been potentized by succussion. It is generally believed that the greater the dilution (with succussion in between each dilution), the greater the potency. The difference is the degree of dilution, the succussion being the same each time. An unsuccussed but diluted solution would follow the normal laws of chemistry and physics, IOW it would get weaker with greater dilution. In homeopathy the opposite happens. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop trying to make personally disparaging remarks about me, it is not appropriate or acceptable behavior. I have no relationship with the individual who was blocked and I would agree with the blocking. You seem to think that everyone who isn't a homeopathy denialist is entitled to be attacked. That is not right.
You continue to state the opposite of what Hahnemann said, by claiming that in homeopathy the opposite happens to ordinary chemistry you ignore what he directly said on that point. It is only by succussions that the remedy is given energy. He recognized as well that more succussions imparted more energy, dilutions attenuated the energy and allowed the medicinal power to be further refined. —Whig (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about being called his ally. Fyslee called me his meatpuppet and I am still waiting for a retraction. Perhaps we should create Category:Allies and meatpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be two different points being argued here in regards to succussion. Verbal and others are making an argument for one wording based on commonly accepted practices in the field. Many sources refer to succussion as shaking, and many homeopaths practice it this way. Whig is making his case based on the original definition of succusion in classical homeopathy. Can we not find concise wording to suggest that succussion was originally defined as "striking" of the preparation, but that it is often practiced as vigorous shaking? Or do we need to break the article into two, one which deals with the original ideas of Hahnemann and one which deals with the heterogenous and even disparate modern practices (terrible idea, in my opinion)? I think the article should reflect current "best practices" and theory, with appropriate yet brief mention of an historical development of its ideas. I personally wouldn't give Hahnemann too much press here. Whig, do we really want to place undue weight on the original and mostly unfounded assumptions of one man, who formulated them at a time when modern pharmacology, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, and pathology weren't even developed concepts? Of course, many of us don't see any more merit having been developed in the field since these tenuous beginings. Mention Hahnemann's definition but make it clear that shaking is common practice.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we've settled on the lead containing both (shaking and banging), and the detail going in the body. That could be extended if suitable refs found, but the lead should stay as it is for now. Verbal chat 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"shaking is common practice" <-- Is any editor of this article actually familiar with the practices used by homeopaths or manufacturers of homeopathic remedies? It would be nice if we had a strategy for finding reliable sources that will allow us to determine what the current practitioners of homeopathy view as the valid way to prepare a homeopathic remedy. The question is not what term is used by an MD who is writing a limited length abstract, but what actual practice is. I'd be interested to know exactly what commercial manufacturers of homeopathic remedies do during the manufacturing process. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think it's hard to overestimate the conservatism of homeopaths, and therefore I doubt that the difference between historical and current practice really exists. It seems much more likely that homeopaths simply refer to what they are doing, and what is presumably close to Hahnemann's method, as "violent shaking" when explaining it. [3][4] The best source I could find on this is says: "The most common way to perform succussions is by keeping a liquid preparation inside a glass vessel and shaking it violently using a mechanical apparatus or beating it against a hard, but elastic surface in handmade work." [5] This is an example for the problem that it's hard to get an article on homeopathy right without contributions by several experts on the topic. They have other things to contribute besides their belief in what they are doing. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturing homeopathic remedies

  • "The homeopathic potentization process is carried out successively in two distinct steps - dilution and succussion. Thus, the process involves the sequential or serial dilution of the mother tincture with a mixture of alcohol and water. Each dilution is followed by succussion, which involves vigorous shaking with impact. At CERES this process is all exactingly and painstakingly done by hand. Manual potentization such as used at CERES, is far superior to mechanical. (source: website of a USA distributor for the European company CERES Heilmittel AG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs)
  • From DHU, which dominates the German market: [6]. English translation of the caption under photo #5: "A DHU employee potentising: Manual, tenfold potentisation according to the Homeopathical Pharmacopeia on a leather pad." (These photos are specifically for the press; it may be possible to get one released under a free license.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This article cites the specifications established by the British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers and says: "At each stage it is potentized by vigorous shaking and striking of the container (succussion)."
  • There's another photo here, showing a remedy being sucussed against a leather-bound book. The programme referenced there (unfortunately no longer available) showed two remedies being sucussed, one as in the photo, the other by striking on a book placed flat on a table, and also an automated potentiser. Brunton (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Homeopathic pharmacy by Steven B. Kayne, Ian M Caldwell was previously mentioned (above) by Brunton and this book is already cited in the article. On page 93 it says, "the vigorous shaking with impact known as succussion".
  • catalog for Professional Complementary Health Formulas, Inc.. Page 8 says, "Hand succussion (vigorous shaking/pounding) of each step of potentization is also an important component of the manufacturing process."
Here's Hahnemann Labs manufacturing process. —Whig (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting, but the Benveniste Paper (Nature, 333, p. 816, June 1988), which is often touted as convincing evidence of the effects of ultra-dilute solutions, states clearly in its experimental section that the samples were "thoroughly mixed for 10 seconds using a vortex". No mention of banging it on anything. Another paper often referenced as proof of homeopathic efficacy is the Nicaraguan childhood diarrhea study (Pediatrics, 93(5), p.719, May 1994.), in which no mention is made of succussion at all in the experimental section. It simply states that the solutions were prepared by successive dilution. It might be informative to go through the papers referenced in our article to see how many describe their succusision methodology. How many use the striking method, how many the shaking method, how many the vortexing method, and how many make no mention at all of their experimental procedures. If we are going to build a case for homeopathic efficacy based on an exact determination of what is meant by "succussion", we may want to make sure that the definitions we use to qualify "proper' methodolgy are, in fact, being employed by our supporting evidence.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I know of at least one homoeopath who repeatedly refers to some experiments Charles Darwin carried out (he tested the sensitivity of the insectivorous plant Drosera to dilute solutions of ammonium salts) as having used "homeopathic doses" even though there is no indication whatsoever that the solutions had been serially diluted or succussed (since material amounts of the salts were present, all they showed is that the plants are sensitive to very small amounts - nothing whatsoever to do with homoeopathy). It often appears that homoeopathy is defined as being whatever the particular homoeopath wants it to be. Brunton (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Low potency homeopathic remedies contain material amounts of the original substance, so I'm not sure whether there is a misunderstanding of terms here. I don't think anyone would have been arguing that Darwin was practicing homeopathy, however. —Whig (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
What concentrations was he using? In arabidopsis there is a root transporter with a high affinity for ammonium; a Km value of less than 1 micromolar. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought the Benveniste paper was generally regarded as not being convincing evidence. It certainly is not evidence of what homeopaths do to prepare remedies. —Whig (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"If we are going to build a case for homeopathic efficacy based on an exact determination of what is meant by 'succussion'" <-- I'm not sure that anyone here has suggested that. Currently the Dilution and succussion section of the article talks about Hahnemann's method for potentisation and it was suggested on this page that Hahnemann's method is not relevant to current practice. I think consensus is for the article to strive to describe current practices of homeopathy. The sources we have found so far seem to indicate that shaking the diluted solutions by means of striking the container on a surface is common contempory practice for making homeopathic remedies. In fact, the sources in this talk page section that describe current manufacturing practices stress the idea that plain shaking, without the striking, is specifically avoided. We can add some of these sources as references for the currently unreferenced statement in the article, "In producing treatments for diseases, homeopaths use a process called 'dynamisation' or 'potentisation' whereby the remedy is diluted with alcohol or distilled water and then vigorously shaken by ten hard strikes against an elastic body in a process called 'succussion'." From what I've read, I'm not sure that there is agreement on exactly how to "strike" or how often. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"Can we at least define succussion not as shaking but as the process of forcefully striking a homeopathic remedy against a firm surface? It does make a difference. —Whig (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)" This goes back to an earlier discussion about how energy is transfered to the "remedy" in which it was suggested that proper succussion is necessary.
JW, the problem is not a lack of sources explaining what "proper" succussion is. The problem is a lack of universal regulation and accreditation within the field to give authority to anyone who claims what is "proper". Anyone can practice homeopathy, and many do so in mutually exclusive ways. Many suggest that striking is absolutely necessary, others say it is not. Which is it? Some will even tell you that simply writing the name of a remedy on a piece of paper will work, others that a digital audio signal can carry the curative force to a patient. These latter examples are surely fringe ideas within homeopathy, but all are part of the disconcerting fact that there is no universal standard of sample preparation and practitioners seem to make it up as they go along. I think it is misleading to suggest that only those procedures outlined in Whig's references are accepted as current practices. Accepted by whom and under what authority? If an oncologist told a patient he can cure his cancer by drinking water or listening to a CD, he'd lose his license because of accepted standards and regulations in the field. On the other hand, there are advocates of homeopathy on this very page disputing one another's claims of homeopathy curing cancer. Even if there are regulations on GMP practices in various countries, most people don't go looking at federal regulations when they first research homeopathy, they go to the internet. An oncologist is still legally bound to accepted practices, even when discussing medicine on the web. Self-proclaimed homeopaths are not; they can say whatever they like. There is no consensus and the article should reflect this fact. I think a simple statement that reflects the variability in sample preparation should be included with a few references, but that we should also acknowledge that striking is key in classical homeopathy, or is the most common method of succussion, whatever wording is deemed most appropriate.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"I think it is misleading to suggest that only those procedures outlined in Whig's references are accepted as current practices" <-- What do you mean by "Whig's references"? Who has made this suggestion? "There is no consensus and the article should reflect this fact" <-- What sense of the word "consensus" are you using? Even if by your definition there is no consensus, I suspect that we can determine if striking the dilution containers if the common contemporary manufacturing practice. My attempt earlier today to assess the state of affairs for current practices in making homeopathic remedies indicated to me that striking the containers used for dilution is the contemporary practice, in contrast to the claim made above on this page that "striking" is only of historical relevance to homeopathy. Our investigation into the matter (see the sources of information list above at the top of this section) suggests to me that "striking" is the common contemporary manufacturing practice. If you believe that that "striking" is not the common contemporary manufacturing practice, then please add sources and references to the list that support the idea that most manufacturers do not "strike". "The problem is a lack of universal regulation" <-- In this case, I think it is likely that we can identify the common contemporary manufacturing process (striking or not striking) even if there is no universal regulation. If we find that half the manufactures do it one way and half do it the other, then we can report that in the article. From what I've seen so far, "striking" is how homeopaths and homeopathic remedy manufacturers make the remedies. I suspect that there are some people who do not "strike", but based on what I have read, I doubt that their failure to do so reflects the common practice of contemporary homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"I think it is misleading to suggest that only those procedures outlined in Whig's references are accepted as current practices" <-- What do you mean by "Whig's references"?
Sorry about that, I did not see that the references above were posted by various sources. There's a lot of blue print there and the only name I picked up was Whigs at the end of the list. My mistake.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Baby Gloria

This new article is notable to mention. I think the readers would want to read this. Let all of us Wikipedians have a moment of silence for baby Gloria. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to have a Wikipedia moment of silence for everyone killed iatrogenically? This appears to be a tragic story, but I don't see how it would belong in this article. —Whig (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Possibly in the Homeopathy#Ethical and safety issues section it would fit for baby Gloria. We should explain the controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
We've already got a well-documented (including reports of disciplinary proceedings) example in that section. I don't see that adding a second individual case really adds much, however tragic it may be. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Which reference is it? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The Viegas case. Brunton (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I don’t think it adds much either, but it does add something, and I don’t see how it would take anything away. — NRen2k5(TALK), 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If there is not something similar to the baby Gloria tragedy in this page then I think we can include. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF? How is this proposal structurally different from proposals to include individual studies that are favourable to homeopathy? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a slight difference in that the favourable studies are considered, and given appropriate weight, in the systematic reviews and analyses the article already refers to. I'm not aware of a paper collecting together and analysing reports of adverse results of relying on homoeopathy. If there is one it would, of course, be a far more appropriate source than individual cases, but in its absence the individual cases are all we have. Brunton (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the Baby story belongs here. Not denying it's a tragedy, but one instance doesn't seem all that relevant. Mentioning that [large number] children in India die each year because they received homeopathic treatments instead of real medicine would be a different matter. (I don't know if this is true; just using it as an example.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters, studies favourable to homoeopathy do not reflect reality but the case of Baby Gloria does. — NRen2k5(TALK), 04:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statements must be documented. That's pretty fundamental. In the Homeopathy#Ethical and safety issues section there is another spot where the story can be used as a reference to document the statement. The only mention of the story would then be a reference. Here is the sentence. It is currently sourced at the end to a Ben Goldacre article, which is fine, but in the middle is a spot where this story could be used as a ref to a specific example:

  • Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment for diseases that could have been diagnosed or cured with conventional medicine and the "marketing practice" of criticizing and downplaying the effectiveness of mainstream medicine.[126]

This ref could be logically placed right after the words "failing to receive proper treatment". This is a precise example. Right now the case has garnered enough press coverage that if anyone wished to do so, they could write a well-sourced article! What I'm proposing here is to just use it as a ref without discussing it in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Using it as a reference works for me. If that's what QG meant (his first post doesn't really read that way) I apologise for overreacting. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Adding it as a ref is fine. I also got the impression that what was proposed was more than this. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Support adding as a reference. Verbal chat 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, per Hans and Brunton. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
OK with me to add as a reference as described. —Whig (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible refs

Okay. There are many reliable sources that have covered this story and we could use a better one. Some cover the homeopathic/neglect-of-using-effective-medicine angle better, rather than only covering the immediate and sensational story. I'll try to find one and let's see if it works as a ref. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs.[7][8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
That newstin.com is a good search. Lots of possibilities. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few to choose from, the first being meta searches:

Baby Gloria deserves an article here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first ref is this very conversation! I don't think it deserves an article, but I agree that it could be added as a ref as discussed above. —Whig (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Good catch. It was in the list of links I had collected. I have removed it. I have chosen two from the list and added them. The text of the article is unchanged. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


NootherIDAvailable indef blocked

A CU has confirmed as much as is possible that User:NootherIDAvailable is a sock of the indef banned User:Dr.Jhingaadey. Here are some relevant links:

Now let's see how soon he reappears, or someone starts (or continues) parroting his promotional arguments. Note that repeating the disruptive behavior and arguments of a banned user will only get one in hot water. It's much better to edit constructively than to misuse Wikipedia for advocacy of fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I stroke out his comments, since Dr.Jhingaadey is "de facto" banned by the community. (see discussion) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Good. I have done it in the last archive. It's amazing how much disruption he caused during that time. He had us all running, even misusing noticeboards, but hardly anything he did was constructive. In the end he still failed to understand the NPOV requirement for inclusion of opposing POV. Such a serious lack of understanding of Wikipedia leads to constant misuse and disruption. Since being blocked he has at least twice attempted to edit using IPs. Keep your eyes open for IPs from Karnataka, Bangalore, India. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, he has edited at Citizendium. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

If anyone has an interest in the matter, they are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Retraction

Companies in Australia who make false claims that their products could have therapeutic benefits are required to carry a retraction on their website.[9] This seems like a new story.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and ideas for improvement

(paraphrased from the Fringe theories noticeboard, by ImperfectlyInformed):

  • The lead uses 20 footnotes (some repeat citations) to tell the reader the "it's not scientific".
  • There is no discussion of mechanism in the lead.
  • Water memory gets only one sentence which doesn't even mention the most relevant mainstream fact, i.e. that water's structure lasts about 1 picosecond, nor any of the proponents' research.
  • There is little discussion of how most homeopathic remedies would be expected to have zero molecules of the original substance.
  • No mention of scientific investigation into the law of similars.
  • No mention of the Bayesian approach where findings are weighted by prior plausibility, which is an argument against any positive findings.
  • The article needs more detail on what homeopaths do and how they see the world.(comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris)

Fences and windows (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first few points: The citations were required by the edit warring and accusations of bias made by pro-homeopathy editors; There is no plausible mechanism, so it is hard to discuss and have in the lead, unless we simply state there is no plausible mechanism (plenty of sources for that) - mechanism is also secondary to effect, and there is no evidence of effect - as the article and lead make clear; water memory in the article could be expanded, but it is only one proposed mechanism and has been mostly discredited and abandoned - even by homeopaths - and should be dealt with in its own article. I don't have a problem with water memory research and dilution problems being expanded on. The other points sound like good ideas for expanding the article. Verbal chat 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. One authoritative recent citation, lacking a contradicting recent citation, is as authoritative as 4. I hardly think the ref-bombing changed the edit-warring. Blaming promotional homeopaths for poor-writing and ref-bombing is unconvincing, especially since DanaUllman hasn't been editing for a long while. Whether the proposed mechanisms are plausible or not is irrelevant since this article, like all articles, is an expository encyclopedia article. Proposed mechanisms must be summarized in the lead. Reading over again, perhaps I was a little sharp in my response. II | (t - c) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article also should move away from (what I call) "Wikipedia style" writing, which consists of sentences built like those rambling New England houses, where phrases and clauses are strung together, much like additional rooms are gradually added to the original house, with lots of parenthetical statements (like nooks and crannies), which makes it harder to find your way around, and which can cause you to lose your original path as a reader, or as a visitor. Never underestimate the power of the simple declarative sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Verbal chat 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether we need so much detail in the lead as to why homeopathy is criticised by scientists? The lead is a summary, and I'm not sure we need to include all the information about law of mass action etc. right upfront; it does clutter the lead. I agree that most of the info on water memory should be in its own article, but it is a notable suggested mechanism. The weak quantum hypothesis should be explained in more detail as well (along with criticism!). Here's an article on prior beliefs and alternative medicine, which mentions Bayesian reasoning: [11]. Fences and windows (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Opening up the edit window on this article, it's even more of a pain than I expected. It seems as if the people editing this article wanted to add every single article on homeopathy. For example, 3 articles on Zicam alone, numerous reviews dating from the 1990s to the 2000s. I really don't think this is necessary given that reviews of clinical trials all say the same thing: some trials showed efficacy, some don't, but homeopathy is implausible. Let's just cut the old ones and stick to the new, unless the old ones are shown to be particularly notable. II | (t - c) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been moving slowly in this direction, preferring broad meta-analyses to more narrowly focused ones, more recent reviews to earlier ones, and so on. It's probably best to move slowly given the history of this article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That's an artifact of the article's past. I don't think most of you were here during the period when Dana Ullman and a dozen other really, really POV-pushing homeopaths were challenging everything, and forcing addition of more and more references to a statement to keep everything from being constantly challenged, and no admins were willing to step in and do a thing to deal with it. The best way I can describe it - and this is going to be dated soon enough as well: imagine five Martinphis all working to push their POV right here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If we were only to use what could be supported by WP:MEDRS reviews, the article could be reduced to an explanation of Homeopathy as a system of faith healing using water and sugar pills as placebos. Perhaps not a bad thing, though certain to meet some opposition.LeadSongDog come howl 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy ain't faith healing. There R innumerable studies to prove it's effective (that's Y it's survived 200+ years), but U guys keep saying it's, 'Fringe Theory'. I C that the articles on Chiropractic, Naturopathy & Osteopathy are proFringe Theory, but this article is an attack piece - every statement is criticised and no defense of the criticism is allowed. I believe Col.Warden and Warfwar3 are right in inserting the POV tag.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
All good reviews have found that homeopathy has no clinical effect. The problems of mechanism are even harder to surmount. I hope that those other articles aren't pro fringe - I'll check. Let's keep to the theme of this thread by suggesting improvements, and doing them, rather than arguing about the recent state of the article and tags. I'm sure LSD was joking. Note that faith healing has been around longer than 200 years, and many "studies" also support it. Personally, I'll put my faith in the scientific method and EBM. I think that reduction of citations in the lead is good, but be careful not to lose them and note where they were - I did this before by using named refs, commented out after the first ref. We could also just put a link here to an "over-referenced" version. Verbal chat
Good reviews? I believe they've been cherry picked. I'd like to put up a defense of all the criticism, will y'all let me?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
The whole point of the reviews is that they are not cherry-picked (although homoeopaths often claim that they are). While the recent and much hyped criticisms of the Shang paper have accused the authors of post-hoc cherry-picking in their choice of papers, a response published in Homoeopathy (Homeopathy Volume 98, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 127-128) has made it clear that this is not the case. Ironically, many of the criticisms of the Shang paper from homoeopaths actually do rely on post-hoc selection of papers to make their point. Brunton (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Since the lead is supposed to summarise points from the article, presumably it doesn't actually need any refs at all as long as the statements used are adequately referenced in the body of the article. Brunton (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as there being "no mention of scientific investigation into the law of similars" in the lead, how much scientific investigation into the law of similars has there been, beyond the sort of studies of efficacy that are already mentioned? Brunton (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a school of thought that says no references should be included in the lead, but on contentious articles this seems to me to lead directly to instability. Certainly, though, we are required to use the lead as a summary of the body without introducing new information; excluding explicit citations might help on that score. We might come to an informal agreement here that any sentence currently citing more than, say, three references should be either rewritten or the references pared to the most reliable. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Brunton is correct in principle: "Since the lead is supposed to summarise points from the article, presumably it doesn't actually need any refs at all as long as the statements used are adequately referenced in the body of the article."
I definitely favor keeping refs to a minimum in the LEAD, but we'll run into problems without a change of policies regarding WP:LEAD and sourcing. Right now it's not clear that a no-refs LEAD would be allowed. A compromise would be to use internal links to sections as refs in the LEAD. Here's my thinking: Since the LEAD must summarize all significant content (and to do that efficiently, everything that deserves a heading should be mentioned very shortly in the LEAD), we could use refs that point to the section which expands on the sentence or phrase in the LEAD which summarizes that section. I think this idea is worth a try. What do you think? If that sounds "clear as mud", just ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have started a section on the subject. Please participate there. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Brunton, the url you've posted leads to a skeptics blog, not the article in the 'Homeopathy' mag. The article talked about in that blog actually attacks Shang et al, so I'd like to put up a defense in this article. I'm wondering Y U guys R so anti Alt.Med. and Y y'all haven't been successful with the Chiropractic, Naturopathy and Osteopathy articles?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
The "skeptics blog" page I linked to is the text which was published in Homeopathy at the reference I gave above (see here). Here's the link to it in Homeopathy if you prefer. Brunton (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you not use "text speak", please, it's hard to read. I'm not anti alt-med, just pro evidence - and there isn't any that homeopathy works. As to adding "defence", feel free to propose a paragraph here that is backed up by WP:MEDRS. As for the other articles, address them on their talk pages - but I think you'll find they are watched by most of us also. Note that there are two kinds of osteopathy, one which is almost entirely conventional; modern, medicine. Also note that naturopaths use some proven, conventional, treatments - a criticism is that they also use treatments which lack any evidence or mechanism, such as Homeopathy - and they do things which have actual effects (whether those are good or bad...). Myself, I haven't looked at Chiropractic as it's not interesting. Also, I believe the blog author had his rebuttal of the rather poor Shang "criticisms" published. Verbal chat 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed he did. I gave the reference (Homeopathy Volume 98, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 127-128) above but linked to the blog as it has the full text available. He also discusses the authors' response here. Brunton (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There were responses to that, which you've conveniently not mentioned, I think we'll need someone to arbitrate here!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
Please give references for these responses. Presumably when you say that I've "conveniently not mentioned" the responses (please AGF, BTW), you don't mean the response of the authors of the paper (published, along with Wilson's critique, in the most recent edition of Homeopathy), because that is extensively quoted on the blog page I've already linked to in the post you appear to be replying to (16:16, 6 May 2009). I'm not aware of any other responses. Brunton (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of you have posted about 'writing for the enemy', but I don't see any of you writing for the enemy (homeopaths in this case). The whole article is full of criticism!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

The lead is looking good these days, IMHO. One suggestion for improvement though. The following line is from the lead: "Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules violates fundamental principles of science..." Since science is generally viewed as a methodology, and not a list of conclusions, I'd suggest changing this to "violates fundamental principles of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology". I'm sure the references listed support the change, as they all likely address concerns of these specific disciplines.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article needs to reflect the FDA's current ruling on Zicam. If it is, in fact, a homeopathic medication, and it is banned for having a real effect on a user's sense of smell, that is evidence weighing on the side of homeopathic medications having real effects (real side effects, at least) 68.161.160.231 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article presently states, under the heading ethical and safety issues, "Zicam Nasal Spray, which contains 2X (1:100) zinc gluconate, reportedly caused a small percentage of users to lose their sense of smell;[127] 340 cases were settled out of court in 2006 for 12 million U.S. dollars.[128]" Do you have another source regarding the FDA's current ruling that should be included as well? —Whig (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the solution

"and the solution is identical to the original starting solution" <-- can someone explain which two solutions are "identical"? --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is it should be something like "the solution is identical to the solvent" but I'm not sure what the point was supposed to be. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this unsourced non-fact. There is no chemical difference between a highly potentized homeopathic remedy and plain water (or water+alcohol), this isn't really in dispute, but to say they are identical is not the same. —Whig (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
But they are identical. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the words "and succussion" from the sentence "Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains". The preceding sentence already states that succussion is carried out after each dilution, and succussion is not really relevant to this sentence; including it could even give the impression that it is thought that the succussion is somehow partly responsible for the removal of the original substance (the sentence "succussion often continues until none of the original substance remains" would not make sense). The lead is quite long enough already without this sort of dilution with extra words. Brunton (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
They are not identical in terms of their information. We do not have to argue this point here, as there is no basis for claiming in the article that they are identical other than chemically. —Whig (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Your “information” has not been proved to have any effect in the body’s response to the “remedy”. The idea that it does is a fringe hypothesis that has practically no basis in reality; more of an excuse the homoeopathic community came up with to hand-wave away their constant failure to prove their remedies have any effect whatsoever. — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
While there is no reliably replicated research that indicates that they are different "in terms of their information", I don't see any point in including the disputed wording in the lead. The statement that "dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains" is making essentially the same point, and is perfectly adequate as far as the lead is concerned. Brunton (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
True; I should probably concentrate more on edits made to the article than trying to talk some sense into this editor. — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Representativity of research

As NHS reports, "some homeopaths argue that much of the research conducted into the effectiveness of homeopathy is not representative of routine homeopathic practice and that homeopathic treatment cannot be properly tested through standard clinical means. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.194.67 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen homoeopaths use this excuse for the lack of good evidence, but I'm not convinced that it's valid - trials of individualised homoeopathy don't appear to give positive results either. do you have a source for the NHS reporting this, or a reason that it is notable? Brunton (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It may not be valid in the way that homeopaths would like it to be valid, but it's quite plausible to me that "homeopathic" placebos are significantly more effective than "regular" placebos, especially for those patients who choose homeopathic treatment. Normal medical studies are not designed to measure the impact of factors such as the physician being conceived of as part of the medical establishment or not, treatment being free or not, medication coming with a detailed instruction leaflet or not, the physician asking surprising questions or not. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
properly designed trials are designed to eliminate those factors, as far as is possible, so that the effectiveness of the treatment itself can be assessed. homoeopaths do not, as far as I'm aware, complain that RCTs are not a good way of assessing homoeopathy because they eliminate the placebo effect, because homoeopaths claim that the remedies have an effect over that of a placebo. Brunton (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That was exactly my point, see my first 16 words above. I know of only one study designed to measure the placebo effect of homeopathy compared to the placebo effect of regular medicine; it must be somewhere in the references to this article or to placebo. IIRC it was in the 1950s! There seems to have been no further research on this, presumably because neither side has an interest in replicating the positive result of that old study, and also because there are of course immense methodical problems such as self-selection of participating physicians etc. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the references to hand, but I'm sure there is some research into placebos that indicates that more elaborate placebos (such as the homoeopathic consultation process), or more apparently invasive placebos, have a greater effect than, for example, a simple placebo pill. There is even research that suggests that different coloured placebo pills produce different effects. But I think we're getting a bit OT here and into discussion of the placebo effect rather than homoeopathy. As I said, homoeopaths claim that the effects of homoeopathy are not placebo effects. I can even provide an example of a proponent of homoeopathy claiming that homoeopathy has less of a placebo effect than "orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns". Brunton (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic? Perhaps for this section, but not for this article. Granted, this topic should not get much weight in the article because it's not widely discussed. Perhaps it should not be mentioned at all. But these thoughts are very relevant for understanding why, for example, the WHO position w.r.t. homeopathy is quite positive.
Both proponents and opponents of homeopathy want to reduce the comparison between homeopathy and regular medicine to to effects above placebo. That's not ethical. Most patients aren't interested in whether it's the placebo effect that helps them or something else. (I forgot the name of the violently anti-alternative-medicine bloke who wrote a book while dying of cancer. Such people are exceptions.) They want to get better. As a hypothetical question: If for some fatal disease X for which there is no remedy 10% of patients in conventional treatment get better spontaneously, and 30% in homeopathical treatment get better, what will you recommend your significant other who, let's say, believes in homeopathy and catches the disease? Should our article, in this case, cite some hard-core debunker who says that it's totally irresponsible to treat X with homeopathy? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That text is from a "patient information leaflet" from the NHS, called "Effectiveness of homeopathy" [12]. I have to say that the text loses a lot of weight when you read it in its original context.....
In the article there is already a sentence saying "Clinical studies of the medical efficacy of homeopathy have been criticised by some homeopaths as being irrelevant because they do not test 'classical homeopathy'". I would suggest adding that source near that point. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We already have two sources cited for that statement. Do we really need a third? By the way, I don't think we should include the NHS in the article with reference to this - it is an NHS leaflet describing the opinions of homoeopaths, not the opinion of the NHS itself, so only useful as evidence of the opinion of homoeopaths. Naming the NHS might give the opinion an air of authority that it doesn't deserve. Brunton (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is true then my edit was OK and claims of homeopathy should be included.

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.194.67 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not the view of the NHS: it is merely the NHS reporting its opinion of the views of homoeopaths. This viewpoint of homoeopaths is already reported in the article, as noted above. Brunton (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That last edit should not have been noted as a minor edit - I clicked on it by mistake. Brunton (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If some homeopaths say that “homeopathic treatment cannot be properly tested through standard clinical means” but can’t think of any specific reason why they wouldn’t, then this would be a minority view and not directly relevant to the research itself. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
An objection they raise to some clinical trials - that they are not individualised and therefore don't reflect classical homoeopathy - might have some validity, but it would also exclude most of the trials that they claim support homoeopathy (I haven't seen homoeopaths rushing to denounce the non-individualised OTC homoeopathic nostrums that are sold in pharmacies either). This objection does not, of course, apply to the trials of individualised homoeopathy that have been carried out, which have also failed to show consistent effects (see for example this comment on a 1998 review (my emphasis): "In this analysis only trials of individualized homeopathy were included, which should theoretically be the ones with the stronger effects. This analysis also showed a significant, albeit smaller effect of RR = 1.62 (CI 1.17-2.23). This significant effect vanished if only the methodologically sound trials were taken into account"). Brunton (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
We must make sure not to fall into the outgroup homogeneity bias trap. There is no contradiction if some homeopaths reject non-individualised studies with a negative outcome and others accept non-individualised studies with a positive outcome. It could just mean that they don't agree with each other about how effective homeopathy should be when not done according to the book. And even if a single homeopath advances both arguments I don't see a big contradiction. Basically they are saying these studies are not done properly, and even so some of them give positive results. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue of individualisation isn't a valid reason for rejecting the use of RCTs to assess homoeopathy, because RCTs of individualised homoeopthy can be, and in fact have been, carried out (although proponents of homoeopathy do sometimes deny this). See above, and for a more recent example, White et al. 2003. As far as the issue of "contradiction" goes (it isn't really relevant to the issue of whether RCTs are appropriate), what about the same homoeopaths rejecting negative non-individualised trials (on the grounds that they are non-individualised) but accepting positive non-individualised trials? Brunton (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed that I responded only to a specific aspect of what you said. Also, my last two sentences already dealt with the case of a single homeopath.
After rereading your comments I think I probably misunderstood your intent. It looked a bit like homeopath-bashing, which would be unsuitable for this talk page, but I guess what you really did was try to argue the homeopaths' side to some extent, because they are underrepresented. Of course that's really something we need to do as long as we have this problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I was more trying to present the argument I've seen proponents of homoeopathy put forward with regard to RCTs (see the Guardian article I linked to, which says "In orthodox trials, all patients in the "real" group are given the same drug for the same length of time. Homeopaths do not work like that. For one condition, they may select one of a dozen or more remedies, chosen after long and detailed interviews") than to ague their case, but I hope I haven't misrepresented them. Brunton (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, it is not at all difficult to construct a DBRCT in theory. Enlist two hundred practioners. Take two hundred copies of a standard repertory. In one hundred, replace all the liquids with pure water. Add code number lables to each bottle, registering whether it was standard (S) or water (W) in a codebook. Randomly populate the two hundred repertories so each contains about half S, half W bottles, registering the code numbers in each repertory. Distribute to practitioners and have them track success rates on a subjective 1-5 scale against prescriptions for each for a year. Break the code and analyse the statistics. Publish. Of course practitioners may not wish to voluntarily participate in their own downfall, so the "enlist" part will be problematic. LeadSongDog come howl 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that any practitioner would be willing to use placebos for a year, even if you believe that the effect of homeopathic medicine is placebo, any more than an orthodox physician would be willing to do so versus using standard medications. It really is difficult to construct a DBRCT against an informational remedy, and it is difficult to construct a DBRCT against any personalized therapy, be it surgery or massage or psychology. —Whig (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's really quite simple to design a DBRCT of individualised homoeopathy, as outlined by LeadSongDog above (it needn't be for a year). Trials of this type have actually been carried out. Brunton (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide references? It would also be important to note whether these trials followed normal homeopathic practice in other respects, and what criteria were used to evaluate effects. —Whig (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've already linked to one above, and also to a comment on a systematic review of published in 1998 which found 32 trials. Here's the review itself. Brunton (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's also worth reading this summary of that article. LeadSongDog come howl 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this meta analysis,

In the 19 placebo-controlled trials providing sufficient data for meta-analysis, individualized homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo (pooled rate ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.23), but when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen. CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo.

I guess the question is what qualifies as "methodologically best" and whether normal homeopathic practice is regarded as such. —Whig (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that "methodologically best" is, as per the usual usage in a systematic review, describing the design of the studies and denoting those least likely to give biased results, rather than being a comment on the relative competence of the homoeopaths involved. But as to whether the studies were of "normal homoeopathic practice", this is explicitly a review of studies of "individualised" homoeopathy, carried out by researchers who are highly experienced in assessing studies of homoeopathy, and are frequently cited approvingly by homoeopaths, to the extent that one of them is on the record as saying that their work "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". Brunton (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to assume that "methodologically best" refers to criteria that would not exclude the very studies which most resemble normal homeopathic practice, we need to know what their specific criteria were for making that selection, even so their results "suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo." —Whig (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
"The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." Brunton (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I asked the criteria for "methodologically best". —Whig (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Studies were only considered as being of individualised homoeopathy if either a) the prescribers were completely free in their choice of remedy; b) prescribers chose from a set of remedies frequently used for treating the condition in question; or c) the trial only included patients whose symptom picture matched the remedy used. Quality was assessed on the basis of the answer to four questions: was allocation randomized? Was the study double-blind? Was it published in a MEDLINE-listed journal? Are there no other obvious relevant flaws? Of the six studies for which the answer to all four questions above was "yes" (the set defined as "likely to have good methodological quality"), three involved a completely free choice of remedy, one allowed a choice of 11 remedies and only included patients if one of these was their similimum (this was the one of the six which was most favourable to homoeopathy), and the other two used the best-matched remedy from a set of remedies. From the stated criteria and inclusion of three trials with a completely free choice it doesn't appear that the quality criteria necessarily excluded trials most closely reflecting the normal practice of individualised homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Individualization is only one aspect of normal homeopathic practice, and I have previously stated my doubts that double blinding is appropriate in these studies, which you rebutted by pointing out that double blind studies have been done and successfully, but then you claim that those studies that are "best" are those which are double blind and these demonstrate a less convincing effect. So which is it? Does double blinding affect the results of studying homeopathic effectiveness? As far as patients given their simillimum having the most favorable results, that would seem at least to suggest that a well chosen remedy has benefits over placebo, do you disagree? —Whig (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The "best" studies, in the context of evaluating whether a therapy actually works, are those least likely to produce biased results. Double-blinding eliminates a source of possible bias in the results; perhaps particularly relevant in the light of the authors' comment (p. 384) that "the motivation for doing trials seems less to be innovation or self-critical evaluation of performance (which is generally agreed to be the motivation for good research) but rather justification in front of a hostile scientific establishment." While they note that "double-blind conditions and placebo controls interfere with everyday conditions in routine homeopathic practice", there is no convincing reason that this should interfere with the efficacy of the treatment. To explain the poorer results of more rigorously carried out trials as some sort of artifact of the double-blinding interfering with the efficacy of the remedy you would have to invoke something like Milgrom's "entanglement", and there are (to say the least) far less improbable explanations. As for your last point about the most positive result of the six, that is what is known as "cherry-picking". Why ignore the other five trials of equal quality (other than on the basis of their results)? At least three of them seem to have more closely resembled normal practice in that the homoeopaths had an unrestricted choice of remedy. Brunton (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Entanglement is absolutely relevant to cavitation QED photon binding, because coherence is lost when the cavity collapses, and information cannot be recovered unless a cavity domain is restored in microtubules or some other structure. This is not Milgrom's explanation, and entanglement is not a fringe theory. Whether you accept that cQED applies in all cavity domains (and if it doesn't, that would be extraordinary indeed!), granting the possibility that you may be wrong, you should recognize that double blinding could well interfere with proper reception. —Whig (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, that looks like smoke and mirrors to me. How can quantum entanglement and photon binding be proved to have an effect on homoeopathy when homoeopathy isn’t even proved to be real? — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The physics don't concern themselves with your question. CQED photon binding is real, and structures to detect photons are how we sense anything. You can disbelieve all you like. —Whig (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don’t disbelieve it at all, I just disbelieve that it’s relevant to homoeopathy. You might as well be attributing the failures to the tides or to solar flares. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have observed it to be highly effective, and I doubt that tides or solar flares are a plausible mechanism. —Whig (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
All of this is, of course, irrelevant as far as objections to double-blind trials is concerned. For these alleged quantum effects involved in the manufacture of the remedy to be relevant here, you need to establish some way that blinding would destroy the alleged effect, but the normal prescribing practices of homoeopaths wouldn't (after having, of course, established that quantum effects are somehow involved in the therapeutic results). It seems to me that "quantum" is once again being used as a synonym for "magic". Brunton (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, I'm unaware of double blind trials being used in other informational and personalized therapies, and do not believe there is a reason to expect it to be appropriate for testing homeopathy. It is not normal homeopathic practice at any rate. There is nothing magic about quantum physics, but entanglement and coherence are not describable in classical terms. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Make all the excuses you want. The failure to scientifically prove homoeopathy has any effect beyond placebo is not science’s, it’s homoeopathy’s. — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You “observed it to be highly effective”? I’d like some detail about that. It would be helpful for you to learn where you went wrong. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. 1) Choose remedy. 2) Take remedy. 3) Observe effects. Repeat steps 1, 2 and 3 with the same and different doses. Same method I would have observed the pain relieving properties of psychedelics. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I said detail - as in, what ailments have you seen treated, and what effects have you seen in what amount of time? How do you rule out the placebo effect? How do you distinguish between the remedy’s effects and the natural course of the ailment? — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am speaking of direct personal observation of effects, details of which are not appropriate to list here. I rule out the placebo effect by repetition and careful attention to state. As I said, this is also the only way I could have observed the pain relieving properties of psychedelics. Further discussion on this should be taken to user talk or off-Wiki. —Whig (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, observation is only one small part of the scientific process. From what you’ve said so far, we’ll have to take your observations with a grain of salt. And I mean that in a non-homoeopathic way. — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

←Outdent. Funny you should mention magic, as Harald Walach basically argues that homeopathy is magic in this article:[13]. Fences&Windows 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Magic is what some people call science they don't understand. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Science is what some people call make-believe when they want to sell it. — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you selling, NRen2k5? —Whig (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing. Note that I followed your form: “some people”. Obviously not all magic is science and not all “science” is marketing. Now I’m going to be even more blunt: Are you a practitioner of alternative medicine, or more specifically, of homoeopathy? — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Practitioner in what sense? I use homeopathy and recommend it to my friends, who use it as well. I have never charged anyone for doing so. —Whig (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Magic is what you appeal to when reality won't play ball. Walach is a homeopath; if you read that article, he says choice things like "My analysis brings homeopathy in close proximity to other paranormal or anomalous disciplines, like distant healing, extrasensory perception or psychokinesis" and "I propose to abstain from a causal interpretation of homeopathy. Instead I contend that homeopathy is an acausal event, similar to synchronistic events. The homeopathic medicine is a sign which mediates the meaning between a mental-psychological state, the illness in the patient, and the physical realm of bodily functions, elements of nature, and the like. It acts via the original interconnectedness of all beings, which is activated, as in magical rituals, by the homeopathic ritual of case taking, remedy preparation, repertorization and remedy prescription." He's conceding that he can't prove that homeopathy works causally, and instead he is falling back on pseudoscience and appealing to mystical forces and quantum theory. Fences&Windows 21:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Quantum theory isn't mystical, but mystical uses may be made of quantum effects. So what? Unless this article is being used as a reference of some kind, it isn't relevant to anything, least of all to editing this Wikipedia article. —Whig (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
“So what?” Did you forget where this discussion started? It started with a claim from homoeopaths that the experiments that show homoeopathy to be completely effective were somehow flawed. And you started this line about “information” and “quantum effects” in defense of that claim. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Your point is really unclear. Some people who don't understand quantum physics call it magic, that does not mean that quantum physics is magic. There is no validity to your implicit argument that because some people speak of quantum physics without understanding how it applies to homeopathy, therefore quantum physics does not apply to homeopathy.
Anyhow we're going in circles here, but wouldn't it be fascinating if we could find luminal particles within cellular microtubules?[14] —Whig (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
My point is perfectly clear: your claim about quantum effects isn’t an explanation for the difficulty of proving homoeopathy’s effectiveness, it’s a petty excuse. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” And no, let’s not drift off topic. — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no difficulty proving effectiveness, unless you insist on doing it wrong. We don't double blind informational therapies. —Whig (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean specifically there by “informational therapies”? How is homoeopathy an “informational therapy”? How does being an “informational therapy” make homoeopathy untestable by DBRCT? — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I was referring back to the earlier discussion, and DBRCT are not used to evaluate treatments such as psychology, massage or surgery. It is not clear that information is recoverable when double blinding is used, in fact it is the point that information is concealed when double blinding is used. When the remedy is information, then double blinding can conceal the remedy.
To undertake a full analysis of the consequences of DBRCT on entangled information is beyond the scope of a comment here, but it would be wrong to presume classical behavior. DBRCT is not how homeopathy is done, and when you are studying homeopathy with DBRCT you are not studying homeopathy as it is practiced. There is no similar objection to observational studies, and these may provide clear evidence of benefit over and above placebo if not discarded as being of low quality because they aren't DBRCT. —Whig (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Whig, someone already pointed out how a double blind test could be done, so saying "double blind" is doing it wrong isn't enough, you have to explain why it is wrong. You say double blinding would destroy the information, but how? Do you think an bottle of water next to a "real" homeopathic remedy will destroy it? Or the doubt of the patient or the practitioner? --Six words (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with there being a bottle of water nearby or any doubt on the part of the patient or practitioner. It has to do with decoherence, and the ability of entangled information to be recovered. It is the burden of those performing DBRCT to ensure that entangled information will not be lost. —Whig (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What "entangled information"? It hasn't been established that any exists (who would you say the burden of proof lies with there?). Brunton (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't just throw around words like decoherence. It does exist, but that doesn't mean it applies here. If this entangled information is really there, how can it be stable when a patient handles it, but not when someone carefully setting up a test does? --Six words (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not throwing around words, I am using them precisely. Decoherence is what happens when cavitation bubbles collapse, as any excited state atoms will then be free to exchange state with any other atom in the medium, within which the information is thereby entangled. In order for the information to be recovered a coherent state must be restored, which may occur in microtubules, within which luminal particles have been found.[15] —Whig (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As a published academic author of well cited papers on quantum mechanics covering measurment and decoherence, I can assure you that this conversation is off topic per WP:TALK and should now move to user talk pages (perhaps Whig's or NRen2k5's, or even mine), where I'd be happy to join in. Discussions of quantum mechanics/mysticism should cease here, unless directly related to improving the article. Verbal chat 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I can also confirm that these claims have flowered into ripe bullshit. The term "luminal" particles, in the context of microtubules, precisely refers to cellular particles in the interior, or lumen of microtubules. They are many orders of magnitude too large to show quantum effects. They are not luminal in the sense of photons or particles of light. There is nothing quantum about this paper, save for the tool of cryo-electron microscopy that the authors use to investigate the luminal particles. Whig, you've been sanctioned for this sort of behavior in the past. Skinwalker (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I admit that I am not very familiar with these structures and may have misinterpreted this paper, which I just discovered last night. If I have done something sanctionable I apologize and this conversation is finished here, at any rate. Please feel free to follow up with me on my talk. I don't need to restate what I have said but I have struck the part that may be in error. —Whig (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
To wit "If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Don't you hate it when others understand the bullshit better than you ??? :-) Shot info (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about heading title

Question: The heading uses the nonword/misspelling "Representatity". Shouldn't it be "Representativity"? If another word was intended, then it needs fixing. Whatever the case, please change the heading. It's driving me nuts! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Brunton fixed this a long time ago and I didn't notice it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like he did it right after you mentioned it. — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope I didn't commit some sort of faux pas. Brunton (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah. — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQ2bZ11tGtoiKx6BO5K70Lx1ETmgD98SK27G0

Some interesting stuff here in the wake of the Zicam issues...esecially on safety: And don't even suggest that Zicam isn't homeopathic, they certainly put it on the box: http://www.zicam.com/products/coldremedy_rapidmelts_ce

But an Associated Press analysis of the Food and Drug Administration's side effect reports found that more than 800 homeopathic ingredients were potentially implicated in health problems last year. Complaints ranged from vomiting to attempted suicide.

In the case of Zicam, the FDA says it tied the drug to reports from 130 consumers who said they lost their sense of smell.

The agency on Tuesday told Zicam maker Matrixx Initiatives to stop marketing three products that carry zinc gluconate: Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Nasal Swabs and discontinued Swabs in Kids' Size. The agency said the drug must be tested for safety and benefit, like a conventional drug, before it is again marketed. And the FDA warned people not to use the three Zicam products.

"It never occurred to me they could be dangerous and there was no kind of oversight — like the FDA — that ensured there was safety," says former Zicam user David Richardson of Greensboro, N.C. He has complained to the FDA about losing his sense of smell and filed his case with a lawyer for a future lawsuit, joining hundreds of others who have claimed in recent years that they lost their sense of smell from Zicam cold products.

In its review of homeopathy, the AP also found that:

_ Active homeopathic ingredients are typically diluted down to 1 part per million or less, but some are present in much higher concentrations. The active ingredient in Zicam is 2 parts per 100.

_ The FDA has set strict limits for alcohol in medicine, especially for small children, but they don't apply to homeopathic remedies. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said no medicine should carry more than 5 percent alcohol. The FDA has acknowledged that some homeopathic syrups far surpass 10 percent alcohol.

_ The National Institutes of Health's alternative medicine center spent $3.8 million on homeopathic research from 2002 to 2007 but is now abandoning studies on homeopathic drugs. "The evidence is not there at this point," says the center's director, Dr. Josephine Briggs.

_ At least 20 ingredients used in conventional prescription drugs, like digitalis for heart trouble and morphine for pain, are also used in homeopathic remedies. Other homeopathic medicines are derived from cancerous or other diseased tissues. Many are formulated from powerful poisons like strychnine, arsenic or snake venom.

Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems this might be abuse of US process, calling things "homeopathic" which aren't by a reasonable definition, in order to avoid regulation. Or is it homeopathic something + actual amounts of Zinc, yet the homeopathic bit is enough to get around the law? Maybe his will lead to that law being changed, and hopefully some analysis of this will follow in science and popular press that can be added. Interesting! Blows the no side effects argument away if it is homeopathic. This should be added to that section at least. Verbal chat 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathic does not mean there are no material doses, only above 12C is this the case. —Whig (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it usual to go to higher potencies? Isn't that the point? But anyway, what about the "no side effects" claim for homeopathy? Verbal chat 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't unusual to use low potencies when they are appropriate. There are no side effects, from the standpoint that there are only effects. However, potencies below about 3X are not often recommended and particularly in the case of a toxic starting material may not be safe. However, there are times when even a non-diluted tincture may be used homeopathically, so long as it is treating symptoms by like effects. For instance, when I am overtired, a cup of tea is homeopathic for me to aid in sleep. —Whig (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
“There are no side effects, from the standpoint that there are only effects.” I shouldn’t have to remind you that this is an encyclopedia. We’re interested in facts, not fantastic standpoints. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest reading the FDA's own information for a more coherent account than that provided by the AP
FDA information on Zicam
"don't even suggest that Zicam isn't homeopathic" <-- just placing the word "homeopathic" on a box does not make the contents homeopathic. The FDA has a regulatory process for homeopathic drugs. The FDA indicates that Zicam is getting special attention and that they are not treating it in the same way that they treat other drugs that are marketed as being homeopathic. It seems certain that this special attention involves the fact that Zicam uses a 2X concentration of zinc. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[[16]] Y ou will note from the letter [[17]] that they make no mention of improper use of the term 'Homeopathic' . Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When I researched the regulatory situation in the US for Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, I found out that in the US everything that is in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia is automatically legal. I also found a letter from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention to the FDA, notifying the FDA that a company tried to push something non-homeopathic into the pharmacopoeia. Now it looks as if the US has reason to make its regulation more similar to that in the EU, where a minimal dilution is part of the conditions for registration as a homeopathic remedy. (Of course registration via the normal process, i.e. proved efficacy etc., is always open in theory.) Hans Adler 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • This recent edit in not very helpful. First, it is wrong to say that "the FDA advised consumers to discontune using Zicam Nasal Spray" and even the cited source (money.cnn.com) does not get things that wrong. I suggest citing the FDA itself (and not some "news" source) and providing a link to this FDA webpage where it correctly says which products are of concern to the FDA. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today advised consumers to stop using three products marketed over-the-counter as cold remedies because they are associated with the loss of sense of smell (anosmia). Anosmia may be long-lasting or permanent"

I would say that its is entirely correct to sat the they advised consumers to stop using the products.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The FDA never said to stop using "Zicam Nasal Spray". --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Then let's state what the FDA states: "...FDA is alerting consumers that Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size,..." -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The article still has a link for "Zicam Nasal Spray" that leads to the Zinc gluconate article where I see no mention of "Zicam Nasal Spray" or "nasal spray" of any kind. Does "Zicam Nasal Spray" even exist? Did it once exist but has been discontinued? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The Cold Remedy Nasal Gel is a spray, therefore it is not completely wrong to call it "Nasal Spray". But they also produce other nasal sprays: "Seasonal Allergy Relieve", "Intense Sinus Relieve" and "Extreme Congestion Relieve", so the sentence might be misleading. I'll change it to "Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel".--Six words (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The FDA document about nasal sprays does not mention gels and says that for sprays: "Energy is required for dispersion of the formulation as a spray. This is typically accomplished by forcing the formulation through the nasal actuator and its orifice." The instructions for Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel say, "Hold with thumb at bottom of bottle and nozzle between your fingers. Prior to initial use, prime pump by holding it upright and depressing several times (into a tissue) until the gel is dispensed. Place tip of nozzle just past nasal opening (approximately 1/8 inch). While inside nasal opening, slightly angle nozzle outward. Pump once into each nostril. To help avoid possible irritation, do not sniff up gel. This product helps put gel in the lower part of the nose. After application, press lightly on outside of each nostril for about 5 seconds." It sounds like the bottle for Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel is a gel applicator and I see no mention of "spray". --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a non-distinction -- it's like asking, "is water a liquid, or is it a spray?" Spraying is a method of application, and the material that is sprayed can be liquid, gel, powder, or whatever. So gel can be sprayed, e.g.[19][20]. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that "a gel can be sprayed" does not tell us that Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel is sprayed. If you are claiming that this product is a "nasal spray" then please provide evidence to support that claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read my post. I made no such claim; I merely pointed out that something may be both gel and a spray. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Only took a moment to confirm, but it doesn't require a source. Try their website, google, multiple newspaper articles... Verbal chat 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Only took a moment to confirm" <-- to confirm what? "it doesn't require a source" <-- eh? Where am I? --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an astonishigly tedious argument to continue having. The minor issue was fixed 12 hours ago and the the word "spray" does not currently appear in the article, though [plenty of WP:RS sources use the phrase "Zicam nasal spray" (i.e.,[21]). It's also clear that unsing the actual name of the product in question reduces ambiguity. Moving on... — Scientizzle 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted the deletion of "heavily diluted" from the lead until discussed. The rationale given for that deletion was that it wasn't cited to the FDA and Zicam was given as a counterexample. Both arguments are wrong. This is a worldwide endeavour, not just US, so the FDA position is informative, but not normative. Zicam clearly was a product that slipped through the regulatory cracks in that it was sold without a New Drug Approval [22]. The FDA does discuss dilution in its CPG 7132.15 although "heavily" diluted is not quantified there. [http://www.homeowatch.org/history/reghx.html Homeowatch is, as usual, informative.LeadSongDog come howl 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, homeopathy does not require dilution at all in some cases, as the example of having a cup of tea to help with sleep when overtired is homeopathic. It is of course important for more toxic remedies to be more heavily diluted for safety (and succussed for effectiveness).—Whig (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"identifies them as homeopathic drug products with an active ingredient measured in homeopathic strength—Zincum Gluconicum 2X"[23]. How about we put that it's diluted to 2X? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this should be made explicit, we might parenthetically point out that 2X = 102 = 1 part in 100. Not very dilute. —Whig (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's already in the article. Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, which contains 2X (1:100) zinc gluconate, reportedly caused a small percentage of users to lose their sense of smell. --Six words (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'd like to see some sources that say that homeopathic = very dilute. I see nothing about that in either the FDA site or the in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
How about the Society of Homeopaths ("Homeopathy is a system of medicine which is based on treating the individual with highly diluted substances") or the British Homeopathic Association ("In homeopathy the active ingredient is highly diluted.")? I don't think the fact that homoeopathy almost always uses high dilutions can be considered to be in any way controversial. Brunton (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right. On the contrary, it is very controversial to assert that homeopathic remedies aren't heavily diluted. I'd like to see some V & RS to back up such an exceptional situation. The norm is extreme dilutions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not useful to stick "heavily diluted" into the first sentence of the introduction. The last sentence of the first paragraph could be changed to say, "Homeopathic remedies are often heavily diluted until none of the original substance remains." A major problem in Wikipedia's coverage of homeopathy is that the Wikipedia article where the issue of dilutions should be covered is a poor article that provides very little information about homeopathic dilutions. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That article appears to be an original synthesis to advance a position. I'm not sure anything useful can be done with it unless it is renamed/moved to Homeopathic potentization or something, and includes discussion of the succussion step. Otherwise it is making an argument which is best kept in the context of this main article, by trying to prove what is undisputed, that no atoms or molecules of original substance are present in highly diluted (>12C) remedies. —Whig (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the article to exist. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion I'd vote accordingly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the instructions in the deletion template, I have removed it and started a thread on the talk page. Please continue there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tea (split from Zicam)

WP:TALK: Extended discussion about tea not related to improving article

Strictly speaking, homeopathy does not require dilution at all in some cases, as the example of having a cup of tea to help with sleep when overtired is homeopathic. It is of course important for more toxic remedies to be more heavily diluted for safety (and succussed for effectiveness).—Whig (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn’t even make sense. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the dilution isn't an essential, it is almost invariably that case that homoeopathic remedies are potentised. Incidentally, this (along with related issues) has been discussed comparatively recently, which is how the current wording was arrived at. See here, also here - there may have been other recent discussions of this that I haven't found. If we are to discuss this yet again, perhaps it should have its own heading rather than being under "Zicam"? Brunton (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea - done.
Now, what I meant by the analogy not making sense is that it isn’t a treatment for the symptoms presented, nor is it homoeopathic. Tea isn’t homoeopathic; we don’t even have to debate that one. And putting someone to sleep isn’t a remedy for sleepiness. It’s just replacing one condition with another. — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Tea is a stimulant which causes lack of sleep in a person who is not overtired. This is a homeopathic usage of tea. I don't know what you mean about sleep not being a remedy for sleepiness. And what does "pseudohomoeopathic" mean?
I really don't understand how you can think that "tea" isn't diluted - it's diluted caffeine, amino acids, vitamins etc. You don't talk about eating a cup of tea leaves, do you? --Six words (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a mother tincture, if you prefer. The point is that mother tinctures can be used homeopathically without further dilution. —Whig (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
They can be used, sure. They may even be effective. But labelling something that may be effective and only loosely follows the rules of homeopathy as homeopathy doesn’t make homeopathy any more credible. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy is the treatment of symptoms with a substance causing like symptoms. Using tea in this fashion is homeopathic whether you like it or not, and there is no rule of homeopathy that says you cannot. —Whig (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you direct us to some academic studies or other credible documentation regarding this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding whether using low doses of something to sleep that causes stimulation in higher doses is homeopathic? Or whether tea is useful in this capacity? Coffea tosta and Coffea cruda are often used homeopathic medicines for insomnia as well. —Whig (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand how you can think that "tea" isn't diluted - it's diluted caffeine, amino acids, vitamins etc. You don't talk about eating a cup of tea leaves, do you? --Six words (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tea isn’t dilution, it’s solution. And again, if you don’t see how putting a person to sleep isn’t a remedy for tiredness, then you’re confused. If I need to operate heavy machinery but I’m too tired to do so, I need something to pick me up. Putting me to sleep is not immediately helpful. You don’t treat tiredness by putting someone to sleep, just like you don’t treat an epileptic seizure by inducing a grand mal or a bruised thumb by amputation. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing homeopathic use of tea with non-homeopathic use. If you are overtired and having trouble sleeping, a cup of tea can help you sleep. At least it works for me and many people that I know who have tried it. If you keep drinking more tea you will probably stay awake longer. —Whig (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No matter how many times you repeat it, it does nothing to relieve the tortured logic displayed. If you’re overtired, you don’t need anything to help you sleep. A homeopathic treatment for sleepiness would be to use something that usually causes sleepiness, in a dilute form, to stimulate the patient. — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a RS for this homeopathic use of tea and its effectiveness? Brunton (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is an RS required to point out that tea is being used homeopathically when it is low dosed in aid of sleep? Is it homeopathic to use Coffea cruda or Coffea tosta but not tea? —Whig (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a RS for the use and effectiveness of undiluted coffea cruda (or any mention of "coffea tosca" - a Google search gives "No results found for "Coffea tosca"") in homoeopathy? Brunton (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo, it should be Coffea tosta, which is to say, roasted coffee. Coffea cruda is unroasted coffee. —Whig (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please, I want to see a RS too. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It is very controversial to assert that undiluted substances are used homeopathically. I'd like to see some V & RS to back up such an exceptional situation. The norm is extreme dilutions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is tea (or coffee tosca/cruda) succussed? Isn't that required for something to be considered homeopathic? And if the tea isn't succussed, then wouldn't that make it non-homeopathic? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Mother tinctures are not succussed. It is only when potentization is performed that succussion is done. —Whig (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So far, User:Whig has provided not a single reliable source to back up the use of tea in homeopathy. I'm quite willing to agree that tea is accepted as a homeopathic remedy provided that reliable sources are cited. But "proof by repeated assertion" won't do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite sure that tea is used as a homeopathic remedy (my sister works at a pharmacy and they sell it as thea sinensis), but still a cup of tea is diluted (yes, it's a solution, but a diluted one, meaning it's not a saturated solution), so I don't think drinking a cup of tea is an example for using an "undiluted remedy". --Six words (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, can you provide a reliable source to back up the use of tea in homeopathy? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Six words just pointed out that thea sinensis is used in homeopathy. I'm not sure what you'd consider a reliable source for the use of tea in homeopathy. Anything can be used in homeopathy. Using tea homeopathically does not require a reliable source, homeopathy is treatment of symptoms by a substance or potentized remedy that in higher material doses or in an otherwise unsymptomatic person produces the same symptoms. —Whig (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS and WP:V for discussion of what constitutes a reliable source. Can you provide such a source that discusses the use of tea in homeopathy? I've no stake one way or the other in the outcome, but we need to have verifiable content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't need RS for every statement made in Talk. But check out the Encyclopedia of Homeopathy. A copy can be found in the Google cache here. —Whig (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK. As long as this is just talk page wurble and we don't include it in the article, that's fine. (Do remember that the talk page is supposed to be devoted to improvements to the article and not general discussion of the subject, per WP:TALK].)Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You can nitpick language all you like, but in homeopathic terms the mother tincture (which can be alcoholic or water) is not considered as a dilution, it is the remedy in its raw form. In the case of toxic remedies the mother tincture is never used, and most homeopathic remedies are not safe to use unless potentized (diluted and succussed). It is generally safe to drink a cup of tea or a half a cup of coffee, however, so there is no such concern in this case. If you do so with the intention of aiding sleep due to overtired insomnia, you are using it homeopathically. That's just descriptive. —Whig (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, it’s impressive how you homeopaths construct not just this new vocabulary but this entire alternate reality around your scam.… — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't even know what you're talking about, but it strikes me as being close to a personal attack. —Whig (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Case in point. Or maybe I’m the one who’s delusional, and you didn’t really type any of that detail about how homeopathy really works, other therapies which at least have a chance of doing some good are somehow related to homeopathy, and the complete failure to prove any positive effect actually rests on those idiot medical doctors and their ignorance of quantum theory.… — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Relax, NRen2k5. The world needs to be saved from homeopathy, but this isn't the place to do it. Both etymologically and historically, there is a case to be made that homeopathy doesn't necessarily entail dilution, which at least loosely fit in the discussion of Zicam. I think we can drop it now. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy delenda est? Heavens! Yes, the Encyclopedia of Homeopathy that I linked to the Google cache of before discusses the use of mother tinctures in homeopathy as well. A mother tincture is not a "homeopathic dilution" if you like to use that term, but may still be used homeopathically. —Whig (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, a quick look at books.google.com, it appears listed as one more remedy, but not sure if it ever was a famous remedy, just one more remedy:

Other books simply listing it as one more remedy[24][25]. It's also listed at modern books, so it's still in use. List of homeopathic remedies is thataway. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well the specific example of tea was never important, as the original discussion was about whether remedies are always used in dilute form. They are not, and the misunderstanding of what homeopathy is has really pervaded this whole conversation. Homeopathy is treatment of symptoms by that which causes similar symptoms. Full stop. Use of dilute and succussed remedies is not the definition of homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is f^H^H^Hing ridiculous, and hinges on a (perhaps intentional) conflation of caffeine-containing teas, like Earl Gray, with those that do not contain caffeine, like chamomile. I am going to archive hat it unless someone has a concrete suggestion on how to improve the article by following this conversation down the rabbit hole. Skinwalker (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

When the word tea is used without modification referring to some other herbal tisane, it means specifically Camellia sinensis. There should be no reason for confusion. —Whig (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Everyone should be polite and listen to what other editors are saying. This applies particularly to people who know little about homeopathy. If there are disputes, settle them by making reference to reliable sources. "a concrete suggestion" <-- The flat statement about "heavily diluted preparations" should be removed from the first sentence of the article. The issue of dilution should be introduced later in the article in a more nuanced way, as previously suggested on this talk page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That raises the question, “who knows little about homeopathy?” But I agree that we should probably archive-hat this discussion. And let’s not be shy about deleting discussion that has nothing to do with

the content of the article from now on. It seems we’re all here because we think we know what we’re talking about, and nobody can convince anybody else that they’re wrong anyway. I still think the notion of sedating someone as a remedy for fatigue is just plain absurd. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"who knows little about homeopathy?" <-- I'll gladly put myself at the top of the list. We could populate the list by adding all the editors who have made clearly false claims about homeopathy on this page while asserting with great authority that they knew what they were talking about. That list would span from some of the very first editors of the homeopathy article to current regular participants here. Such a list might be useful for suggesting when someone's instincts about the "absurd" should be ignored. If we are voting, I see no reason to archive this thread early. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"Heavily diluted" is well sourced to WP:RS, including leading homeopathic organisations, so it should remain in the lead. Further disruption and baiting will be reported to WP:AE. I feel like the talk page police for mentioning this again, but WP:TALK should be followed. In future, if Whig or anyone else makes off topic comments, about tea for example, take the discussion to their talk page and leave a note directing interested parties there. JW, your second and third sentences scream bad faith and are uncivil, please desist. Verbal chat 07:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome further discussion on my Talk page, but this discussion is not off-topic if it leads to improvement of the article, which a correct understanding and definition of homeopathy would certainly be. —Whig (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence (again)

With the clause about Hahnemann's original propounding of homoeopathy moved from the end of the sentence (I agree that moving the clause like this makes the sentence read better, BTW), I think historical info is getting confused with the basic definition of homoeopathy that the sentence is intended to provide. Surely it should just say that the remedies are thought (i.e. by homoeopaths generally) to cause the symptoms they are used to treat, rather than that they were thought by Hahnemann to cause the symptoms? I've changed it back - I hope nobody objects. Brunton (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant series of edits (5 total, none particularly large). I think the changes are fine and make it slightly clearer. It's certainly true that homeopathic remedies are "thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented" by more people than just ole Sammy H, so it doesn't make sense to limit this opinion to the founder. — Scientizzle 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty with "are thought to" is twofold. Firstly, that no reference can tell us what "homoeopaths generally" think: They are individuals that think different things. The lead should summarize the text in the body of the article, and the relevant, referenced paragraph on the "law of similars" speaks to what Hahneman thought. The lead should reflect that. In the alternative, the "law of similars" para could have additional references as to the official positions of various national or trans-national Colleges of Homeopathy on the subject. Secondly, that without saying who thinks the thought we create the mistaken impression that it is a broadly accepted position rather than being clear that it is at best regarded as fringe science and more often seen as pseudo-scientific claptrap unsupported in evidence-based medicine. LeadSongDog come howl 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Every single dictionary definition I can find uses the smaller/larger doses bit.[26] Thus we don't need to attribute it to any individual or group. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Not the point. The lead should reflect the text.LeadSongDog come howl 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This argument makes no sense. If the body text doesn't mention a blatantly obvious fact explicitly, then when someone starts wikilawyering to remove it from the lead we change the body, not the lead. If you are worried that "are thought" can be expanded – incorrectly – as "by science", then you should say so, so that we can find a formulation that works for you. 20:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(The anon IP above was promptly removed by Hans Adler) Who is wikilawyering? I believed that I was quite clear about that in my 16:33 but SBHB's 16:38 caused me to question that belief so I simplified it in my 17:28 post. I'll try the other tack and be more verbose then. This edit by Brunton reversed my previous edit to align the lead with the body text. I'm quite content to leave the attribution of the thought in the body text to Hahneman, who at least showed some originality. If someone wants to change the body text to a more current attribution and brings suitable references, that could also work. But in either case the lead should reflect the body text. Right now it doesn't. LeadSongDog come howl 21:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(I meant to replace my IP with my name, not remove it, as my edit summary should have told you. The anonymous edit happened after I had to switch to the secure server since the normal one became inaccessible.) Insistence that we need a source saying that all homeopaths think X in order to get an acceptable formulation looks like wikilawyering to me unless you have any indication that there is even a single homeopath who doesn't believe X, when no doubt most homeopathic sources simply state X as a fact and the few if any that don't state X as discovered or at least believed by Hahnemann with an implicit implication that it's true. Hans Adler 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(Right, I guessed that, but didn't know it. The servers are up again, I understand.:-) We're not writing for "most homeopaths" but a general reader. There's no reason to feed them Hahneman's doctrine as if it were universally accepted truth, which it certainly is not. Nor is there any reason to make statements in the lead that aren't supported in the body. This isn't an obscure or subtle point. My simple two word edit to the lead corrected the problem, but Brunton reverted it, leaving the problem unsolved.LeadSongDog come howl 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Repertory and Materia Medica

Currently there’s a homeopathic Materia Medica article and a homeopathic repertory article, both stubs.

I realize it isn’t quite on-topic for this page, but this is the best place I could think of to bring this up, seeing as neither page seems to have gotten much attention in months.

Should we be doing something about them, like a merge or deletions? — NRen2k5(TALK), 04:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support the merging of those two articles. I wasn't aware of the repertory one. Verbal chat 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Merge them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Baby Gloria references, Homeopathy and JWSchmidt/DrJ talk thread

A conversation has been started on the BLP Noticeboard which is relevant to this article and the use of WP:RS in support of the statement in the article that following homeopathy to exclusion of conventional medicine has lead to deaths (I'm too tired to check the exact wording, apologies). This follows from JWSchmitd's mentoring of banned user DrJ, Avathaar‎ (talk · contribs) and a long thread on Avathaar‎'s talk in which JWSchmidt claims the sources shouldn't be used for WP:BLP reasons. Verbal chat 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium porting

Recently {{WikiProject Citizendium Porting}} was added to a boatload of articles. A couple of alt-medicine articles were in the list, and I reviewed the corresponding Citizendium articles and found them rife with POV. It appears that the Citizendium philosophy is to describe chiropractic and homeopathy almost entirely from the point of view of chiropractors and homeopaths, and to relegate mainstream opinion into a relatively small criticism section. I therefore have marked those two Citizendium articles as being unreliable from a Wikipedia point of view, due to their POV, by adding a comment here and to the Chiropractic talk page.

By the way, the talk-page banner here is huge. Any objection to trimming it down a bit, e.g., by starting off banners in their compressed version? Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"unreliable from a Wikipedia point of view" <-- Can you explain what this means? Doesn't reliability, within Wikipedia, imply that article contents can be traced back to reliable sources? The important question is, does the Citizendium article include information about homeopathy that should also be here in Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"written by Dana Ullman" who is "homeopathy's foremost spokesman" and currently banned here is partly why. For other reasons see WP:NPOV (particularly UNDUE), WP:FRINGE, and WP:TRUTH and attempt to apply them what is written there. Verbal chat 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Citizendium article has its shortcomings (the Wikipedia article has shortcomings too). But there's some stuff in there that could be worth importing here. These include things like what happens during a typical homeopathic consultation. A potential problem is that there are almost no references in that section so it could be a challenge to bring that material in line with Wikipedia's standards on referencing.
In general I'd like to see more cross-pollination between Wikipedia and Citizendium. Participants in each project often view the other in an adversarial way, which is unfortunate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Dana Ullman is a major contributor to Citizendium’s homoeopathy article? Wow. Just wow. That isn’t just damning for the article, it reflects poorly on the entire project. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

profile of a homeopathic remedy

In the section Homeopathy#Provings it says, "A homeopathic proving is the method by which the profile of a homeopathic remedy is determined."
Is there something better than Profile (engineering) to link the word "profile" to? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a relevant article that defines this term, so in its absence I've removed the link as it is clearly not helpful. There's talk of merging and improving the Repertory and Materia Medica articles - perhaps a definition of this term would be appropriate there. Brunton (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

index of symptoms

The article says, "a remedy is selected based on the index of symptoms", but a Google Scholar search for > "index of symptoms" and homeopathy < returns little. In contrast, there are many sources found when searching for > "totality of symptoms" and homeopathy < including The role of evidence in alternative medicine: contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches which says: "The professional homeopaths prescribed on the totality of symptoms". I think the term "index" is used in its correct technical sense later in the article, but not in its first use in the article. Should the article be changed to say "a remedy is selected based on the totality of symptoms"? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, totality of symptoms is the correct term. —Whig (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

vomit and feces

The article says:

Some homeopaths suggest that vaccines be replaced with homeopathically diluted "nosodes", created from dilutions of biological agents – including material such as vomit, feces or infected human tissues. While Hahnemann was opposed to such preparations, modern homeopaths often use them although there is no evidence to indicate they have any beneficial effects.[1][2]

Can someone provide quotes from these sources that include their discussion of vomit and feces and which modern homeopaths often use them? --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to those specific sources.
Nosodes are generally defined as remedies made from diseased biological material. See for example page 263 of Owen, Leckridge, & Fisher Principles and Practice of Homeopathy, which mentions "bowel nosodes" isolated from stool cultures. See also page 178 of Kayne & Caldwell's Homeopathic pharmacy which also talks about "bowel nosodes", describing them as "an important subgroup of the nosodes" (pp. 177-178 also describe nosodes made from, among other things, tubercular abscesses, "syphilitic material", and pus). Here is a description of a malaria nosode made from "decayed vegetable matter" from a marsh. Here's a remedy made from dog faeces on sale from a major homoeopathic pharmacy. I haven't yet found anything that specifically mentions vomit (although I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some homoeopath somewhere had made such a remedy, given the provings I've seen of, for example, antimatter, swan feathers and condoms), so perhaps this should be removed.
Unless it can be established that the sources already used mention vomit and faeces, I would suggest saying that they are made from diseased biological material and use Owen, Leckridge, & Fisher p. 263 as a source for this. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the condom a fertility treatment? I think those well establish the feces bit. I'll see if I can access the others later. Verbal chat 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
From the overview: "One group of symptoms are grouped around the idea of containment and restriction, of being enclosed. Another group, probably the largest, are about barriers, disconnection and separation. The last group are concerned with the need for artificial barriers because the natural ones are weak or absent." As for whether we've established that faeces are used to prepare nosodes: note that the sources I cited say the "bowel nosodes" are prepared from stool cultures rather than the faeces themselves. The "excrementum can." is just a regular homoeopathic remedy rather than a nosode. Brunton (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's an article stating that "nosodes may be prepared from pus, diseased tissue such as a cancerous growth, the stool (these are termed bowel nosodes), or the pathogenic organism itself, such as bacilli from sputum." Still no vomit. Brunton (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a RS. Why not just replace the current disputed wording with that long list and source it with that reference? Problem solved. If anyone later finds an easily accessible source that lists vomit, then they can add it. It looks like you've got the solution in your hand. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Done - I've also tidied up a little, removed a couple of repetitions of dilution as this is covered adequately in the rest of the article, and removed a wikilink to "nosode" which just redirected back to the homeopathy article. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
From vomit? I can understand getting bacteria from feces (stool culture), but from vomit? I'll be damned if someone finds a source listing a remedy made from vomit :P --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but you're assuming there has to be some logic to this. What about remedies made from moonlight? What logic is there in that? As far as vomit goes, we do (or did) have a source or two, but because someone who didn't have access to them objected, and we couldn't easily verify if the source really did back up the wording, a new source was found that did back up the feces part and listed several other things used to make nosodes. I think this thread is pretty much finished. Can we mark it as resolved and move on? Brangifer (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"do (or did) have a source or two" <-- I doubt it. Those two sources were for the following sentence and there is no good reason to assume that they said anything about vomit. The sentence under discussion, the sentence mentioning "vomit", had no cited sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a google books Materia Medica on nosodes that mentions two types of vomit derived things here, I think. Meletinum and Emphyeminum. Verbal chat 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's in an extract from an 1861 book, included in the source "for historical interest". If we were going to include vomit here (and frankly I don't think we should - see Short Brigade Harvester Boris's comment below) surely we'd need something a little more current. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's not a big deal. Verbal chat 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I just don't think it's that big a deal. The overall point that bodily fluids are sometimes used in homeopathy can be adequately made by reference to pus, sputum and the like which are far more commonly mentioned in the literature. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have found only anecdotes of the use of "vomitus" as a homeopathic remedy:[27][28]. Lots of reliable sources list it in a string of things used in nosodes, but none describes its use. Fences&Windows 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pray WS (1992), "A challenge to the credibility of homeopathy", Am J Pain Management (2): 63–71
  2. ^ English J (1992), "The issue of immunization", Br Homeopath J, 81 (4): 161–3, doi:10.1016/S0007-0785(05)80171-1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_39&oldid=1140236902"