Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Classical vs Modern

I'd like to see the article split to Classical Homeopathy and Modern Homeopathy. The majority of information in the article concerns classical homeopathy. Modern homeopathy can reference practices in the last few decades, and modern usage in the form of alternative medicine and herbology. Modern homeopathy is often just herbology, and has little or nothing to do with the classical definition.

I've never seen classical and modern homeopathy defined that way. I always thought that a person who works with herbs was a herbalist. All homeopaths use homeopathic remedies (some of which come from plant sources) and they might also incorporate herbs into their practise but that doesn't have anything to do with homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 11:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is already quite complex as it is, in terms of both ideological differences and actual content. Adding more would just spark off another edit war, which no one wants. I would suggest adding separate entries for these if you wish to elucidate further. PhatRita 15:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Time to archive?

I don't want to cut off any debate, but does anyone else think it's time to archive? At least some of it? Edwardian 01:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. everything before the "theory of disease" section seems reasonable.PhatRita 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I created Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 5. If PhatRita does not mind, I'll move this section near the top of the page for future reference. Edwardian 07:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
sure I got no problems PhatRita 15:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Theory of disease

Question about two expressions

Trying to translate parts of the text, I wonder if somebody could explain the meaning of these two expressions to me: What does "constant nature diseases" and "pathic disease" mean? Is there a direct german (probably original) translation to it? Thanks for help, --Nina 21:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a bad section that needs significant reworking, and the specific paragraph you're referring to is especially bad - I suggest not relying on the Theory section at this point.
Davidnortman 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so we maybe skip that part... thanks a lot for the estimate, I think I agree. --Nina 22:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Theory of miasms

If the theory of miasms (or should it be the Theory of Miasms?) is the crux of the homeopathic theory of disease, shouldn't that be mentioned much sooner in this section. It takes SIX paragraphs to get "miasms"! Any thoughts? Anyone opposed to a little trimming of this section? Edwardian 22:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

there is no single "homeopathic theory of disease" there are quite a few. Miasms is hanneman's thoery there are others.Geni 00:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
For clarification-sake, please list them. And if there are multiple theories of disease for homeopathy, it would be wise if that particular section started off by stating such. Edwardian 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is philosophically the most sophisticated aspect of homeopathy but is hardly the crux of it. Many homeopaths practice without referring to miasms. Those that do belong to more than one school. As such it should only be introduced once the other pillars of homeopathy have been discussed. The whole section and early parts of the article need to be worked on as there are many imprecise things stated. To happen in time...
Davidnortman 01:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC

tricky for the most part they are attempts to combien the whole vital force thing with germ thoery which doesn't really work but no matter. Not all homeopaths some homeopaths wont accept any thoery of desease. Others talk about distubances in the vital force but avoid any mention of a causative agent. Yet other will accept germs ,genes and other as causertive agents but will claim there effects are on the level of the vital force. Some are just so mixed up an insane that there is no real way to describe them. Surface to say it is another issue where there are probably as many ideas as there are homeopaths.Geni 01:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This has not been true beyond Hahnemann's own speculation in the Organon and some of Kent's high-flying theorizing influenced by his Swedenborgian beliefs - so I guess some homeopaths associate miasms with the priordial infection, something like the first sin for which we are now paying with disease. But more commonly and far more related to actual practice, miasms are all about predisposition rather than external cause. Hahnemann discovered the physical manifestation of miasms as a predisposition toward developing certain disease states that for the most part are now recognized as infections. The 3 original miasms havenow been expanded to 8-12 generally agreed-on ones, though some purists stick to the original 3 for historical (and in my mind, wrong) reasons. Rajan Sankaran has developed the psychological aspect of miasms, such that we can now speak of someone belonging to the Cancer miasm not only for those afflicted with cancer but for those whose whatever disease or psychological tendencies show characteristics of perfectionism, feeling like one has to perform beyond one's ability, and a sense that things are going out of control. Another person may belong to the Leprous miasm because he feels like a leper - rejected by society, confined to his own world, ugly, repudiated, deformed - even though he is a reasonably sucessful person and his physical ailment is chronic musculoskeletal pain! Miasms may seem ridiculous on page but their truth is demonstrated in the clinic. I have case transcripts for anyone truly interested in learning about this matter, which cannot be evaluated from an armchair perspective.
Davidnortman 03:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in reading case transcripts right now, but I would be interested in this article, or one entitled miasm, miasms, or theory of miasms, listing the miasms... with special notation of the original three. Edwardian 15:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll start a (hopeully short) section on miasms sometime soon. I don't think it warrants a separate entry at this stage because the word has been used historically in other contexts (it means "taint"), and so that page would probably be no more than a portal for the different articles discussing it, and to date this article may be the only one.
Davidnortman 15:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Homeopathy around the world"

"Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has an official policy for or against homeopathy." Obviously we are supposed to infer something from this statement, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. If neither has a policy, why is it worth mentioning? Can someone help me out? Edwardian 07:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If i had arsnic poisoning would i be given more arsnic and how would this help?


The alert reader, when confronted with the controversy, is likely to ask what the official organizations have to say. We anticipate this and report on their silence. Art Carlson 08:31, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
But they haven't been silent [[1]] [[2]]. Lumping homeopathy in with alternative medicine, the gist of those two reports from the AMA and AAP is this: "Alternative medicine not proven; let's keep an open-mind and do more research." If anything, the article should reflect that. Edwardian 09:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
isn't let's keep an open-mind and do more research what every analysis and systematic review says? this sentence means nothing in homeopathy and so the statement "neither the AMA or AAP has an official policy for..." stands true in effect. PhatRita 19:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The statement is literally true, however, as written it implies that the AMA and AAP are silent on the issue (as Art Carlson pointed out). They are not. As you have indicated, alternative treatments have been "reviewed" and that should be noted so as not to give the impression that the AMA, AAP, and other professional organizations are simply ignoring homeopathy or other alternative methods. Edwardian 22:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

These two adjacent sentences are in direct contradiction:

Homeopathy enjoys very little professional recognition from individual doctors but has gained important users such as the royal family. There are approximately 1000 medical doctors practising homeopathy in the UK.

One thousand MDs in a country the size of Britain seems quite significant. Should the first sentence say something to the effect that it has received little recognition from professional medical associations? --Lee Hunter 19:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

no offence but we are hardly a backwater with no doctors. Compare to france, with a similar population - at least 10,000 homeopathic doctors. Consider that every year the intake of medical students is in the thousands, possibly in the tens of thousands. Bear in mind that only around 500 actually practise homeopathy professionally - some have quit GP work and such and that there are at least 200,000 doctors (probably a lot more - that is a rough first guess) in the UK this is a small percentage. I think the royal patronage thing is a ridiculous idea. No one knew that the royal family used homeopathy until that stupid horizon program came out and even now, no one cares. I think that your word "official" is misleading and the point regarding the recognition makes it seem like the medical profession endorses homeopathy, which it most certainly does not. Most of these so called "nhs homeopathic hospitals" come about through charitable controbutions and not nhs funding. UK homeopathy does not enjoy more recognition that other countries - it is regarded as quackery by most doctors. There are strong regional differnces, such as that of Scotland. My point is NOT contraindicating - the royal family are not professional medical staff. nuff said.
ps in the UK we call them DOCTORS not MDs and please raise the point before you start a revert skirmish
PhatRita 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
If you're going to make claims like the "royal family supports homeopathy because of their Germanic roots" I think you need to provide some support. Its much more plausible that they support homeopathy because they believe it works for them. What do you mean by "doctors frowning on homeopathy" - what's your source? And more importantly why are you trying to use this section to introduce as much negative spin as you can. Let's just have the facts. --Lee Hunter 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"UK homeopathy does not enjoy more recognition that other countries"? There is at least this reference: But the tradition of royal patronage of homeopathy continued, .... This remarkable degree of official recognition makes Britain unique in the world; only India comes anywhere near it in this respect.[3] Art Carlson 18:31, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
LeeHunter: It is true that perhaps the royal family uses homeopathy because they find that it works. However, there is little doubt in my mind that they were only introduced to it because of their Germanic ancestry. Homeopathy has been regarded as quckery by the majority of the medical profession for a very long time and it is unlikely that the family would have took it on themselves to test such a radical and controversial form of medicine. I feel that this point is so obvious that evidence is not necessary. I do think my wording was a bit poor, perhaps "royal family has Germanic roots which could explain their interest in such a controversial form of medicine"? 'Speculation' you may cry, but homeopathy is open to educated specualtion, that is its nature.
in regards to "doctors frowning..." - in my experience in the medical field, alternative medicine and proponents in the professional medical world are rare. Many doctors simply do not believe in their efficacy. There is such an overwhelming arsenal of anecdotal evidence to back up this point that this fact is irrefutable. Point aside - im not trying to place a negative spin on things, just trying to introduce it from a British point of view, but maybe that's the same thing...
00:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
What you're describing is 'original research' --Lee Hunter 00:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
ArtCarlson: the source you have quoted is written by a doctor who used to work at on of the NHS homeopathic hospitals. He has written a particularly long essay, not an ebook as he describes and which has received neither peer editing nor peer reviewing. So as far as we are concerned, his living room wallpaper colour could be the seven shades of hell. His point was taken in context as well - there is official recognition from the monarch and the the NHS but your placement of "offical recognition" on the main text extends this recognition to the other powers that be which all direclty affect the health system in Britain - the government, the dept of health, the Brit. medical association, NICE, the local council, the primary care trusts, the British GPs association and so on. Well there is no such recognition, as there is in France, or in Germany. The point the author was trying to make was that homeopathy has affected the highest point in the pyramid and so is successful and similar to india in that regard. Although open to debate, the monarch is not an official group either, especially not when it comes to healthcare, as you are suggesting. PhatRita 00:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Diversity"

This section opens: "There is, and always has been, considerable diversity in the theory and practice of homeopathy. The major distinction may be between what can be called the pragmatic and the mystical approach, but it should be remembered that there are not two distinct groups, but a spectrum of attitudes and practices." "The major distinction" of what or between what? Is this an opinion, or can someone present the "pragmatic approach" and "mystical approach" from a NPOV? Edwardian 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It seemed important to report that not all homeopaths agree with each other. This section was an attempt (largely my own) to bring some order into the plethora of beliefs and practices. It is not authoritative and cries out for improvement by somebody in the know. I was trying to be NPOV, but the formulation can probably be improved as well. Art Carlson 08:36, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

That's another section that needs work, as the current characterization is incomplete. Discussing all schools of thought individually is difficult as there has been historical development, some have died out, the diseases that homeopaths deal today are very different from those dealt with in the 19th century and hence require a differenct approach, etc. But perhaps including several dimensions (one of which being the one mentioned) would provide a sufficient overview. I will try to do that sometime soon, though my historical knowledge is definitely incomplete.
Davidnortman 16:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "The possibility of testing homeopathy scientifically"

"Finally, scientific studies do not in themselves represent objective data but have to be scrutinized and interpreted by competent scientists." What does this mean? It is not the scrutinization or interpretation by anyone that makes data objective. Perhaps it should be changed to: "It is important that research is scrutinized for bias or errors to ensure that the data are objective." But then again, the point of this article is not to advise the reader how to do a proper study. I say delete this statement. Any thoughts? Edwardian 08:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"While skeptics tend to reject borderline results from scientific studies because they have a prior belief that there can be no effect (due to the lack of a plausible mechanism), proponents of homeopathy tend to accept these results due to their predisposition toward homeopathy." What does this mean? That neither skeptics or homeopaths can be objective? It is pure speculation to suggest those reasons for why homeopaths and skeptics accept or reject what they do. I say delete this statement. Any thoughts? Edwardian 08:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not purely a question of objectivity. Objective people can have different Bayesian priors. Art Carlson 08:43, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
But isn't that pure speculation? How do you KNOW that is why "skeptics tend to reject borderline results from scientific studies because they have a prior belief that there can be no effect (due to the lack of a plausible mechanism)"? How do you KNOW "proponents of homeopathy tend to accept these (boarderline) results due to their predisposition toward homeopathy"? Edwardian 09:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't make sense of the controversy any other way. Why else would nice folks that otherwise seem to be rational (i.e., agree with me), look at the same data and come to such an untenable conclusion (i.e., not mine)? Besides, you often hear from skeptics that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and from believers that the evidence is better than that accepted for lots of conventional therapies. Doesn't that tell you that the quality of evidence they consider sufficient depends on what they think is likely to be true? Art Carlson 10:34, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
Can you show that both sides are completely rational.Geni 10:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Geni to some extent. The premise that both sides are completely objective/rational is simply POV. In my opinion, this particular point in the article does not give the impression that this is a dispute between two completely objective/rational sides. It gives the impression that neither side is objective or rational because they are subjective in chosing testing standards based on whether or not the want the test to succeed or fail. In other words: "The tests don't meet the skeptics standards because they set up the analysis of the tests so they wouldn't meet their standards."

There are 2 ways of characterizing the disagreement between the two sides: that one side is irrational, or that both sides are rationally looking at the data and seeing different things. The point I made when writing that section is that, objectively speaking, trial results do not stand in themselves but are scrutinized based on people's prior beliefs (that's the Bayesian business which we might want to include explicitly), such that, say, a couple of particle readings caught on a particle accelerator might be enough proof for a physical theory, whereas multiple replications of some controversial phenomenon (e.g. there are interesting studies about people influencing random-number generators "with their mind" (whatever that means) - Princeton Comp Sci experiments with thousands of data points) are rejected because we cannot make sense of them. So results do not stand independently of prior belief. The proper meaning of the often-quoted p-value in medical trials is not "the probability of the result being by chance" but "the probability, if one accepts the the result refuting the null hypothesis [i.e. in favour of a therapeutic effect], that the result nevertheless occured by chance". The first clause, "If one accepts..." is the subjective element that the interpreter inevitably and properly brings to the table: many skeptics of homeopathy claim that prior probability of a positive result is exactly 0, and therefore do not proceed to enage with the trial result per se, whereas those in favour accept the result right away (because they are pretty sure that homeopathy s possible) and then proceed to look at the p-value; a healthy skeptical approach gives, say, a 0.1 probability to the results but then proceeds to inspect the data. So perhaps 10 good studies might satisfy such a person as much as one good study in a non-controversial field. Let's discuss this furher and try to come up with an agreeable formulation, as I consider this a crucial point for understanding the ongoing impasse, in which enough people on both sides are rational, knowledgeable about science, and so on.
Davidnortman 15:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

On one hand, you appear to be stating that both sides are completely objective. On the other, this sentence - While skeptics tend to reject borderline results from scientific studies because they have a prior belief that there can be no effect (due to the lack of a plausible mechanism), proponents of homeopathy tend to accept these results due to their predisposition toward homeopathy. - is as close as one can get to explicitly stating that both sides are completely subjective. To state that both sides are objective, but that they have simply chosen different standards for analyzing the data, is a very sly way of wiping out any criticism of homeopathy based on efficacy... which is the whole ball of wax in the debate. Edwardian 04:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not say both sides were objective, but that they were rational. This is a significant difference, as I my claim is simply that rationality and subjectivity are compatible. Both sides are subjective - apprpriately so in my opinion, as the logical positivist, pre-quantum-mechanical (strict object-subject distinction) formulation of science has long been discredited though it seems to be dying a slow death because of its theoretical elegance. I should point out that both objective and subjective are used in two senses: (i) pertaining to an object and to a subject respectively, and (ii) legitimate, rational, scientifically adequate, likely true, etc. and illegitimate, speculative, likely false, etc. As I do not subscribe to the second set of meanings nor do those proponents and oponents of homeopathy that actually manage to engage in a debate (or else they would be dismissing each other as irrational), it makes perfect sense to describe what's going on between the two sides as a debate between rational beings while, if necessary, reconsidering some of our dearly held but incorrect views of what rationality consists in. To quote Art from somewhere earlier, "this is the only way I can make sense of the debate." I hope this clarifies my position and the relevant article portion.
Davidnortman 19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase: To state that both sides are rational, but that they have simply chosen different standards for analyzing the data, is a very sly way of wiping out any criticism of homeopathy based on efficacy... which is the whole ball of wax in the debate. Edwardian 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What I am saying is that both sides have reasons for their differing viewpoints on the same data (upbringing, education, medical experience, etc.), not that anything goes and that each standard is as good as any other. The data is not clearcut by any standard one way or the other: Certainly no "comprehensive proof for every aspect of homeopathy", but neither "complete failure to demonstrate anomalous phenomena." But this is of no help as it doesn't provide a key for resolving the issue. In my opinion the only way to break such an impasse is by discussing philosophical differences and how they lead to disagreement about data: this is the reason for my own study of philosophy. Thus I would claim that the two sides ultimately differ in their "pre-empirical presuppositions" which they inevitably (consciously or not) bring to the data, and that the homeopathy debate is ultimately philosophical and will never be resolved scientifically. I don't believe that any amount of clinical evidence will sway those who hold the philosophical view that mecahnism of action matters. I also believe that if the immediately pressing scientific issues are resolved there will always be further philosophical objections - starting with homeopathy's distinct classification system, definition of disease, etc. (I won't get into it further but a glimpse of this notion can be had from the 'PowerPoint presentation' hyperlink on the following page of my site: http://www.metamedicine.com/philosophy/ (reading the page itself beforehand, and the 'seminar outline' linked therein, might help understand where I come from).) But back to science: statisticians widely accept that interpretation of studies involves a subjective element and yet is a scientific, rational activity. Find a better way and we'll all take it, but I haven't seen one yet. Completely mainstream topics in medicine routinely bring about the same sort of disagreement seen in interpreting homeopathic research. If such behaviour is irrational then we ought to reconsider the scientific status of all medicine!
Davidnortman 23:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that both sides have reasons for thinking what they do, but to state "While skeptics tend to reject borderline results from scientific studies because they have a prior belief that there can be no effect (due to the lack of a plausible mechanism), proponents of homeopathy tend to accept these results due to their predisposition toward homeopathy." is completely POV about what those reasons may be. Edwardian 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
If I may return to the Bayesian analysis (It's not the only and maybe not the best point of view, but we number nerds like it because it lets us write equations.), the beauty is, when you've got good evidence, it doesn't matter what your priors are. You can come in being 99.99% sure that gravity follows an inverse 2.0001 law, but applying a Baysian analysis to the evidence you will be forced to conclude that it really is a 2.000000000... law. The priors only make a difference in borderline cases, and the clinical studies, I fear, are not good enough to overcome pro-homeopathy priors. You can live with that, or you can work on improving the quality of the studies, or you can argue over priors (e.g. mechanisms). I can't site a reference for explaining the discrepancy between believers and skeptics in the interpretation of the results of scientific studies, but I (yes, even I) would not be comfortable asserting that believers in homeopathy are just being irrational. Art Carlson 07:50, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
Bayesian analysis can be used in different disciplines, where the math is the same but the reality is dependent on the discipline. Now in physics borderline cases may the the exception, but in medicine they are pervasive. This is why I keep insisting about the importance of first-hand clinical observation, which reveals this fact very starkly. In the case of clinical studies there is no such thing as a study that tells you something with great certainty and precision, because studies cannot be optimized at once both for methodological rigour external validity (optimizing one weakens the other and vice-versa) so even the best study in the world cannot trump a very low prior probability. Moreover, the assignment of the figure of prior probability is irredeemably subjective. So what would happen is that someone produces an incredible pro-homeopathic study, impresses the 0.1 skeptic, but fails to impress the 0.01 skeptic; then after years of planning and execution and tens of millions of dollars he is able to improve the study by a factor of 10 (whatever this means) only to be told by the 0.001 skeptic that the evidence is insufficient. Finally, there are many skeptics out there whose Bayesian prior is 0, and 0 times anything equals 0. Mathematical truth cannot salvage this situation, only make it highly palpable!
Davidnortman 02:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

section titled "No medicinal action is possible nor do proven mechanisms of action exist"

I feel this section is clearly biased against homeopathy. The last paragraph reads like the skeptic's reply in a homeopathic debate only. Its only purpose is to shoot down ideas which would have been made by pro homeopaths. This debate is being raised in the section above "plausible mechanisms exist" which seems to have died. I do agree with the valid points being raised by the author in response to the homeopathic claims, but you must give the full story of the claims before you add points which go against these claims. Give the story of the mechanisms and the fallacies associated and let the audience make up their minds themselves - it is not up to the author to decide for the readers. PhatRita 00:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Like many of the other sections, the point could be made in one paragraph (at most two) with much more neutral wording. Let's see what we can do. Edwardian 05:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The section was more appropriate in its original context, namely a section on "The skeptical view". Since then the structure has been been demolished but the content and wording of this section left standing. Art Carlson 12:51, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
Why was that changed? Should we go back to it? In my opinion, the homeopathic perspective should be presented first, followed by a "Criticim" or "Skepticism" section. Rebuttals to any criticism should be presented pre-emptively in the sections prior to the presentation of criticism. That would simplify the article by helping to reduce the number of point-by-point arguments. Edwardian 15:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

We went through this discussion about 3 weeks ago, and I don't recall who had what opinion about the preferred structure. But that is why I tried the 2-column format, which I think is conceptually ideal but is indeed cumbersome. Looking at the current article as it evolved into the point-by-point formulation, I find it much preferable because it is possible to discuss each issue somewhat freely within each section rather than setting up an adversarial "criticism" versus "reply" format. The article is about homeopathy, not about the scientific view of homeopathy - the adversarial format would be more appropriate in another article, but I think that starting one will open a whole can of worms, and we don't have the resources to do justice to the topic in an extended format. It is also arguably beyond the scope of a general encyclopedia. Let's stick to this formulation for the near future as it is more amenable to change. Playing with the format evades the real work of refining the content. In the specific case of this section, even I don't mind it being anti-homeopathy as it is immediately replied to (which incidentally conforms to the con-pro structure in this case) - note also that both paragraphs begin with "skeptics" or "critics" say that..., making it clear that one side's opinion is being presented. The grouping of information is good, though: the anti-homeopathy consists of objections from the perspective of current scientific knowledge, and the reply provides scientific info that's allegedly pushes the envelope of current knowledge.
Davidnortman 20:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said that the article is about "the scientific view of homeopathy". In my opinion, the article is about homeopathy which includes the views of advocates and critics alike. I think the current format encourages point-by-point rebuttals which tend to be lengthy and draw the focus of attention away from the method and instead to its criticism. A section entitled "Criticism" or "Skepticism" does not need to be adversarial. The trouble with it is that some critics and skeptics of alternative methods tend to accept that as free reign to list every conceivable objection or every study... and that needs to be discouraged. Edwardian 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes

From: Many scientific skeptics consider homeopathy to be a pseudoscientific remnant from the age of alchemy. Others consider the belief in homeopathy to be a form of magical thinking.[6] In fact homeopathy was developed at a time when many of the most important concepts of modern chemistry and biology, such as molecules and germs, were understood poorly or not at all. While proponents may consider the mechanism of homeopathy to be an interesting side issue, skeptics consider the lack of any plausible mechanism to be a serious problem, raising the bar on the quality of evidence required before accepting the existence of the phenomenon under the motto "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

To: Skeptics consider homeopathy to be lacking any plausible mechanism. They often view homeopathy as a (pseudoscientific) remnant from the age of alchemy when many of the most important concepts of modern science were poorly understood or not at all.

Reason: Essential comments remain, but less wordy and less inflammatory. Edwardian 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I consider the last sentence to also be an "essential comment". It speaks to the heart of the controversy, that believers and skeptics can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Art Carlson 12:51, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
I don't believe the heart of the controversy is that "believers and skeptics can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions". Edwardian 15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

-

From: In Hahnemann's day, many chemists believed that matter was infinitely divisible, so that it was meaningful to talk about dilution to any degree. Although the hypothesis of atoms can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, their actual size was not calculated until 1865 (by Loschmidt). It is now known that there are 6.02×1023 particles in a mole (Avogadro's number), so that homeopathic dilutions greater than about 24X or 12C are virtually certain to contain not even a single molecule of the initial substance. This fact is recognized by advocates of homeopathy, who assert that the essential healing power of their preparations is not found in the chemical action of molecules, but perhaps in the arrangement of the water molecules, giving rise to the expression "the memory of water". This concept is closely related to the belief in a "vital force", which was common in Hahnemann's day, but was slowly given up by the scientific community as more and more life processes came to be describable in purely materialistic terms, and as the medical model of disease came to be more and more focused on the failure of particular organs and processes in the body. This process began with the synthesis of urea by Friedrich Wöhler in 1828. The consensus among modern scientists is all of chemistry and biology can ultimately be explained in principle by the basic interactions of molecules, even if many processes are far too complex to be understood at this time. In short, the skeptic sees no evidence of a plausible mechanism by which homeopathic dilutions can possibly act.

To: Skeptics point to the consensus among modern scientists that anything involving chemistry and biology is ultimately explained by the basic interactions of molecules, even if many processes are far too complex to be understood at this time. They charge that the assertion that the essential healing power of homeopathic preparations is not found in the chemical action of molecules, but in the arrangement of the water molecules (i.e. "the memory of water) is closely related to the belief in a "vital force" rejected by modern medicine in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Reason: The paragraph is less wordy and the essential points remain. Much of the detail in the original paragraph is not needed to make the point. Edwardian 06:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you have to cut out all the meat? It helps to have some specifics to understand why science has gone a different direction, particularly when they can be put in a historical context (first edition of the Organon in 1810, sythesis of urea in 1828, death of Hahnemann in 1843, determination of Avogadro's number in 1865). Art Carlson 12:51, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
I think rehashing the evolution of science is beyond the scope of the article. Edwardian 15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course rehashing the evolution of science is beyond the scope of the article, but I think it is significant that many of Hahnemann's most skeptical contemporaries would have accepted that his dilutions did contain some amount of the original substance, and that this view is no longer current among the skeptics of today. The question of whether homeopathic remedies function through the action of very small amounts of a substance, or through an otherwise undemonstrated memory of water, is an important one.

-

From: Closely related to the question of the mechanism is, in the eyes of critics, logical inconsistencies in the theory. The theory assumes that water is imprinted by the properties of molecules that it once came in contact with, even when the molecules are diluted away. If this were so, then where did the pure water used in this process come from? The water that homeopaths themselves use was once in contact with other chemicals, including chemical wastes, radioactive metals, dinosaur urine, and various poisons. According to this skeptical interpretation of homeopathic theory, all water in the world should remember its contact with millions of chemical substances and not just the properties of the chemicals that the homeopath claims will be useful. The answer of the homeopaths, that dynamization involves succussion as well as dilution, is not satisfying, first because it seems improbable that one can amplify order in a solution by shaking it, secondly because a lot of shaking goes on in the natural world as well. Why does a waterfall not dynamize the substances dissolved in the stream? It is not possible to prove that no consistent theory of potentization exists, but none is obvious and advocates have not been able to produce one. Moreover, a theory of homeopathy would also have to explain why dynamization works not only with water but also with alcohol and lactose, which have very different properties.

To: Critics also reject homeopathy on logical inconsistencies with the theory that water can become "imprinted" by the homeopathic substances that once contacted it, or that the processes of "dynamization", "potentization", or "succussion" have any real effect on water's "purity".

Reason: Again, it reduces the length of the article while keeping the main points. "Dynamization", "potentization", and "succussion" could be addressed more specifically, but I'd like to see some good definitions for those terms earlier in the article before doing so. Edwardian 06:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This section might be profitably reduced by half, but not down to a single sentence. It is important to not only say that there are inconsistencies (in the eyes of critics), but (briefly!) what those inconsistencies are. Art Carlson 12:51, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
The current version is terribly worded, but I agree that a bit more could be included. Suggestions? Edwardian 15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, heck. I just went and did it. I expect both you and PhatRita will agree it is an improvement, although you might think I didn't go far enough. Art Carlson 16:43, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
The changes are not exactly what I would have done, but I think it takes a step in the right direction. I think the rhetorical questions at the end of the section need to be replaced by statements. Edwardian 17:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I really like the simplication. I think the entire article is too long winded and wordy and may need some attention in that regard. How about the text leading to new wikipedia entries like "homeopathic mechanisms" or "the water memory hypothesis" and we can elaborate there for people who want to actually know? Alternatively, we could lead the readers to a web page which gives this information. Not many good ones out there though, in my experience. PhatRita 11:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see "water memory" defined more clearly here or elsewhere. Edwardian 15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
New articles might be a good solution, though the choice should be made carefully. A prime candidate would be an article going into details of the methods and results of the scientific studies. Art Carlson 12:51, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
I quite like the compressed versions! Most of the excised stuff was peppered with speculative points, anyway, and was too meandering. Regarding a new article, I am against the idea as I mentioned in the section above - way too specialized and complex for this encyclopedia: I don't think anyone in the world can define water memory satisfactorily (let alone to the nearly-impossible NPOV standard :-)!) or to any depth. If we really want to we can find the perfect place to say one sentence about it. I could take care of the sentence (haven't come up with one yet but will be able to) but don't know where it's best to place it just yet, so I'm inviting suggestions.
Davidnortman 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Informal vote regarding "Clinical efficacy" vs. "Perceived clinical efficacy"

There appears to be a minor edit "war" regarding the title of one section. Let's talk more about it here. Edwardian 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote "Perceived clinical efficacy". Given that Homeopathy#Clinical_efficacy followsHomeopathy#The_appeal_of_homeopathy, the terminology conveys the POV that homeopathy has been shown to be clinical effective. Whether it has been or not, it appeals to people because they think (i.e. perceive) it is effective. (If I had my way, we would scrap the section title and briefly mention the various reasons for the appeal of homeopathy.) Edwardian 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

-

I thought we already discussed this or at least that my removal of perceived a while back was not objected to. There is little or no controversy regarding the clinical efficacy of homeopathic treatment vis-a-vis conventional medicine: that quite a few people who go to homeopaths experience improvement in ailments that have not responsded to previous conventional treatment. Homeopathy wouldn't be growing as fast as it is, with as little advertising for it as occurs, if it weren't for its clinical efficacy. "Clinical efficacy" as a concept says nothing about action of remedies, as any medical treatment is much, much more than the active remedy alone - just ask any good doctor. It may well be that homeopathy is an effective placebo but that doesn't take away anything from its clinical efficacy per se. Indeed, many skeptics have argued that homeopathy's clinical efficacy (which they do not dispute) arises from the long interview, the careful attention, the alternative world-view proferred, etc., so by saying that clinical efficacy is merely perceived you risk dismissing the mainstream skeptical stance on homeopathy. Moreover, by qualifying as "perceived" you are implying that the public thinks that homeopathy is more clinically effective than it really is - that people are somehow duped by the hype, that whereas most patients come out disappointed and unchanged from homeopathic treatment the public perceives that most are made better by it. Such a claim could be made and might be true, but it would require evidential support and is correctly made under a heading such as "Marketing of homeopathy". I think it would be trivial as the same could be said of any medical treatment we hear about nowadays. I on my part could dig up evidence but hope that it is unncessary for a point that is insufficiently controversial. Certainly observing with a good homeopath for a few days (clinical observation) would demonstrate the clinical efficacy of homeopathy. I feel strongly about this point because the use of "perceived clinical efficacy" as it stands is incoherent.
Davidnortman 22:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding: "Clinical efficacy" as a concept says nothing about action of remedies, as any medical treatment is much, much more than the active remedy alone - just ask any good doctor. It may well be that homeopathy is an effective placebo but that doesn't take away anything from its clinical efficacy per se. This is a BIG equivocation on what the standard meaning of "clinical efficacy" means. The determination of "clinical efficacy" involves controlling for the placebo effect. If you're saying it works, but it could be the placebo effect - and you're not controlling for the placebo effect - you shouldn't be using the term "clinical efficacy". Edwardian 22:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess I would need to explain the way I use the term (which I believe is the "more-standard" sense), but the same could be said of the use of the term when juxtaposed with "perceived". I just came up with a new version "reported clinical efficacy" which captures both the objective and subjective elements of clinical efficacy depending on one's particular view of the term. Does this solve the problem?
Davidnortman 23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It does with me. (I reserve the right to change my mind with the presentation of further evidence!) Edwardian 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it was me who orginally put percieved, because I felt that just clinical efficacy would be suggestive of something above placebo, which is of course, unproven. "reported" is a good compromise. PhatRita 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Disproving provings

The state of the clinical trials is unsatisfactory. Many studies report statistically significant positive effects, but the statistics and other quality of the studies is not good enough to convince skeptics. Even harder is trying to use the high-quality negative results to un-convince a believer. Doing good clinical studies is always hard, but there are some things that make it even harder for homeopathy:

  • The individualization of treatment in most forms of homeopathy makes it essentially impossible to assemble a group of subjects with the same symptoms that receive the same treatment.
  • The traditional homeopathic process of recording symptoms and evaluating healing progress introduces a confounding element of subjectivity. Traditional doctors might count aggravations, for example, as failures, while homeopaths might seem them as (partial) successes.
  • Many homeopaths believe that their art heals more deeply but takes longer to do so, so that studies must be long as well as large.

Despite these difficulties it is possible to design a study that could, in principle, prove that homeopathy works. The bigger problem is defining a study that could in any sense disprove homeopathy. There are so many forms of homeopathy, and every one of them is so complex, that a negative result can always be brushed off as not testing true homeopathy.

I think scientifically conducted provings provide a way out of this dilemma. For one thing, the difficulties listed above do not apply to provings.

  • Individualization is not an issue because the subjects should be healthy, so it is trivial to assemble an arbitrarily large group of subjects.
  • Clinical measures of symptoms and an objective definition of healing are not required.
  • Provings are traditionally performed in a fixed and reasonably short period of time.

Most important, compared to the differences in treatment, there is relatively little variation in the homeopathic community is the way provings are done. Furthermore, all homeopaths rely on provings, so if it could be proved that provings are invalid, then homeopathy as a whole can be considered disproved. Even more, since there are a handful of remedies that are used commonly by homeopaths of all schools, there is no need to do studies of more than a few remedies.

There could be some difficulty on agreeing on the criteria defining a positive or negative result. A simple measure is the number of symptoms reported. It would be odd if remedies suppressed the same number of symptoms as they caused. Would this be acceptable to homeopaths? A procedure I like better would be this:

  • Perform about 20 such studies. Since a typical proving observes about 20 subjects, about 800 subjects would be needed. Some variations might appear more efficient, but this one allows a very straightforward and robust statistical analysis.
  • Announce the remedy used in each study and publish the two groups of symptoms.
  • Request about 30 homeopathic practitioners and institutions to guess which is which.

The chance of any individual guessing all the remedies correctly would be 1 in a million. The chance that someone out of the 30 guesses them all would be 1 in 30 thousand. The chance that some one out of the group guesses 19 out of 20 would be about 1 in a thousand, and so on. If the results are well within statistical errors, then the validity of provings can be considered disproved. Of course, if the results are well outside of statistical errors, the simplicity of the experimental design is well suited to convincing skeptics.

Finally, what studies have already been done, how were they done, and what were the results? (A few are listed here.) And, of course, what do we say about all this in the article? If I can drum up a consensus that scientific provings are more powerful than clinical trials to resolve the dispute, we should say so.

Art Carlson 12:18, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

an interesting idea. However since provings are used to see if a drug obeys the first law - that of similars, it doesn't apply to the theory of infitesimals. I see your point that if provings are disproved then homeopathy as a whole would be disproved as the first law is so fundamental to homeopaths. However I don't see any incentives by homeopaths to follow this test as disproving provings would disprove homeopathy and proving provings would not necessarily prove homeopathy. Tell me who would perform this and how in more detail? PhatRita 16:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Proving provings would not prove clinical efficacy, but it would revolutionalize science, and it would make homoepathy that which it now isn't, namely plausible. Though it isn't a logical necessity, provings are in fact done with ultramolecular doses, and that is the thing to concentrate on. The law of similars is too vague to provide a critical test.
Has there been criticism from homeopaths of the scientific provings? Would homeopaths accept this as a decisive test?
Art Carlson 17:58, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
Very nice write-up! First off, there were some provings done about 100 years ago to test the validity of some of the original provings, but they were aborted once it became evident that the same information was produced. Second, I personally think this would be an interesting avenue, but again you are grossly underestimating the cultural-political issues in medical research. This sort of study would be extremely unlikely to make it to a Medline-syndicated medical journal, no matter how well performed. Moreover, deciding on what constitutes "passing the test" involves numerous judgment calls, although your idea of identifying the remedy is very close to being a binary criterion. Would the homeopaths be appraised of the pool of remedies such that they will have to match remedy to proving, or will they be supposed to guess at the remedy from the unrestricted pool of all homeopathic remedies? Clearly statistical significance would vary drastically between these 2 designs. How would the researchers come to an agreement about how many guesses are good enough? What about the 0-Bayesian-prior skeptics?
I actually performed a test of a similar nature once: I was "muscle tested" (applied kinesiology) while holding one of 5 vials of homeopathic remedies in my hand, under decent double blind conditions (remedy given by practitioner from his pocket with the labels covered up, in identical containers; after I picked the bottle an inconspicous pen mark was made at the bottom of the bottle which neither of us had any chance of seeing subsequently as they were otherwise kept upright). I felt a clear difference in my ability to resist the pressure that's applied in this testing with one of the remeies (it took some random trial and error to come up with a set of remedies such that 4 would have no effect and one would have a clear effect), and then proceeded to pick the remedy correctly on 3 subsequent independent tests, so the odds of this occuring by chance were (1/5)^3 = 1/125 - more than statistically significant. Anyway, this is definitely personal research and while I am pretty convinced I witnessed a real phenomenon (the effect was very obvious) - note that this effect would have to involve (electromagnetic?) radiation of homeopathic remedies! - the interpretation of the phenomenon is questionable and there are many theories about what it means. I am telling all this to say that I am totally with you but if you think that this kind of study will make a difference to the acceptance of homeopathy I would point out the many voices that say that they want to see a mechanism. I disagree with science being this theory- (as opposed to phenomena-) driven but this is how things are.Moreover, 20 provings of new substances would be far more valuable to homeopaths than this test of known ones, so the resources for this would have to come from outside. Catch 22. In any case notion of a "decisive test" is a chimera created by the likes of The Amazing Randi. Most medical results are not replicated once found to be successful, so why not accept Reilly's fantastic 1994 Lancet study (the first of his series of "homeopathic immunotherapy" tests) as true? This is why I will again send skeptics to the clinic which is the only reality that truly matters. Medicine is not medical science.
Again to get back to your comment (which I cannot find now, perhaps it's archived) that the clinical efficacy of homeopathy is not established: There is research (mostly from the primary-care field in England) that clearly shows clinical efficacy, and as I said claiming that homeopathic treatment does nothing yet people keep going is suggesting that people are deceived by their belief in homeopathy. Now if you were to observe the typical patient load that homeopaths get you would find that about 70% know nothing about the controversy surrounding homeopathy beyond the general puclic, even after experiencing it, and they have no special knowledge of homeopathy to be enchanted by it. Many of the rest actually declare their disbelief openly but belong to the "desperate" group - i.e. those who have run out of options. Only a small minority (I would say 10-15%) of patients are actually enthusiastic about homeopathy. Now to demonstrate how clinical efficacy differs from scientific efficacy: If a treatment (pick some conventional pharmaceutical) is proven beyond doubt to work but carries side effects that make the average patient uncompliant; or if the doctor-patient interaction is such that patient's routinly fail to follow their medical regimen; then a treatment consisting of scientifically a proven interevention can be clinically inefficacious. This is the obverse case of homeopathy, which is clinically efficacious though arguably scientifically inefficacious. It's unfortunate that the notion "clinical" has become so irrelevant in contemorary medical discourse that it somehow melds with scientific efficacy. The two have nothing to do with each other and may even be inversely related (the doctor is so certain of his treatment that he loses the patient...).
Truly finally, observing for a week in a homeopathic clinic would not merely be a week's observation, since one would get to hear the patient's stories extending months or years back.
Davidnortman 03:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Reproductions of provings 100 years ago were certainly not done double blind, so their value is nil. I find it incredible, if what you're saying is true, that homeopaths rely on proving done with some 20 people over 150 years ago. I would already worry about changes in the language over that time, since homeopaths consider it important to take the description of the symptoms in the patients own words. At least for the common remedies it must be valuable to see if any important symptoms were missed the first time around, or if any false symptoms snuck into the reports.
Why wouldn't good studies get published in good journals? What about these:
Asking homeopaths to identify a remedy from all possibilities is asking too much and also makes good statistics almost impossible. I would either tell them what was used in each individual trial and have them choose between the two sets of reported symptoms, or else do trials with 10 or 20 known remedies and ask the homeopaths to match the symptoms to the remedies in the list. The statistics are straightforward. Unambiguous results could convince 0.1 skeptics in the first round and 0.01 skeptics when they are replicated. At that point the whole world would jump on the bandwagon and nobody would care what the 0 skeptics do.
I'm sure you are not surprised that the report of your muscle test does not change my mind. If you really believe you are on to something, it is a crime to let it sit. Why not retest yourself with a design that can achieve better than p = 0.01, just to be sure? Is that just you, or can other people pass this test? At that point you have a choice which million dollars you want to pick up first, that from Randi or that from Stockholm.
Thousands of substances have now been proved and the reported success rate is no higher than it was when homeopaths worked with 100 remedies. I disagree strongly (or should I say it is ridiculous?) that homeopathy would benefit more from 20 new provings than from a solid scientific proof that ultramolecular doses have biological effects.
Can you cite the research on clinical efficacy? What counts?
  • Every improvement, even that attributable to regression toward the mean?
  • Every reported improvement, even those from patients eager to please the homeopath or the researcher or from those wishing to help demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy?
  • Every subjective improvement, even if objective measures of illness do not improve?
My main question is still unanswered: Would an unambiguous negative result from a study designed along these lines be able to un-convince believers? Or have I misunderstood something about provings? Is there some reason in homeopathic theory that could explain a negative result?
Art Carlson 08:45, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
a while back I asked a groupp of homeopaths what would have to happen for them to accept that homeopath didn't work. The answers basicaly boiled down to nothing (ok in some cases the answers were directly nothing).Geni 16:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Geni - the homeopaths I have spoken to would not care if homeopathy is "disproved" or not. They are not even interested in the possible mechanistic research. They are too entrenched in the idea that what they have seen clinical is efficacious and nothing else matters. However, it does not mean that what Art Carlson is suggesting is a bad idea. I'll bet proponents of iridology would not care that Simon et al conducted a review in JAMA which pretty conclusively dismissed their subject. PhatRita 20:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Re provings: Art's suggested study design doesn't need placebo control at all as it does not test effect versus placebo but works on the principle of pattern recognition. To my knowledge only recently have provings been attempted with placebo control, and the surprising observation has been that those on placebo usually exhibit symptoms of the proven remedy as well. One interpretation is to dismiss the whole thing and conclude that it is obviously bogus. But another is to note that the symptoms of the placebo group are not random but fit the pattern of the "treatment" group. This is a majority concensus in the homeopathic community at this point in time. The only possible conclusion is that there is some sort of field effect within the group, something which would have to invoke some ideas brought up in research of so-called paranormal phenomena. Needless to say, a placebo-controlled proving would be expected to show no significant difference between the two groups. This is why I support a study design that relies on pattern-recognition: the placebo-control approach is not usefully applicable in this case.

This is the kind of reasoning that drives scientists up the wall. For a hundred years homeopaths believed that the symptoms reported during a proving were caused by the remedy. When they finally got around to trying placebo controls, they discovered that this was false, that non-remedies could also induce the same reports. Rather than doing some serious soul-searching at that point, they just kept flying. The claim now, from Davidnortman and others, is that a symptom in person A is caused by person B taking a remedy. This is much harder to swallow than any "memory of water" theory.
  • Do you have a reference that this view is "a majority concensus in the homeopathic community"?
  • To claim that the symptoms in the control group regularly match those in the verum group, you would have to make sure (1) that no one directly involved knew what remedy was being tested, and (2) that the subjects did not communicate with each other during the study. Can you cite a single study that meets these criteria and has a positive result, and if not, why do you make such a silly claim?
  • What if I do my control study first and then decide what remedy to give my verum group? Would my placebo subjects know what I was going to use before I did? What if I use one placebo group as the control for two different remedies? Which remedy will the symptoms match?
Art Carlson 18:12, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

Regarding the homeopathic success rate: First, only several hundred substances have been proved. Over 3000 have been prepared at some point, some of them for use in a non-classical context; most of those have been used experimentally as I described in the relevant section of the article; many others have fragmentary information available from clinical use but without the benefit of a proving. It is impossible to compare the homeopathic success rate 100 years ago and now: disease patterns are completely different. What can be said is that nowadays it is much easier to treat people outside of the developed world (where disease patterns are much more like 100 year ago in the west), and homeopaths from the 3rd world find it much more difficult to get consistent clinical results in the west, and vice versa. This may be due to what homeopaths describe as "suppression" from medications and the stresses of civilized life, or due to the fact that in the west homeopaths often deal with life-long or serious illness rather than tackling acute manifestations: treating children's acute diseases in the west is still relatively easy. This difficulty is countered by increasing the number of available remedies which offers greater precision in a greater number of cases. I myself have successfully used newly proved remedies and so definitely find them very valuable, whereas I have had no clinical use for any of the available homeoapthic research, not because of its lack of conclusiveness but because standard clinical studies do not provide homeoapthically useful information. Moreover, provings on only several people are extremely useful if done well. They do not produce a comprehensive set of symptoms (this gets filled out with time through clinical observation of cured symptoms) but do usually produce a clear Gestalt of the remedy, the core pattern that can be matched clinically through modern case-taking techniques which rely more on deeper questioning about emotions and sensations than simple collecting of disconnected symptoms.

The comprehensive set of symptoms ... gets filled out with time through clinical observation of cured symptoms. Is one report of a "cured" symptom enough to get the symptom into a repertory? Is there any mechanism to weed out spurious symptoms? Art Carlson 19:17, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

The question of what exactly constitutes clinical efficacy is complex and we couldn't agree on it recently. For now I will say that there are standard criteria used in such research. For the most part clinical improvement is taken as a whole, and subjective symptoms are often used as relevant indicators. There are, incidentally, many cases in diverse fields of alternative medicine where clinical improvement occurs with persistent pathological irregularity, e.g. disapperance of pain from an arthritic joint that nonetheless remains radiologically abnormal. I consider such cases as successes because medicine is about well-being rather than mechanical perfection, but some might argue otherwise - this is a philosophical question. I will try to find references clinical-efficacy research shortly.

Regarding convincing the skeptics: I repeat that it is naive and contrary to historical evidence to think that presenting clear phenomena in the absence of an agreeable mechanism of action will sway skeptics. Many have officially declared that they would only accept such phenomena when accopmanied by an explanation, and many others reason similarly though they may claim otherwise. There has been much research done in the field of the paranormal that is of the highest quality, and far more than homeopathic research can offer in terms of reproducibility. As a starting point I would refer to Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe. An good book about a possible paradigm in which such research (and homeopathy) could fit is Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe. Both books have references to primary material. Anyway, that's why I don't hurry to try to convince the skeptics every time I observe a scientifically anomalous phenomenon. When extra-rigorous evidence from Princeton researchers for the ability of the mind to slightly deflect a electonic random-number generator over tens of thousands of repetitions is given serious consideration, I will turn my attention to proving the muscle-ttesting phenomenon.

Finally, what would it take to convince me that homeopathy didn't work? A lot! I am no different from a confirmed skeptic in this regard. More specifically, I would want a better explanation than mine for the effects I observe clinically. The placebo explanation is contradicted by experience, say when patients discuss the effects of taking a remedy in exactly the same terms as taking an aspirin, or when I use a remedy on an infant for an acute situation and it improves in front of my eyes, or when I find myself needing to use placebo unbeknownst to the patient (somewhat of an ethical issue in the west but regularly done elsewhere) on occasion in order to tease out patient expectation from remedy effect. (Note that Hahnemann himself used placebo regularly, representing the first systematic use of placebo in a medical system.) So I am open to better explanations of the clinically observed phenomena, but not to being told that these phenomena don't exist. So I am not sure how you can disprove homeopathy without even knowing what it is that homeopaths are referring to by the term homeopathy.

The grand question on my end, therefore, is: How it is possible to discuss clinical homeopathy without having taken the time to observe decent clinical work any more than it is possible to discuss piano-playing without ever having heard a decent pianist play???

Davidnortman 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

(In reply to Art interspersed comments above:) The "field phenomenon" that I claim is occuring in provings is as perplexing to me as to you. Authorities I can site are Jeremy Sherr and Rajan Sankaran who have been major influences over the past 20 years, who have written about it; numerically they may represent a minority opinion but most modern provings have been done by people of their school. I will explain the observations in greater detail: When a proving takes place there is an element of intention that comes into play which isn't present in individual healing where the intention is individual to the patient. Some sensitive individuals even report unusual experience before the onset of the proving that then turn out to be in line with the proving. (Please read The Holographic Universe about how this might be possible - it is a bit pop-science in style but has enough primary references to solid research.) I don't think there are provings that will satisfy rigorous criteria of double-blinding and so on, but it would be interesting to see just what symptoms were produced in the study you mentioned above (I haven't had a chance to look at it and see whether they actually recorded the symptoms) and whether any conclusions can be drawn from there. The role of provings is to bring out the energy of the substance and it is observed that even the least rigorous provings - something called "trituration proving" where the provers prepare a substance together to the 3c or 4c potency by grinding it in lactose while discuss their experience, then keep a record for the next week or two and get together again to discuss their experience - produce clinically useful material which I have personally used successfully. I recognize that the claims are "silly" as such. But they are not meant to be read in isolation. These claims can only be evaluated through observation of homeopathic clinical practice. I cannot help but come back to this because they are absurd to the modern mind. But logical thinking is a tool, not an end, and its extensions such as the modern research-design hierarchy in which RCTs reign supreme are not universally applicable constructs, meaning that these should be used in a context of careful and complete observation (not observation through pre-existing algorithms as happens in conventional medicine). Most homeopaths "keep flying" not because they love to bask in superstition but because they cannot responsibly dismiss their clinical success as mere placebo, and are able to tolerate such observations. Those that do (which includes quite a few homeopaths) practice in a more restricted fashion, for instance rejecting non-rigorous provings; they argue that they are practicing more scientifically but I have helped former patients of such homeopaths with decades of experience in a few cases where the remedy happened to be one of the "improperly" proved ones.
So I repeat my question: Are you willing to read the books I mentioned above (which include information about investigations of group-consciousness phenomena), look up studies on "intercessional prayer" and read through them thoroughly, observe clinically with a homeopath, read through case transcripts, etc.? There is a great new site, http://www.homeopathicsymposium.com, where there are videos of cases in progress; unfortunately for reasons of patient confidentiality only health-care practitioners (including conventional doctors) are allowed to sign up; I will write to them to see if this can be changed as I would like others to have access to it, but if you can track down a homeopath who films cases you could ask to have a viewing of a good one at the clinic. I don't have videotapes but do have verbatim transcripts to offer. If you are unwilling to do any of this then there is no way to progress in the discussion, as I am expressly offering my claims for you to verify, not for you to believe in - I have done the same with respect to such claims and still don't believe everything ever claimed in homeopathy but look for opportunities to verify them. If you cannot take the time to do that (which is totally understandable) then the most reasonable stance to take is the agnostic one. Moreover, I on my part have studied scientific methodology and continue to do so, and am therefore extremely puzzled and often disquited by some of the observations I mentioned above. But I do soul-searching on both sides of the divide, and have concluded that mainstream science that hasn't done nearly enough of it given the enormous weight of anomaous evidence (along, of course, with many homeopaths who, say, regard everything Hahnemann wrote as the last word) - though there are many mainstream scientists, including many of the highest calibre, who are doing precisely that and finding claims such as I made quite plausible.
Regarding expanding provings with clinical observation: Several cures are required for inclusion, though I wouldn't be surprised if there are ones included less rigorously. Currently the authors of the two main modern repertories (indexes of symptoms) have established some standards over the past few years that are currently being implemented, and computer repertories offer multiple author references under each remedy appearing under each symptoms so that original sources can be checked if desired, and work is being done to backtrack through the whole historical record in the same manner. Another thing one of the programs offers is the ability to choose which authors' additions to exclude, either manually or by pre-assigning "confidence levels" to each work and allowing the user to select an overall confidence level. Those same authors are now trying to come up with a reliable way of weeding out spurious symptoms but there is no concensus yet, and as having an excess of symptoms is less problematic than taking a crucial one out, the status quo is to leave uncertainties in (perhaps marking them as such). But because modern case-taking techniques increasingly focus on whole pattern rather than individual symptoms such inevitable uncertainties are not catastrophic. I personally use the most inclusive set for most work (performing the 'weeding-out' of spurious information myself), and when find myself overwhelmed by data narrow it down to a more "rigorous" subset. Aristotle has a nice line in the very first chapter of his Ethics, where he writes that a science ought to be as precise as its subject-matter allows, no less but no more. In my opinion modern medicine seeks methematical precision where there is little to be found (I routinely see clinically healthy people with ouf-of-bounds lab results; some are known to indicate insidious disease but most can be and are safely and appropriately ignored by conventional and alternative doctors alike - it's one of those things that puzzled me when I discovered it didn't agree with the textbooks until I adapted to the clinical reality). Mathematical precision is impossible in homeopathy because of the nature of the phenomena it deals with. This is hardly different from conventional medicine ignoring differences in symptoms between patients of the "same" diagnosis when prescribing medications.
Davidnortman 02:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You have left the realm of science, i.e. clear thinking and healthy skepticism, and I do not intend to follow you there. It is a proven fact that there are many factors that can induce a powerful impression of an effect where none actually exists, and, as you recognize, many more factors that can result in clinical improvement even if the remedy is inert. The scientific method, in particular RCTs, has been developed to sort out what is really going on. If your experience or mine says something is going on, and the scientific studies say nothing is there (other than powerful psychology), science is right. Come back when you have evidence where the mundane explanations have been eliminated. Art Carlson 07:34, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

This is the "homeopaths are irrational" dismissal. I have made a case to the effect that the most relevant, first-hand clinical evidence for homeopathy is being disregarded in favour of academic reasoning presented in printed form - that once first-hand clinical observation is factored in (in addition to the academic evidence) mundane explanations become increasingly untenable and one is compelled to consider, however tentatively, some of the admittedly wild claims that I have presented. I have further argued that this disregard is related to the general official disregard of clinical data in modern medical ideology - a disregard which is not mirrored by actual medical practice to which, I believe, I have been much more exposed than you (moreover, I daily see the deleterious results of adhering to research data with the result of ignoring the patient). I have mentioned that there is ample medical literature critiquing this approach.

I mentioned that this debate is inetivably also philosophical, and that because there is more than one version of what constitutes science the philosophical aspect of our debate cannot be brushed aside in favour of 'purely scientific' discussion. You implicitly declare philosophical discussion as unnecessary, but this is itself a clearly articulated philosophical perspective that has been severely challenged from many angles for over 50 years. You argue that I have left the realm of science, even though many scientists function within just such a conceptual framework as mine. I have provided references to evidence for that conceptual framework. If you don't intend to follow with me that is fine, but why then persist in proclaiming a point of view against homeopathy without being willing to engage with it? Otherwise your critique becomes a critique of an abstraction of the thing rather than the thing itself.

I am very biased, but I do not disregard data - I view it within a historical and philosophical perspective which I have taken the time to research precisely because I am as puzzled and intuitively dismissive of homeopathy's claims as you (with the one difference that early on - what got me into homeopathy - I was exposed to first-hand observations that I found irresponsible to dismiss; it is this difference that lately I have been trying to bridge). I have mentioned my essay appearing on http://metamedicine.com/articles/2005/nortman/reassessment_of_evidence-based_medicine.html and can also recommend a scholarly study of the history of numerical methods in modern medicine from the early 19th century to the emergence of the RCT: Quantification and the Search for Medical Certainty by J.R. Matthews (this is probably a book only available in university libraries; I could provide a photocopy if needed, at cost + mailing). You are likewise biased but from this point on are declaring your unwillingness to regard certain data because you disqualify it a priori, which I do not understand. I have suggested that we cannot progress for that reason, whereas you are suggesting that we cannot progress due to my unscientific approach. But the scientific evidence is hardly showing that there is nothing going on. Rather it is showing that there is possibly something going on that we don't understand. I have provided references to works that suggest that homeopathic anomalies (or potential anomalies) should be viewed in a context of many more anomalies, the collected force of which (even if only a minority of them were actually real) makes it untenable to adhere rigidly to methodologies such as RCTs that arose within a paradigm in which those anomalies didn't feature. RCTs are great tools (I am not dismissing them a priori) but they have many limits and caveats associated with their use - most of which have been and are being articulated by conventionally minded scientists, but which do not make it to the popular and official presentations of science. I do not understand your unwillingess to engage in the clinical side of things, other than if you believe that the clinical element is irrelevant. But what's the point of medicine if not the clinical reality? Medicine is not an abstract exercise in logical thinking.

I assure you that if you took the time to observe clinically in a conventional medical setting (general practice is a good place to see this) your belief in the value of RCTs would become more nuanced. You would also see droves of patients that have "nothing wrong with them" scientifically yet are clearly suffering: Is this their issue ("it's all in their head") or can it be that science as you see it doesn't delimit reality in its entirety? I am suggesting that the notion of science itself is part of an adequate discussion about the scientific status of homeopathy. I hope you reflect on my comments and continue to engage in this discussion as we quite benefit from your perspective (and please do not disengage me from the discussion in my name - I am still here).
Davidnortman 05:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is much more to good medical practice than effective drugs, and that there is in many cases little or no solid scientific information to help a practitioner make the decisions facing him. I am interested in different aspects of the problem than you are because I do not have to make practical decisions whereas you do. The questions that interest me are (1) Can ultramolecular dilutions be distinguished in any way from pure water?, and (2) If they cannot, why is homeopathy nevertheless so popular? I believe very strongly that the evidence shows the answer to the first question to be "no". The second question involves a lot of interesting psychology but, of course, also the question of in what sense and to what degree is homeopathy "clinically effective". I haven't seen any good evidence on this, and there are many known effects that could result in effectiveness (even if homeopathic preparations are inert) and also many known effects that could result in the illusion of effectiveness (even if there is no "real" clinical effect), so I am still struggling to answer the second question. Since my interest and time are limited, I don't want to look at all the evidence, only the best evidence. I am not willing to go to much trouble to make my own clinical observations because they are by their nature not objective enough and do not have the statistical power to answer my questions. When you talk about your "scientific conceptual framework", are you refering to The Holographic Universe'? From a quick look in Google, I get the impression that it is not science but New Age nonsense. Your essay on EBM, on the other hand, looks interesting, and I will read it when I find the time. Matthews could be good, but is not at the top of my to-read list. You provoked my accusation of irrationality by your interpretation of RCTs of provings. The studies were designed to test the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies produce symptoms that placebos do not. The result was negative and it is certainly no stretch to conclude (tentatively) that homeopathic remedies do not produce any symptoms. You suggest the alternate hypothesis that they produce symptoms in people who don't take them. I would expect an intellectually honest person to recognize that this hypothesis is a priori much less likely than the alternative and to consider it seriously only if there is strong evidence supporting it. "Strong" means there is not an obvious mundane alternative available, e.g. that both groups produced a particular set of symptoms because they knew what was expected or communicated with each other. (In an ideal world, my replies would be longer and more carefully thought through. Unfortunately, that's not the world I live in.) Art Carlson 08:31, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Two points: Double blind provings have been done for years. The re-proving of Belladonna conducted at the turn of the 19-20th century was double blind and the provers and supervisors were widely dispersed geographically, none knowing the remedy being proven. The same symptom picture of the original proving of Belladonna was developed.

Really? Was it also placebo controlled and randomized? What criteria was used to determine what constitutes "the same symptom picture"? Can you give me more details and a reference? --Art Carlson 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

They have done studies using MRIs that show a difference between remedies and plain water.

I urge skeptics (but I have only had one take me up on it) to do a proving.

Discussion regarding link to logical fallacy

I removed the link to logical fallacy from the section regarding External links/Critical [title=Homeopathy&diff=19555832&oldid=19539792] The editor who original inserted the link asked for clarification of my edit on my Talk page:

Since much of the debate surrounding Homeopathy boils down to the use of scientific method I do not see why my adding the link to logical fallicies is wrong. As I understand it many arguments are used to prove or disprove homeopathy, among which there is the use of semantics. Since much of the arguments are based upon incorrect premisses, interpretation and conclusion why not insert a reference to help all those using these logical fallacies? Please advise --Nomen Nescio 10:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to putting scientific method in a "See also" section, however, If there is an argument that is based upon an incorrect premise, interpretation, or conclusion, then it should be addressed specifically within the article. Otherwise, placing logical fallacy in a Critical links section appears to reflect a biased POV. Edwardian 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Still my reason for inserting the reference exists. To my knowledge many theories have been advanced explaining homeopathy. As I understand it none of these can be validated through the so-called scientific method. -If I'm wrong please state result of research and journals in which they were published (i.e. NEJM, BMJ, Lancet, etc)- To explain the lack of result with that method a new way of thinking (memory of water) is introduced which is contrary to our current view of the world. Again this claim has not been validated through scientific research (please references showing it has been validated).
Although I am not against the idea of homeopathy the reference was meant to illustrate certain logical fallacies introducing these theories. Therefore a reference to aid in advancing and defending theories on logical grounds seems appropiate in trying to explain homeopathy, as is the case with "allopathic medicine." I would suggest to insert both references: scientific method and logical fallacy --Nomen Nescio 20:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The link is simply not specific enough to warrant inclusion here. Should logical fallacy be linked to any article where one side thinks the other has committed one? What are the specific logical fallacies that you think homeopaths and their advocates have committed? Edwardian 23:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Some examples in my opinion:
1 Case reports being used to prove homeopathy Faulty generalization but also Correlation implies causation (they used homeopathy therefore it must have been the reason for curation), it also is an example of Anecdotal evidence.
2 Explaining lack of scientific evidence by introducing theory for which no evidence exist (memory of water) and then stating: that is why homeopathy can't be proven by science circular argument. --Nomen Nescio 12:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
1) The use of case reports and anectdotal reports are not unique to homeopathy. From http://www.skepdic.com:
Finally, it should be noted that testimonials are often used in many areas of life, including medical science, and that giving due consideration to such testimonials is considered wise, not foolish. A physician will use the testimonies of his or her patients to draw conclusions about certain medications or procedures. For example, a physician will take anecdotal evidence from a patient about a reaction to a new medication and use that information in deciding to adjust the prescribed dosage or to change the medication. This is quite reasonable. But the physician cannot be selective in listening to testimony, listening only to those claims that fit his or her own prejudices. To do so is to risk harming one’s patients. Nor should the average person be selective when listening to testimonials regarding some paranormal or occult experience. [[4]]
2) It's not clear to me that homeopaths use the circular argument that you state they do. Edwardian 04:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Help request

Perhaps someone here might have a better idea than myself of how to deal with the newly created article 50 millesimal potencies. Thank you — Pekinensis 01:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The article is starving for a definition and the writing style suggests as though much of it was copied directly from somewhere else, and obviously it could use a LOT of rewording. I'm not sure whether or not it should be merged and redirected with homeopathy. I guess we'll have to see what's left. Edwardian 04:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Way too specific and terminally POV. I would delete it. Art Carlson 07:27, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
I had no idea there was a Organon Sixth Edition page. Whilst 50 millesimal potencies is a valid entry in an encyclopedia (LM is a confusing term), redirection to homeopathy or a single sentence definition with links to homeopathy would be more appropriate. The organon page should go though. PhatRita 14:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
reads like a copyvio as does James Compton-Burnett (created by the same user). anyone want to do the honors on VFD?Geni 14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
its on VfD (here) PhatRita 17:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
...and here if you want to find it a bit more easily. Is there any information from that article that can be used here? Edwardian 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thanks Edwardian. I doubt anyone would want to read a few thousands words on the 6th edition of the organon. The organon is actually a valid entry, it was a book by Plato. I think maybe a redirection job on that page would work out. Alternatively we could start a separate page on the organon which has a more encyclopedic definition and history, and with emphasis on redirection to homeopathy? thoughts? PhatRita 19:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This looks like a pasted-in student essay. I vote for delete since (a) way too specific info even in the context of a homeopathy article - heck, even in the context of a homeopathy textbook - as LM use is a fairly advanced clinical issue, and many homeopaths don't use LMs at all; (b) poorly written and full of unexplained jargon, I know the subject matter yet could barely follow, and (c) out of context even of the Organon in general. We need an Organon section in this article. Someone go ahead or I will try and get to it along with the previously promised miasms. Davidnortman 06:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

edits by User:Aegis

I can't say I'm too fond on the latest edits. They seem to be supercondensed and are extremely tough to read and understand for a lay audience. I will revert it soon if there is agreement? PhatRita 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - it is both POV and and written to "make a point" rather than to inform, though we can borrow a line from that material about the fact that provings may collect symptoms from the provers unrelated to the substance. (Is there an automatic way to revert or is it done through cut and paste?) Davidnortman 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a way to revert but someone has already written over with a few very good spellings. I'll revert it the old fashioned way. PhatRita 23:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

clinical trials page

many users previously agreed (see suggested changes) that we should start a new page so we can place more emphasis on clinical analysis and critique, including the entire evidence base process applied to homeopathy. I see a very good range of people, participating for a really thorough peer review that even most articles could not get. What do you guys think? PhatRita 16:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm on board. The biggest problem I see is getting the original literature. Could some of you with access to a medical library send some of us without copies of the important papers so we can do the job right? Art Carlson 19:12, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
A lot of the favourite stuff on the homeopath side is old enough to not be availble electonically.Geni 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I will see if I am able to access literature. The great thing is that the NHS have a well stocked set of databases which go earlier than many of the journal's website archives. I'll need to get into my local university library, which is quite well stocked for the REALLY old stuff which is on paper (we're talking BMJ 1899 etc). I doubt there will be any problems. In fact, if anyone wants a full article or articles just mail me and I'll try and send you a copy with the database access I have now. Ps could you write on your request "for personal educational use", or I may get into trouble. PhatRita 23:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I think such a page is way beyond a general encyclopedia: why not carefully expand on the existing section but maintain it within the context of the article. The references we have thus far are already more than is available elsewhere in terms of its careful selectivity and consequent overall neutrality, and offer a great place to start for an interested reader to make an independent assessment. I think we should resist trying to interpret the data for the reader (which would have to happen in a detailed page), but rather provide a summary that reflects the complexity of the issue. If the issue is simply providing thorough references then adding a few book references to the meta-analyses will cover the vast majority of reserach: for example, a little book called Homeopathic Science and Modern Medicine by Harris Coulter alone contains several-hundred references to research studies (including studes published in homeopathic journals, many unfortunately hard to obtain [not only electronically but even in paper format] without great effort and some money - though England has the homeopathic-hospital libraries which might be good). Besides, there is not a single person on board who is an expert on clinical trials, we all come from different, inqdequate perspectives, so the effort would be hubris.
Davidnortman 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

pandemonium

What the hell has happened to the article? It has been changed beyond any recognition since I have been away a few days ago. The histroy shows user:aegeis completely changing everything about the article, which I thought was showing significant improvement. What can be done? PhatRita 13:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Have reverted the page to the last version by Geni. PhatRita 13:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

the bias toward homeopathy

This article should provide an uniformed reader with an answer to the question: is homeopathy quackery, or is it not ? And what he finds here ? The bulk of this page describes the homeopathic doctrine as if it was a smooth practical algorithm firmly rooted in experience. The clinical and laboratory investigations disproving the claims of homeopathy are relegated to the end of the article, and do not change the impression. And the huge amount of evidence to the contrary amassed by homeopaths themselves for the last 200 years is never mentioned. This way, the presentation is distorted in favour of homeopathy (completely POV, in the Wikipedia cant), with the proponents of homeopathy resolute on keeping the emplacement.

The case of Hahnemann's Cinchona experiment is quite remarkable in this connection. It is a fact that nobody ever could confirm it, it is no POV. It is a fact of major importance: homeopathy was founded upon a wrong interpretation of an experiment. Being a fact, it cannot be easily disposed of; and there was no attempt on your part. PhatRita simply reversed my edit, under the ridiculous pretext of too much POV. The inconvenient fact was concealed from the reader for a couple of days.

And now you insist upon any addition being made only after discussion, that is, upon your prior consent. It is unacceptable just because of your biased position; and the quality of the text is not such as to make of it a sacred cow. But I am more than ready to discuss and change any addition of mine after it was made; so far, there was no attempt on your part to find mistakes in them. In case of any error or inaccuracy found I will be the first to remove them.

"This article should provide an uniformed reader with an answer to the question: is homeopathy quackery, or is it not ?": This is an interesting premise, but entirely POV: you are projecting your own view of the reason that people become interested in homeopathy onto everyone else. In fact, many are curious about whether it might be applicable to their own health-care regardless of theoretical problems with the system, others simply want to know about the doctrine of homeopathy, etc. The structure of the article thus far is not cast in stone, but it has been arrived at following discussion rather than free-for-all editing, which in the case of this article would lead to its quick degradation into a rant that does justice to neither side. Even those on the skeptical side have agreed that it is necessary first to present homeopathy before criticizing it as otherwise one doesn't know what is being criticized. Your changes cause just such degradation by removing important portions of the doctrine of homeopathy, which is why two people prior to me who are somewhere between neutral and mildly anti-homeopathy have objected to them.
Your comments and even undiscussed changes are welcome so long as they don't undo previous hard work. So if you have some damning evidence about the Cinchona experiment then include in under the "Persistent lack of evidence of efficacy" subsection or even create a new subsection around the same region. Perhaps you'd like to emphasize that the earlier sections represent what you feel is doctrine rather than truth by changing the title of the section. Your sweeping changes indicate do not represent a constructive approach to getting these points across. Note that the introductory paragraph twice states that homeopathy is problematic, there is a highly visible Neutrality warning, and the "uninformed reader" can inspect the TOC to see that later sections criticize homeopathy, so your concern about misinforming the reader is overblown.
Finally, providing a single criticism, however strong, and then rejecting a whole system based on it is equivalent to the creationist finding a problem with evolution (say the lack of continuous line of skeletal evidence linking apes to humans) and therefore rejecting the theory as a whole. I am not familiar with the Cinchona issue, but it may well be possible that a wrong interpretation of an experiment led Hahnemann to try out new things are arrive at homeopathic preparations which do show effects on healthy individuals (just try taking, say, Lachesis 1M daily for 6 months and see what happens...); such things occur elsewhere in science. Moreover, I've occasionally suspected that the origin of homeopathy could have been made up by Hahnemann or his followers in order to provide a concrete historical foundation to the discipline - again, something which happens elsewhere in science. The law of similars is vindicated not historically but through practical use.
Davidnortman 15:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"just try taking, say, Lachesis 1M daily for 6 months and see what happens" homeopaths like to throw out these challanges from tiem to time. Whatching the excuses for failer can be of interest.Geni 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

'Moreover, I've occasionally suspected that the origin of homeopathy could have been made up by Hahnemann or his followers ...'

This is just your irrational rejection of homeopathy seeking to rationalise itself. Suspicions are not scientific, but they tell us a lot about the person in their grip.

Brian August 15 2005.


The main points made by Davidnortman seem to be that:

1. "many are curious about whether it might be applicable to their own health-care regardless of theoretical problems with the system". This is an incomplete statement; the complete form is "many are curious about whether it might be applicable to their own health-care regardless of theoretical problems with the system, being unaware that homeopathy may well be quackery". It is a point of decency on our part to educate the reader in this matter.

This article explains the history and practise of homeopathy with an outline of the theoretical model. It makes no claims for efficacy whatsoever. On the contrary, there is a lengthy section which discusses in great detail the various complaints and criticisms from mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, there are a couple of WP editors who seem to feel that each blandly descriptive sentence or paragraph risks leading the reader away from the 'one true path' of seeing homeopathy as quackery and must be immediately balanced by a sneering putdown flavored with a snippet of distorted information dredged from the distant history or far fringes of homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 20:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing has been put into this article that has been dedged from the findges of homeopathy. Adimtedly partly because anyone putting it in would be unklikely to be belived.Geni 23:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I offer this link as evidence of my above claim http://www.remedydevices.com/index.htm Geni 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
That's hilarious. Ok I'll admit you haven't yet included the farthest possible fringes. :) --Lee Hunter 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, don't belittle these little gizmos! I own 10 of them ($400,000 worth!) and use them all the time! I recently got my cat to purr into one of them to make Lac Felinum, and my latest favorite is David's Laugh: I'm potentizing it up to MMM with my super-orgonic fluxion machine!
Davidnortman 06:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

2. "Your comments and even undiscussed changes are welcome so long as they don't undo previous hard work." I do try to undo the previous hard work in so far as the aim of this hard work was to present the reader with a gloss finished advertisement leaflet instead of the real lie of matters. Naturally, I do not reckon on your impartial and constructive position in the matter because you are engaged in homeopathy as your business.

3. "The law of similars is vindicated not historically but through practical use". Your confidence stems from the circumstance that you see only the cases where you were apparently successful, or did not harm much; but you do not see the cases which return to the bosom of the mainstream medicine after sometimes years of homeopathic treatment. On my part, I could make a book of horror out of such cases which I observed personally. If you wish, I can place some of them on this Talk_page, for enlightenment purpose.

All in all, your point of view is just that: a point of view. The main, descriptive part of the article represents just this particular point of view of homeopathic practitioners. I think you are aware of it. Therefore, not to be disingenuous, the next time you will revert my contribution you should rather say "reverted because full of another POV".

Two second-rank remarks:

4. If you are not cognizant of the Cinchona experiment issue, you can read on it in homeopathic literature, e.g. in Hughes' Manual on pp.400-404. Hughes is a classic of homeopathy, and it is surprising that I should remind here of his name.

5. Concerning Lachesis 1M daily: there is a school of homeopaths using this very technique routinely, e.g. Desai in India (see Mathur, p.659); as I know, it was also practised in Eastern Europe. Just as you, they claim that their positive practical results vindicate their mode of treatment.

Aegeis 15 2005

I am curious why you proclaim so triumphantly that your single-handedly crafted version is quite NPOV when the previous version was the work of several people, 2 of whom have already voted in favor of that version by reverting you work (I repeat that they come from the 'other side' and not from homeopathy) in addition to LeeHunter's endorsement above? So thus far we have a vote of 4 to 1 (or 2 if with Geni). Therefore please make the article more NPOV by adding information you find appropriate while respecting the average reader's intelligence in desiring to learn what homeopathy claims to be. You are spoon-feeding the presumably dumb reader with a clean version, instead of allowing immersion into the many ambiguities that arise when considering homeopathy fairly. Take a look at articles on ESP, telekinesis, astrology, etc. - all of them actually describe the doctrine as well as criticizing it, and in cases criticism is lacking it should be added rather than displace the actual description.
Regarding Hughes: Please quote here in discussion and provide the context in which he makes his comments. Your condescending reference to it as a "classic" that I should obviously have read and know by heart is unnecessary. Just like Hahnemann's Organon, his writings are not the Word of God. In any case, if the Cinchona issue bothered me enough I would take it myself to see what happened, and my conclusions (if negative) would be confined to the experiment and not automatically propagated to the rest of homeopathy. But as it stands concluding that the experiment was incorrectly interpreted would not help me deal with clinical realities of the here and now. (I am myself puzzled by homeopathy and annoyed by the inconsistencies in it: these have to do with our poor understanding of its phenomena and desire to make complete sense of something instead of admitting that there are still-mysterious elements to it that we hope to clarify eventually; they cannot simply be used as evidence to explain away a huge number of collected observations.)
All I suggested when challenging people to try Lachesis for 6 months is that they are likely to experience effects that provide data for the hypothesis that there is something to those pills, not that they definitely will respond (unfortunately homeopathic effects as not as deterministic as, say, taking a crude dose of a poison - and even in cases of the latter type there have been many anomalous responses [or lack thereof] reported throughout history), nor that such dosing is not used in homeopathy (giving a correct remedy in high potency daily in a case of cancer is certainly indicated at times - this situation is different from that of a healthy person), nor that I consider this an acid test for homeopathy the failure of which I will have to explain. But I have yet to have anyone take up this challenge so my interpretation is that skeptics are generally afraid or unwilling actually to engage with homeopathy to begin with.
The existence of many patients for whom homeopathy was inefficacious is a fact, as it is with respect to all other forms of medicine, and hence a trivial observation. Your concern with that is that you believe that those patients must have been in the grip of quackery all along and therefore never had any hope of getting better from homeopathy. But what about the patients that do get better from homeopathy (through whatever mechanism, including placebo)? These patients had often been to many sorts of doctors and other practitioners who failed to help them. Ascribing the results that followed homeopathically as "placebo" is, again, akin to ascribing our origins to "God": even if it were true it would still fail to explain the details of the phenomenon. A discussion of homeopathy has to explain, not explain away, the successes, and the previous version was hardly a glossy advertisement considering warnings at the top, links to Quackwatch stuff at the bottom, etc.
As for my own implied conflict of interest: Homeopathy is a passion, not a business, and I openly declared from the beginning what I do (whereas I don't know where you're coming from with your edits): with my naturopathic training I could be making easily 2-3 times more with nutritional protocols and supplements, but that's besides the point. In any case, we all have our life experience that we bring to this, and what enables Wikipedia to work is a collaborative spirit which you seem to disdain.
Davidnortman 20:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comments above still obviate the very issue for the sake of which I started the theme "the bias toward homeopathy". The issue is: whenever I introduce an inconvenient fact, you (and saying 'you' I mean 'all four of you') try to conceal it (deleting or reverting). Let us consider an example. You wrote: "the law of similars derives its justification from its contribution to the clinical results that homeopaths claim". I inserted two examples of questionable therapeutic procedures (paper remedies, distant homeopathy) which base their claims upon the same method of justification. These examples (which are facts, and no POV) show that:

either your statement (and your claim for justification) is false;
or that paper remedies and distant homeopathy are justified as well as homeopathy.

The former conclusion is unacceptable for you. The latter may well be acceptable for you in itself, but such parallels can frighten off a good part of potential clientele. What ploy you resort to? Lee Hunter (whose incessant use of the word POV resembles reciting mantras) removes the embarrassing piece of information under this openly false pretext. Obviously a solution suggested by the homeopathic code of honour.

But your example is a simple logical fallacy. You scour the web to find some nutbar - let's call him Person X - who claims to offer some homeopathic product or service. Then you say that because Person X promotes an obviously nutty idea therefore it follows that all homeopathy is nutty. Your argument would carry more weight if a) person X had some standing in the homeopathic community and b) his techniques had even a passing resemblance to homeopathy as it is normally practised. --Lee Hunter 12:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In a milder form, the same code seems to operate concerning the case of frequent use of very high potencies. The experiment you have been talking of is performed daily, upon patients suffering from trivial diseases (e.g., I saw case histories of chronic lung and skin diseases) - and there happens nothing spectacular. When confronted with the fact, you say you knew it from the very beginning. Then what to think of your challenge: was it a rhetorical figure of speech, or bluffing? Looks rather undignified, again.

Finally, about the number of people who supported your version. Scientists studying the field are numbered by dozens. Homeopaths are numbered by thousands. For a scientist, writing for Wikipedia is non-profitable waste of energy powered by idealistic motives such as, say, aversion to lie. On the other hand, homeopaths as a whole should be well aware that bad publicity is bad for business; they are motivated pragmatically. In addition, the talk_pages can be and are used for self-advertisement. Under the circumstances, it is rather surprising that the ratio is 4:1 and not 40:1. AegeisAegeis 11:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

For LeeHunter personally, spoon-feeding him with the bare scheme of the argument involving paper remedies and distant homeopathy. The argument concerns Davidnortman's statement that "the law of similars derives its justification from its contribution to the clinical results that homeopaths claim". Then I say: "this justification is not much convincing in view of such examples as effectiveness of" paper remedies and distant homeopathy. That is, I do not say that the latters are a part of homeopathy. I say that the justification is based upon the same procedure, and consequently, if homeopathy is vindicated by clinical results, they are vindicated as well. Grasped?

It is curious to observe how people fond of arguing about logical fallacies and the like, cannot catch the meaning of a rather clearly formulated pair of sentences.

Now back to the point. My reasoning is based upon facts, perhaps wrong facts (that is, the published successful results of those suspicious methods of treatment). To disprove it, you should either indicate the difference in the methods of evaluation of clinical results between them and homeopathy resp., or to invalidate their data in some other way. As you cannot do it (not surprisingly, in view of your logical talents), you resort to reversions.

Before continuing the theme, I would like to see that you understood what I said. AegeisAegeis 21:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what you've written. As you say, your sentences are clearly formulated. It's your rhetoric that I have trouble with. You've constructed a straw man argument by saying that the claims of a tiny handful of people selling oddball products are somehow equivalent to the claims of homeopathy. Your argument is clear, your rhetoric is not convincing. --Lee Hunter 22:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Absurdly POV content

Sorry if you think I'm using NPOV like a mantra (it does help me levitate) but you can't put in wildly antagonistic rants like the following and expect them to stay :

In fact, proving protocols look as unordered heaps of disparate sensations and disturbances, many of them accidental, unrelated to the action of the substance. Besides, a great part of the symptoms were obtained on sick persons, with disease symptoms often taken for pathogenetic ones (Hahnemann was first to lapse into this trap - Hughes 1893, p.28 ff.). It is a matter of subjective judgement which symptoms are included into pathogeneses. Still, relevant or not, the chosen symptoms find their way into the homeopathic Materia Medica.

This is simply an uninformed tirade that's trying to slam the Materia Medica for not being something that it's not supposed to be. There's nothing even dimly encyclopedic about it. It belongs in a letter to the editor, not here. --Lee Hunter 12:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Edwardian 16:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
hmmm it misses the many flaws in the whole proving thing. One of these I may get round to mentioning but I think they should be in the Homeopathic proving article rather than here (if only for reasons for space).Geni 00:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

-

Let me preface my comments by stating that I am a critic of homeopathy. I think this article is out of control, is biased, and needs a section that summarizes the criticisms of homeopathy; HOWEVER, I think large additions, removals, and changes should be discussed ahead of time as a courtesy to all who are working on this project. I think more would be accomplished that way rather than in an endless stream of reverts. Edwardian 16:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Aegis, you are counter-productive as you neither get your point across not let us (including yourself) actually make any advances. FYI, in my experience pro-homeopathy editors at any time are outnumbered by anti-homeopathy, roughly 1:2. In any case, Wikipedia is a democratic enterprise, not an aristocratic one (in the sense found in Aristotle's Politics, the rule of the best), meaning that at the end of the day the article might be "wrong" from some absolute point of view, but if it is found to serve the needs of the majority of those who care to contribute to it then it will stand as is by concensus. Please read Wikipedia rules where you will find that consensus is the overarching operative principle.
Please indicate your willingness to cooperate by stopping wholesale editing. Then we could begin to deal one-by-one with your concerns in discussion, as we used to do in the good old days.
Davidnortman 04:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The reformatted version of "Suppression" I inserted is meant as a testing area to try to arrive at a text that would include all the facts we want to acquaint the reader with, unless arguably wrong or insignificant. If this raw draft contains a demonstrably flawed argument, it will be refuted (and consequently removed by consensus) in 3-4-5 days; nothing bad will happen to homeopathy in so short space of time. The procedure you have been using before, that of prior consensus, maybe fits well the interests of like-minded persons, but in case of a serious conflict of views it is likely to lead to endless disputes on secondary details, drowning the main points into verbiage (as instantiated by my wrangling with LeeHunter below).

As I foresee your already made objection that all critical points should be dispatched to the last section, I will answer it in advance. The criticisms of the last section are external to homeopathy: they are based upon experiments which do not depend upon the homeopathic doctrine. The facts I want to familiarize the reader with are results of analysis of the same primary notions of homeopathy that are introduced in the first section; a great part of them was put forward by homeopaths themselves. In a sense, they constitute internal criticism of homeopathy; they are alien to the last section, with its disputes about statistical significances and the like. It would be quite natural to juxtapose pairwise the exposition of homeopathic notions with their critical analyses within the same segments of the text. Such arrangement would allow the reader to form a relatively informed opinion for himself.

The following part concerning paper remedies/distant homeopathy is addressed to LeeHunter in particular. The target of your indignation is my saying that the claims of a tiny handful of people selling oddball products are somehow equivalent to the claims of homeopathy. I repeat my arguments. Premise: to validate their claims, they use the same method as classical homeopaths. Corollary: their claims are equally valid or equally invalid as the claims of classical homeopaths. To refute my argument, you should refute the premise. Instead, you think that to call it "rhetoric" is enough to dismiss it. I can call rhetoric a good part of the section on basic principles; then what? Let us use logic and facts, not labels.AegeisAegeis 22:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your section on suppression is nothing but the same old tired game. You find something in the ancient past or distant fringes of homeopathy and then present it in isolation as if it explains something about homeopathy today. It's no different than trying to discredit mainstream medicine by scouring the textbooks of 200 years ago. There are many theories that doctors had in those days which look foolish in hindsight.
Re. your paper remedy thing. I don't see any reason to address your premise at all. It's your conclusion based on your dubious interpretation of the methods of unrelated parties. In other words it is simply your original research and therefore doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Lee Hunter 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
the problem with your argument is that a)there have been no significant widely accpeted changes in the theory of homeopathy for 200 years. and b#0 Hanneman is hardly a findge figure.Geni 11:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with most of the last edit it is much better than the previous juggernaut. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by not reverting for now, but instead address the points raised, to which you can then reply.

But first, regarding the points in the comments above: I still don't get the logical structure of your comment about the law of similars. I originally inserted the sentence you are concerned with precisely in order to point of that the law of similars is not a simple law in the sense used in physics, but is more of an assumption made by homeopaths which leads to their claimed clinical success (and given that this point is rarely made by proponents of homeopathy, if anything it is more anti- than pro-homeopathy). This is no different from the structure of quantum mechanics with its several basic postulates which have no independent proof outside of the explanatory and technological successes of QM, or all branches of mathematics for that matter. Just because someone else claims the law of similars as part of an explanation has no bearing on homeopaths' claims: if Socrates claims to be mortal by referring to the fact that drinking Hemlock would kill him, and subsequently Zeus makes the same claim, it doesn't follow that Socrates is wrong. Another example: A physicist claims such and such evidence for relativity. A mystic provides an alternate, mumbo-jumbo explanation of why relativity is true. Accordinlg to your logic relativity would then stand or fall based on the correctness of the mystic's claims!? As I see it the logical structure is as follows: "If there is clinical success using [mainstream] homeopathy then this provides support for the law of similars." Now let's say that someone says: "If there is clinical success using paper remedies then this provides support for the law of similars." First possibility: paper remedies are inefficacious so the premise doesn't obtain. Second possibility: the conclusion is incorrect; why not: "If there is clinical success... support for action at a distance." [Just an example because I've only heard of them being used for long-distance treatment.] In other words, the syllogism never exists in isolation, and your argument is only as strong as your ability to exclude alternative hypotheses and discussing the relevance of the syllogism in the grand scheme of things. Which brings me to the point raised in the edit:

Hahnemann's concept of suppression is supported by multifaceted evidence. I don't know my Hahnemann well (my orientation is clinical-philosophical rather tahn historical), but I believe that evidence for suppression was brought up first and mainly in the context of psora (suppression of various skin complaints that today would be identified as allergies and superficial infections), and sycosis (stuff known today as herpes, warts, etc.). The importance of syphilis was in its being treated routinely with mercury which created its own horrible side effects, including brain damage at least as bad as that that took place under tertiary syphilis. What Hahnemann himself derived from observation of syphilis is that doses had to be reduced, not that mercury was suppressive per se: accordingly, mercury became the main "anti-syphilitic" remedy in early homeopathy and was used precisely to cure syphilis, i.e. mercury was homeopathic and not antipathic/allopathic vis-a-vis syphilis. So I believe your point is simply incorrect when taken in context as opposed to in isolation, even if Hahnemann might indeed have said something incorrect about this somewhere. Finally, add to that subsequent clinical observation, including the medically recognized relation between eczema and asthma (and the tendency of asthma to appear after corticosteroid treatment of eczema, and to improve as steroid treatment is withdrawn and skin lesions return), and you've got a robust clinical claim that cannot stand or fall depending on the correctness of one sentence in one book.

But you choose to ignore the full context of the evolution of the concept of suppression and focus on the wrong bit as though it were the whole, in exactly the same manner as you did with Hughes on the Quinine experiment. Moreover, as I wrote above, the argument itself is only as good insofar as it has dealt with alternative hypotheses. Just one thing that comes to mind: it depends on the natural history of syphilis back in Hahnemann's time and place being identical to that recorded in modern medical textbooks. But disease patterns evolve as a rule, and it may well have been that untreated primary syphilis (the "chancre") in Hahnemann's time was chronic rather than sponteneously remittent after a few weeks as recorded in modern textbooks. I have no idea whether this was the case, but the point is that in order to make your argument as forceful as you would like it is encumbent on you to provide evidence regarding the natural history of syphilis in early 19th-century Germany/France. Finally, although I have no issue with the section in which your comments are placed, apart from the first sentence you added everything would have to follow the explanation of what suppression is claimed to be, otherwise you are criticizing something which hasn't yet been defined. In that context I don't understand why you took out the example in the middle of the original paragraph: I like conciseness but an example is helpful to explain an otherwise abstract concept.

Looking forward to some sane discussion!
Davidnortman 21:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, this is PhatRita, back from sorting out his accommodation at uni. I seem to have missed one hell of a storm! I will just add to this argument with responses to points made from the previous topic above (the bias towards homeoapthy). I apologise in advnace to everyone if I make a point which has already been put across or is in some other way redundant - catching up is a bit intense.
Firstly, DavidNortman, I did not intend to change your edit, but was reverting user: Aegeis' edit. I apologise to you for that.
Secondly, to Aegeis - please acknowlege that Wikipedia is a compromising battleground. Sure, you have to fight for your points to come across, but that does not mean they will not coem across. I find that you yourself will get a more balanced and fair view if you discuss with others. Unreasonable points, however will not be tolerated. Your edits, even if they are right (which I feel are not), are too much to place without at least consulting and justifying your points to other edtors. Without such actions, on a topic clearly labelled as controversial and with a NOPV tag, massive editing would even be considered rude by some editors.
It's good to be back - PhatRita 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for delayed answer (unforeseen lack of time).

First, let us make clear some procedural issues which are being misinterpreted or distorted. Concerning POV/NPOV, the respective Wikipedia article says that "all articles should be written from a neutral point of view", specifying: "without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly". However, the section on the basic principles sets forth the point of view of homeopathic practitioners exclusively. The results of their scientific analysis were not even mentioned. In particular, there was no mention of some issues cardinal from the scientific standpoint. Namely, a) that entries of the homeopathic materia medica are not determined by proving protocols; b) that Hahnemann's original idea sprang from an erroneous interpretation of his Cinchona experiment; c) that the notions of suppression and miasm have no real (physiological) counterpart; d) that throughout its history, the homeopathic doctrine was steadily drifting into obscurantism, with the Swedenborgian influence and the New Age infiltration representing two most poweful waves.

It is even more so intolerable in view of the clarification of the Wikipedian rules made in the above-quoted article in relation to pseudo-sciences: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories".

I did not notice the NPOV tag PhatRita repeatedly said of; but if it exists, it is placed here illegitimetely, and should be removed until the bias is corrected.

Second, concerning the principles of correction of the already compiled version of the text. As PhatRita put it, "you have to fight for your points to come across... Unreasonable points, however will not be tolerated." You miss one thing: we all are in an equal, symmetrical position. You have to fight your already made points as well, and the points which seem to be unreasonable to any newcomer, will not be tolerated by that newcomer; such is the nature of Wikipedia. No previous agreements oblige newcomers to accept them.

This stated, I return to the specific points at issue. Geni had indicated some flaws in the objections made on the subject of suppression; but I will expand on the subject. The notion of suppression was introduced into homeopathy by Hahnemann; his own example (that of hard chancre) shows that he was in a complete error. (I will not dwell upon the suggestion that "untreated primary syphilis in Hahnemann's time was chronic rather than spontaneously remittent" so as not to use excessively harsh words; there is a huge literature on the subject). And Hahnemann did not consider mercury to be suppressive in syphilis; please read his paper in the Lesser Writings, p.646. Then, only two points remain relevant. First, concerning "the full context of the evolution of the concept of suppression", which implies that Hahnemann's concept was later substituted. What is missing here is reference: when, where, by whom, and what is the new definition. The same applies to your statement about "the medically recognized relation between eczema and asthma". Please produce quotations from reputable medical journals; after that, the discussion will certainly take a more productive turn.

Now to your assertion that "the law of similars derives its justification from its contribution to the clinical results that homeopaths claim". Or, as you see it the logical structure is as follows: "If there is clinical success using homeopathy then this provides support for the law of similars." OK. Now consider the assertions: "if there is clinical success using paper remedies then this provides support for the effectiveness of paper remedies", and "if there is clinical success using distant homeopathy then this provides support for the effectiveness of distant homeopathy". OK? Then, if we are confident that the latter methods are patent quackery, we should infere that clinical success as such cannot serve as a proof of any doctrine behind the therapeutic approach. Why? Because moderate therapeutic successes may be due to non-specific factors: psychological dependency, predominantly hysterical patients, unintended use of expectancy tactics, change of regimen, and so on. (And they are moderate for homeopathy as a whole, as shown by inconclusive results of controlled clinical trials.)

I repeat: I do not say that paper remedies, distant homeopathy, Bach essences, anthroposophic medicine, and similar kinds of outright quackery are based upon the same theoretical method as homeopathy. I say that they use the same method of justification of their respective doctrines. This way, they compromise the meta-methodics they share with homeopathy. Your example about a physicist and a mystic ("A physicist claims such and such evidence for relativity. A mystic provides an alternate, mumbo-jumbo explanation of why relativity is true.") goes in quite another direction: they propose different explanations for the same thing, whereas in case of classical and distant homeopathy the same method of validation is used for different things.

I think it is a sufficient explanation for the correspondent paragraphs to be reinstated.

Finally, in foresight of an imminent dispute on some other matters, may I ask you to elucidate some minor phrases which baffle me? For the time being, I will quote only three:

As regards "the first and most important "natural law" expressed by Hahnemann", what are other laws expressed by Hahnemann?
What are "the symptoms on spiritual level"?
As regards "a homeopathic repertory is an index of the Materia Medica, namely a listing of symptoms followed by remedies known to cure them", are they indeed mostly cured symptoms?

I do not ask for a speedy answer; I have very little spare time myself. AegeisAegeis 12:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


Please do not twist my words for your own use.
As PhatRita put it, "you have to fight for your points to come across... Unreasonable points, however will not be tolerated." You miss one thing: we all are in an equal, symmetrical position. You have to fight your already made points as well, and the points which seem to be unreasonable to any newcomer, will not be tolerated by that newcomer; such is the nature of Wikipedia. No previous agreements oblige newcomers to accept them.
My meaning is that unreasonable points are decided by the democratic idea of wikipedia, ie the masses. A single person deciding what is right and what is wrong, as you are suggesting is what can only be described as a tyrant (in the ancient Greek sense of the word).
I dont really wish to get entangled in this argument, however, one comment bothers me:
Then, if we are confident that the latter methods are patent quackery, we should infere that clinical success as such cannot serve as a proof of any doctrine behind the therapeutic approach. Why? Because moderate therapeutic successes may be due to non-specific factors: psychological dependency, predominantly hysterical patients, unintended use of expectancy tactics, change of regimen, and so on. (And they are moderate for homeopathy as a whole, as shown by inconclusive results of controlled clinical trials.)
Assuming you know that most if not all trials these days are placebo controlled,
from your comments, you can either
  • infer that some (if not all) of these trials are poorly conducted, which means that your comment on inconclusive results is invalid anyway - poor trials cannot lead to ANY conclusion, such as that homeopathy = placebo/nonspecific effects cannot be true because the evidence is unreliable and can lead to BOTH positive and negative results anyway, whether the healing effect is non specific or not.
  • or that almost or all trials are well conducted, in which case there is still mixed results. This would be inexplicable because well conducted trials should be consistently replicable. The fact that some trials, and good trials at that do show a positive for homeaopthy suggests that this is not the case. However, if it were the case, and the trials are thorough and rigorous, then the evidence base process itself is no longer reliable, in which case no conclusions can be made of homeaopthy, or of anything for that matter. (heads I win, tails you lose).
lastly, your comment:
I do not ask for a speedy answer; I have very little spare time myself.
and yet you most definitely do have time to wage a revert war and make huge edits repeatedly. I think it is a matter of courtesy and respect to fellow users that you should consult them before making major edits in a clearly labelled controversial topic. It doesnt matter if you think you are right or not.
PhatRita 00:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to Lancet study

This is from the linked "Response from critics of the [Lancet] study":

Dr. Rustum Roy, Ph.D. distinguished material scientist from Penn State University commented that the chemistry argument made in this study and by conventional medicine in general is false science. "The underpinning of the editorial content of the Lancet as it relates to homeopathy relies on a quaint old idea from the nineteenth century that the ONLY way that the property of water can be affected or changed is by incorporating foreign molecules.
"This is the Avogadro-limit high-school level chemistry argument. To a materials scientist this notion is absurd, since the fundamental paradigm of materials-science is that the structure-property relationship is the basic determinant of everything. It is a fact that the structure of water and therefore the informational content of water can be altered in infinite ways."

I must say I have no idea what this means. Can anybody explain this to me as a layman? --Ryano 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

it means they are not preparded to accept reality. No one has been able to provide a beliverble mechanism for the memory of water.Geni 17:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
A material scientist deals with the solid state, in which a collection of molecules can have drastically different properties, depending on the way they are put together. The best example is diamond vs. graphite, both made of pure carbon. The molecules in liquids are constantly rearranging themselves, so they cannot store information in their structure. Roy's argument is nonsense. --Art Carlson 19:00, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
itis a strawman anyway since the study deals only with clinical trials.Geni 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The study would do nothing to change the staus quo either - skeptics will be more skeptical, proponents will just say it is simply the latest in a long line of reviews which have yielded both positives and negatives. It is intersting that the resulting conclusion came only when the researchers neglected studies which they thought to be poor quality. PhatRita 00:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
not really the same thing has been found in the past.Geni 08:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


well past authors used the poor quality trials and then said the results were not reliable and needed more proof for a firm conclusion. This current study excludes poor trials and uses only a few good ones, probably with a significant amount of statistical overhaul (ie possibly cutting out further results). I don't really know who to trust - the ones with poor evidence or the ones with selective evidence. PhatRita 22:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Dr. Roy's arguments are, at best, specious. I seem to remember that he was arguing that epitaxy could explain why water could retain a memory of material dissolved in it. Not a very convincing theory. --24.87.210.3 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Inline Reference Links

The inline reference link numbers don't match the numbered list given. I suggest using the method at Wikipedia:Footnote2, and I'm happy to do the legwork. I know this is a much-edited topic, so I don't want to leap in without warning. Any objections? SeventyThree(Talk) 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure: we need that cleaned up. So long as it is a system that will not fall apart again once further references are added (not necessarily following existing ones but anywhere on the page), as the page you cited mentions several possibilites - perhaps include the code you're using here for our future reference. We are currently recuperating following some feverish and not very fruitful activity on this page lately, so it's a good time to step in :-)
Davidnortman 04:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
That's why I'm using Wikipedia:Footnote2 rather than Wikipedia:Footnote3 (the more recent version). Footnote2 doesn't autonumber the links in any way, so they can't get out of synch. The only problem I can see with using this is that the references in the text will not always be in order (due to people inserting footnotes). This isn't a big problem, because most people will just follow the footnote and ignore the name of it. Anyway, to add a foonote using this scheme:
  • Place {{fn|12}} in the main text (like this{{fn|12}}), replacing 12 with the next footnote number to be used.
  • In the 'References' section of the article, add a new entry using *{{fnb|12}} Description, with the Description formatted as per Wikipedia:Cite sources. This should look like:
    • {{fnb|12}} SeventyThree (2005), How to make references.
Hope this helps. SeventyThree(Talk) 14:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Article is way too pro-homeopathy

Considering the fact that homeopathy is completely unproven and has failed several double-blind studies (including James Randi's $1,000,000 challenge) I have to agree that this article is way too biased toward homeopathy. AFAIK, every properly-conducted double-blind study has shown no statistical difference between homeopathy and placebo. Besides that, physics/chemistry as we know it does not allow for molecules to "imprint" themselves in liquid water. Homeopathy is complete scam and has never cured anyone. The placebo effect, however, has. 66.215.44.176 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is more-or-less NPOV (though definitely a work in progress). Your assessment seems to come from your prior knoweldge or opinion, which this article seeks to remedy, e.g., by presenting references to (or articles containing refereces to) properly-conducted double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials showing positive results, of which there is a handful or two. James Randi's challenge is way too politically charged to be a high-level arbiter of truth; I see his name splashed about liberally like a generic noun, but as far as I know no one has ever passed his "preliminary tests", and since the decision whether to proceed with the actual test is his organization's alone it is he might be playing a power game. He performs a valuable service through educating the public in scientific literacy, but this doesn't make him am expert on all things controversial. (Nevertheless, James Randi is mentioned in the article.) Finally, this article contains information on potnetial mechanism of action. So after one reads the article there are two conclusions possible: the article is too pro-homeopathy because it is written pro-homeopathy; or that it is pro-homeopathy because more evidence for homeopathy is presented than the average reader is familiar with or expects. In any case it encourages the inquisitive reader to continue to research this subject matter rather than make a hasty conclusion in either direction.
Davidnortman 03:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Suppression

Following an edit by Aegis which was actually retained because it was made with rare civility, I finally got a chance to look through at Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases which is the main place where he discusses miasms. He discusses skin manifestations which he variously classifies as psoric, sycotic, and syphilitic numerous times across many pages. The issue with syphilis from what I found is that in one paragraph he makes the definite mistake of referring to syphilis as an "unchanging" disease whose cause is suppression of the chancre (a skin lesion). (In the same paragraph he discusses sycosis (fig-wart, gonorrhea) for which these same claims would be far more acceptable.) I tried to include this fact while not distorting it out of proportion, as it represents one piece of a bigger argument (to which I refer the reader) and such inconsistencies are regularly found in historical literature of all kind. I don't think a modern-day homeopath would claim that excising a chancre causes progression of the disease; rather, that the treatment was suppressive in the sense that it made the symptom go away without curing the underlying disease - this notion of suppression is indeed described in the current version; and the notion of suppression rests on many other skin affections than syphilis.
The quote may or may not be from the pages I mentioned: I couldn't find the exact text (could be due to variance in translation or I didn't look enough) but the exact idea is found in the mentioned footnote even if worded differently. My search thus far didn't include the Organon where Hahnemann also discusses miasms, where he might have repeated the error; the quote might be from there.
Davidnortman 05:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I retained your version of Suppression unchanged (while reverting all other parts of the Basic notions) in reciprocation of your civility. I had not time right now to scrutinize your text and your present message; I will answer you in two days time. I invite you to proceed in the same manner with other paragraphs of the section. (Being accustomed to silly reversions by LeeHunter who merely does not understand what arguments are about, I reverted the text simultaneously with making additions on psychogeny in provings; only then I saw your insertion, and reinstalled it.) The quote is from Lesser Writings: On the Venereal Disease and its Ordinary Improper Treatment. AegeisAegeis 21:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You persist in trying to make massive all-or-nothing changes to this article, dumping months of work by a number of editors (achieved through a great deal of haggling and compromise), losing dozens of corrections and clarifications while introducing an unrelentingly judgemental POV and a distorted view of homeopathy. If you don't obtain some degree of consensus on the talk page, your changes will naturally be reverted. --Lee Hunter 13:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Aegeis, I find your edits difficult to read and somewhat boring. You use words such as "naive" and "disparate" which not only furthers this effect but also create the issue of non neutral POV. The edits are a continuous scathing attack on homeopathy and you make sure that all the negative points are mentioned for every subject. No wonder the other editors will continuously revert your edits. Dont you think this is kind of childish and what do you hope to achieve? Maybe you should try auditioning for writing for Quackwatch, I hear they love this kind of stuff. PhatRita 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


To Davidnortman. The subsection in your wording is, to use your own terminology, still completely POV.

First, it is untrue that Hahnemann listed numerous cases in support of the notion of suppression. When you re-read them, you will see that all of them are his erroneous interpretations only (if you object, please adduce a counter-example).

Second, you do not specify whether present-day homeopaths invoke this notion in its original form, or modified. If in its original form, they resort to a non-existing mechanism in building their theory.

Third, it is ridiculous for homeopaths to claim that the idea that symptoms are not in themselves the disease is a distinctive property of the homeopathic doctrine. Nobody asserts that, say, skin symptoms of diabetes are diseases in themselves.

Fourth, concerning the assertion that in case of disappearance of a symptom ... this could instead indicate a weakening of the organism's ability to express the symptom, and because the underlying disturbance is still present, sooner or later it is expressed as a symptom elsewhere in the organism. It rests upon your bare word until you give some (physiologically) convincing examples.

Fifth, the same concerns the tendency of past skin manifestations to reappear transiently following successful homeopathic prescribing. To convince, there must be statistics, not mere clinical observations, elusive and never verified (such is the homeopathic tradition).

Sixth, concerning the use of corticosteroid treatment. It is an example of shuffling of notions, because immuno-suppression has nothing to do with Hahnemann's suppression.

Seventh, concerning the paragraph beginning with critics point out. The worth of a notion does not depend upon who says what; what assert proponents and what critics point out; its worth depends upon its internal consistency/inconsistency and its conformity to facts. Such contraposition creates an illusion of double truth, it obfuscates the main question whether the notion of suppression has some factual (physiological) meaning, or it is a fully outdated notion like phlogiston.

All in all, your version presents a conceptual superstition as an established, verified fact; and that is why it is biased toward homeopathy.

I will answer the earlier points in overarching terms: there are unresolvable differences between us about what constitues sufficient evidence, etc. - but this is why two sides are presented in the text, and in the one case where you introduced your changes to one section (thereby impying good will on your part as well as making it technically possible to edit step-by-step without erasing previous material. So we have "homeopaths believe..." and "critics point out..." because two sides are represented, whereas you insist on a single-sided presentation which is not agreed upon by anyone else as being NPOV.
Specific replies to one point: I am fully aware that I used "suppression" in two different senses but couldn't come up with a better solution at the time: the idea I wanted to get across is that corticosteroid treatment is typically the most suppressive of conventional treatments (in the homeopathic sense of the term), but added the more modern point of view that success of homeopathic treatment is dependent on a functioning immune system (this point is not scientifically proven but part of the current lore of homeopathy which is represented in the article). I will very much welcome a suggestion on your part about improving this sentence.
Davidnortman 04:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Aegeis' contributions

It is interesting that PhatRita noticed the similarity between Aegis' approach and that of QuackWatch. I myself had the exact same thought a few days ago, seeing that Aegis combines a detailed knowledge of technical homeopathic literature with an unqualified vehemence for it. This is reminiscent of QuackWatch's army of talented academics who are able to expend the time necessary to achieve excellent command of the literature and produce meticulously reserached yet totally biased reports (a study that goes unmentioned here, an out-fo-context quote there, etc.).

My call to Aegis, therefore, is: Identify yourself! Make a personal page and let us know who you are. Objectivity is not about anonymity but about open declaration of personal bias - even the medical journals have adopted this approach. I feel justified in making an accusation of vandalism because at this point not only have you not been following the spirit of the law (while adhering to its letter): at this point you have shown ill-will on multiple occasions and an almost-complete disregard for the human aspect of this endeavour. You have essentially been applying the same "Homeopathy sucks!" edit in more subtle form. Such edits are typically considered vandalism (along with "Homeopathy rules!", of course).

I will close with a philosophical note: Truth is second only to human life. It is not true that the pursuit of truth justifies running over people. Enough said!
Davidnortman 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this user's contributions, and it doesn't seem to me there's any reason for you to make the attack that s/he is vandalizing the article. That is a serious charge here, and using it baselessly is a grave attack against your fellow editor's character. It looks to me more like you have a plain ol' ordinary content dispute -- something that can happen easily among good-faith editors who come from very different points of view.
I'd also like to express full and complete support for any good-faith editor who chooses to edit anonymously. Openness is part of what makes Wikipedia work, and that includes openness to people who don't feel like baring their entire lives to the review of, well, anyone really. Recently, there has been a spate of nastiness elsewhere in the project where one editor chose to reveal personal information about others for the purpose of harassment -- so right now, pushing people to expose themselves is not looking like a great idea.
An aside: It's been my observation on several occasions that editors who use violent metaphors (such as your "running over people") to describe other people's words, often have a seriously hard time cooperating with people with whom they disagree. It makes sense -- if you seriously thought that "human life" was under threat by your fellow editor's contributions, then you would be justified in radical behavior. However, there's no "human life" under threat here. No "running people over" is taking place. So the threatened stance is unjustified, and just makes it harder to work together. Please consider dropping the vocabulary of violence from the way you describe your fellow editors' work.
Okay, enough of that. Back to the article. It seems to me that it would be valuable if both of you would contribute cited information to the article. Aegeis has mentioned sources above, which could be worked into the article in a way which cites them as references so that anyone can refer to them and check the facts. It would be great if those ended up in the article. I'm sure you have some too. Right now, the top several sections are looking mighty sparse with the references, and the best way to get this article out of content dispute and back on track might well be to get some more. --FOo 06:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the candour of your comments, FOo, however I feel that the field of literature in alternative medicine is completely untrustworthy. Reviews constantly yield mixed results. There are accusations of bias and error on both sides. The evidence base is constantly in flux. You could write a perfectly good essay completely trashing homeopathy and one completely lauding its virtues using references using GOOD studies published in GOOD journals.
As to the openness issue, I think that DavidNortman is just trying to welcome Aegeis into this topic and establish him as a credible author to contribute to the group as someone who seems to know what he is talking about. No malice is intended.
As to the vandalism issues, I have to agree somewhat with DavidNortman. Aegeis is disregarding the views of the other authors with his inflammatory edits which are constantly reverted. He fails to defend against basic points and his edits do contain non NPOV content. There are also controversy and NNPOV tags on the page and it is considered wikiquette to inform and discuss with others when making major edits, which he has not done. All in all I and I'm sure several other editors will feel somewhat....disrespected. PhatRita 12:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, lots of things to respond to there. First off, I agree with you that the field is a mess of bias and controversy, and that it's quite difficult to sort out trustworthy from untrustworthy sources. Nonetheless, Cite your sources is a Wikipedia rule, which doesn't change when we're dealing with a messy field. Right now, this article is in pretty serious violation of that rule -- the first entry in References is about halfway through the article, suggesting that the top half is in dire need of sources.
(Good-faith source criticism is generally more useful than personal attacks. It may seem no more productive in producing a stable article, but at least it's less likely to get people riled up.)
I agree with you that the contributors to this page are not cooperating very well with each other. Reverting each other is a pretty solid sign of that. However, it doesn't make sense to lay the whole weight of that charge on Aegeis and to call it "vandalism". Vandalism means something pretty specific on Wikipedia, and I just don't see it on this article recently.
Accusations are rarely an effective way to elicit someone's better cooperation and behavior. They're more often effective to try to run someone off, or to provoke them into bad behavior. So if Davidnortman intends to "welcome Aegeis into this topic and establish him as a credible author" I'm sure there are more effective ways to do so than to throw around the "V" word. --FOo 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My accusation was intended to be inflammatory. My own history shows that I am fully respectful of those with opposing views and in fact end up incorporating criticisms into the text as I have done with one of Aegis' edits that was done in good faith (i.e. it didn't change the article across the board, making it impossible to edit responsibly, but stuck to one point). Frankly at this point I don't mind scaring Aegis away despite the loss of his valuable knowledge given his attitude, which in any case cannot get any more adversarial than it has been (so I am not worrying about resultant "bad behaviour." My intention is simply to set the limits on unacceptable etiquette. I have shown by example that I welcome Aegis' contribution when made in good faith.
Davidnortman 19:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that in deliberately making inflammatory accusations, and in attempting to scare off a contributor, you are acting in violation of Wikipedia policy. I advise you to stop. If you seriously believe that Aegeis is carrying out vandalism against this article, there are any number of dispute resolution mechanisms available. Trying to run someone off with inflammatory behavior is not one of them.
If it were the case that one of you were replacing feature-quality encyclopedia material with biased trash, I would see a vandalism problem here. What I see instead is a few people squabbling over an uncited piece of text. I strongly suspect that if you both get your cite on and start replacing the disputed sections with usefully referenced work, the article will get a lot better. And that's what we're here for. --FOo 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue with Aegis goes back a few weeks - please review the history back to peobably no less than 150-200 edits ago. It is not the edits themselves as much as that the same sweeping edits have been applied repeatedly even after being reverted by multiple people on both sides of the debate, in utter disregard of anything that's ever happened here before. Anonymous contributors regularly edit the article and manage to do so respectfully; I don't see why this requirement should not apply to everyone, hence my suspicion.
Davidnortman 20:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your concern is fair. Nevertheless -- setting aside all personality and ego issues -- reverting back to a passage that has no more citations to defend it is hardly better than the replacement of that passage to begin with. Having compared some of these various versions, I really don't see much difference in overall comprehensiveness. It's quite possible I've missed something, maybe many things. All these versions seem to make passing reference to sources, but fail to actually cite them -- giving the reader no clue exactly how to find the work of (e.g.) von Bacody, Korsakov, Jenichen, the American Institute of Homoeopathy, Hering, or Vithoulkas. (In some cases, nothing but the surname is given.) In order for any version of this article to be defensible, it needs to stand on its sources, not just that some editor (you or Aegeis or me or anyone) likes it. --FOo 00:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

On reversion and citations

I apologize for the seeming crudeness of reverting Davidnortman's reversion of the article. The reason I did it was, however, relatively simple. The previous version (the one I restored) at least contained hints of where to find the sources that supported its claims -- usually, just the surnames or the names of organizations, rather than proper citations. However, the previous version contained many fewer suggestions of citations.

Also, there are interesting details such as "paper remedies" covered in the reverted version which were not covered in the previous. Note that this was a cited claim (albeit only by way of a URL, not a proper citation) which the reversion deleted entirely.

I encourage all contributors here to cite sources when making improvements to the article. In the absence of cited sources, there is no way to defend a particular disputed claim, since Wikipedia policy forbids original research. The only way the present difficulties will pass is if the wholesale deletion is replaced with editing to cite sources.

I will now go through the two versions and see if there are any paragraphs which can be included from the older one without deleting (half-assed-)cited claims or other useful material. --FOo 17:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

when it comes to alternative medicine, internet sources are more of a burden than asset in terms of reliablility. Reverting one version which does not contains such sources for another which does is not right, and certainly not right when several editors who regularlay contribute to the topic oppose the second version. I suggest you take a closer look at the new edits and just get a feel for the language - such as "senile" descibing hahnemann. PhatRita 21:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Merger complete. At least, attempted to be so. I've tried to integrate paragraphs from the two versions of the article without deleting the semi-cited claims this time.

There are certainly still some NPOV rough spots -- I did delete the comment about Hahnemann being "senile" at the time of his devising of the miasm conjecture, since it was somewhat hostile and not cited.

However, I hope that the present state of the integrated two versions can serve as a basis for some cooperation now rather than deleting one another's work? --FOo 18:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have conducted a mjor review of the first few sections. I cant believe that you thought the version you came up with was balanced. It was a bottomless pit of agenda charged anti homeopathy. It was also inacessible and REALLY REALLY BORING.
I also feel there is way too much stuff on the page and could do with some serious trimming. PhatRita 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
My version was certainly not intended to be a final one, or a solution to NPOV problems -- it was intended to be a rough paragraph-by-paragraph merger of the two versions that Davidnortman and Aegeis were revert-warring over. The point was to defuse the conflict by putting all the content on the article, so that it could be worked out more productively.
I certainly agree (as I mentioned above) that there were remaining NPOV rough spots, and that some sections are both long and dry. This is in part because I put paragraphs from both versions together, even when they were somewhat redundant, chiefly because there were points that one made that the other did not.
By the way, why did you delete the section on Korsakov's dry grafting?
In 1832, Korsakov described the method known now as dry grafting. A single dry globule of a potentized remedy is put in a bottle half-filled with sugar globules. The bottle is shaken for five minutes, and this way all the globuli should acquire the property to exert the influence of the initial remedy upon organism, "as if by contagion", as he put it. Hahnemann approved of the idea, saying that it "is a sort of infection, bearing a strong resemblance to the infection of healthy persons by a contagion brought near or in contact with them".
--FOo 00:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


I trust that your intentions are genuine. However, to add material from both edits simply adds unacceptable material on both sides of the coin, ie no one likes the edit. The original edits were hammered out over a very long time and with agreement from all perspectives. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the Aegeis edits which are simply inflammatory. PhatRita 12:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And yes I did delete the Korsakoff paragraph. I feel these tiny details of homeopathic practises which are not used by the majority of homeoapths (see DavidNortman's section below) should be eliminated. PhatRita 12:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

latest edits

Hanneman published a book called "organon of the medical art" (ok probably whatever that is in german) there are many organons I've never run across any evidence that hanneman published a book under that name.Geni 00:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There were about 6 or 7 versions of that book but they are collectively known as the organon, at least in my reading. There are many spearate translations such as organon of the healing art, organon of medicine. PhatRita 12:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Out-of-control situation

I am sorry to have reverted but even though the final version was barely salvageable and even though the intention was to offer a good platform, because there are major concerns that are simply not being discussed as they should be, and we cannot spend hours trying to resurrect good sections that were erased or completely changed. The POV banner requests that substantial changes be discussed first and this is not being respected.

My concerns are:

  • Citations: More citations are certainly needed but obviously POV, cited versions are worse than uncited versions that have been worked on by several people on both sides. Moreover, not every tiny detail can be cited, this is not a physics paper. It is not important to cite where information on Korsakoff potencies comes from because there is no dispute about how they are prepared, the description can simply be made and left at that. In any case, the need for citations doesn't trump the principle of discussing substantial changes prior to applying them, or after applying them in an isolated manner so that they can be edited.
  • Are we writing about homeopathy or about the early literature of homeopathy? The two are two different things except the latter appears, to the arm-chair reseracher, to be equivalent to the former. Certain aspects of the old literature are prominent in modern homeopathy, others are not. Pointing out mistakes and speculations in the old literature is like going back to the writings of Pasteur and Koch (surely giants of conventional medicine) and pointing out incorrect or speculative material as criticism in the article on medicine. Moreover, as PhatRita pointed out, such facts are boring in the sense that they are academic minutiae that bear no relation to other parts of the article.
  • Article should reflect range and frequency of beliefs in the homeopathic community, e.g.:
    • Paper remedies are not homeopathy. I've met hundreds of homeopaths and maybe a handful of them have tried this, typically when the patient didn't have a remedy at hand in an acute situation over the phone. None of them actually regarded this as homeopathy but as distance healing (for which there is interesting scientific evidence so they're not necessarily freaks). I personally do not use such methods but see no threat from them that these will become homeopathy, because they are not.
    • Dry grafting: I've only met one homeopath who's tried it. I certainly wouldn't bother hedging my bets on it (though given that water vapour is in some equilibrium between the pellets and the air in the closed container I wouldn't be surprised if such a method worked). I along with every homeopath I know but the one strictly use alcohol in grafting despite being aware of the dry grafting method.

Using these examples in a general article on homeopathy is like discrediting psychiatry by describing how psychiatrists use past-life regression. A significant minority of psychiatrists have experimented with this (sorry I don't have a citation at the moment but there are enough books on the topic by psychiatrists to lend support to my point): does that imply anything about psychiatry per se?

Next, there are lots of strong yet unsubstantiated claims in the edited versions, such as that "every time" the Cinchona experiment was repeated it failed to produce Hahnemann's results. I would like to see a reference pointing out multiple experiments in order to make such a strong statement (instead of, say, that the experiment was repeated [citation] but failed to show an effect).

Next, the comments about provings and repertories show an ignorance of homeopathy. Provings looks disordered heaps to a non-homeopath just as Chinese letters seem to lack logic to an English speaker. Similarly, repertories are not simply indexes of symptoms (even though a simple description of homeopathy might say that - but we are trying to be more sophisticated here: if you wicsh you can criticize popularizations of homeopathy as being grossly inadequate, and I would tend to agree about that). Boenninghausen's repertory, for example, uses a principle of generalization to say that if, say, a remedy has 3 symptoms that are of sharp quality, that the remedy can be added to the (synthetic) rubric Sharp so that if a patient happens to have sharp symptoms but in other locations than in the original provins (since no proving can capture all possible variations of all symptoms) the remedy won't be missed in the analysis. Every competent user of the repertory understands that the symptom is not directly from the proving. Moreover, there has been an ongoing coordinated effort over the past 10 years (now that computer technology can make it happen) to clean up inconsistencies and errors in repertories, connect every remedy in every symptom to the original citation, etc., so that even a novice user can see the provenance of the remedy occurrence. This system is already fully operational in the latest Synthesis repertory (version 9.1) which is one of the two leading ones in use. This effort demostrates that homeopaths themselves are concerned about the uncontrolled expansion of data without concurrent quality control, but imperfections in a very complex tool are not grounds for dismissing its validity, just as side-effects of medications are not per se grounds for not using them but rather are grounds for caution and using clinical judgement in every case.

We need to be able to discuss edits, so I ask everyone to make at most a substantial change to one sub-section at a time, explain the rationale in Talk if necessary, and wait for responses and edits. (If I had the time after writing such long notes I would myself go into previous versions to dig up criticisms and try to incorporate them, and if there is a lull I or others might just get around to that, but obviously their author should best do this.) After there is general agreement on that section we can then move on to another one and in no time we will have many of Aegis' criticisms incorporated into the article, just as the criticism of suppression has been incorporated in no time after just such a localized edit was made. If there are concerns about citations then requests should be made for adding them, rather than the material erased. Erasing uncited material throughout Wikipedia would decimate the whole project - but, on the positive side, make the servers less overloaded (at least as experienced from my end) than they have been lately!
Davidnortman 04:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a little difficulty understanding how you think that "we need to be able to discuss edits", but by reverting you seem to be continuing a fruitless revert war. Although you are rather better at explaining what you are up to than Aegeis, from my perspective I'm having some difficulty telling the difference in your editing -- you both seem to be in the habit of reverting the article to Your Version and denouncing the other person's.
I actually agree with a lot of your points above. I'm personally a skeptic of homeopathy along with a hell of a lot of the rest of "alternative medicine", simply for the absence of credible physical mechanisms or available evidence from people who don't have a stake in it. It all looks like so much faith healing to me. But just as we need to have accurate, high-quality articles on astrology and magick and everyone's different religion, we need an accurate and high-quality one here too.
But there's still a problem of making a stable article here, and that means getting out of the reverting back and forth. You call the work from the merged version an "out of control situation", and your response to it is to revert to Your Version. That seems to me a little bit like article ownership. It seems to me that willingness to work with, correct, and improve the other guy's text would be a show of good faith.
I'm not going to revert you, although I think that PhatRita was on a much better path to a settled article, by taking the merged version and cleaning it up, removing problematic bits, and so forth. That approach seems to me to be the only way to deal with the social problem here of reverting back and forth. --FOo 06:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with David. If you want to edit a long, controversial article you have to do so one step at a time. If you try and rewrite the entire article (especially if you are introducing content that others see as wildly point of view) it will be reverted. It's rather disingenuous to suggest that other editors should have to wade through this entire article to clean up the mess. Reversion is the only reasonable course of action. --Lee Hunter 11:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


I carried out the edit because the revert war was becoming very tedious indeed. I tried to edit as impartially as I could and get rid of a lot of, for want of a better word, CRAP. The only course of action is to let us propose to rewrite the article ONE SECTION AT A TIME. But if we propose to do this, EVERYONE WHO MAJORLY CONTRIBUTES here will HAVE TO agree not to make rash edits. What say you? PhatRita 12:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


heh it has been tried. I think we manged two sentaces one of which is being objected to in the current conflict


Then I feel vindicated in performing that edit without "permission" PhatRita 21:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Miasms

I will use the sub-subsection Miasms to bring to light the moral stance behind your multiple reversions. The views on miasms you attributed to Hahnemann are not his; they are your own, which is fully demonstrated by the quotes I adduced. Well, you certainly were not aware of it before; but although you became aware of it from my version, you still reinstall your distorted tale. That is, you deliberately regale the reader with your deceitful version because it represents homeopathy in more favorable light.

Further in the text, among modern authors writing on miasms you mention only Sankaran (why not, say, Ortega?), and in most promotional style (highly influential). Obviously, you have good personal reasons for making so; but isn't it unfair to the reader? Don't you know how e.g. Vithoulkas said that "Sankaran alone has done more harm to homoeopathy than all the enemies of homoeopathy together" (the interview with G. Vithoulkas in LINKS 4/99)?

And the fundamental point. The reader is entitled to learn from an encyclopedia article whether there is something real (physiological) about miasms. Your text creates illusion that there is, but produces no proof (because none exists). You intentionally deceit the reader.

After that, you complain of disrespect. Aegeis193.193.199.86 21:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

WP is a collaborative effort. Every time you take us back to your version from the distant past you destroy literally dozens of corrections, grammatical fixes and structural changes contributed by multiple editors. That's what I would call 'disrespect'. If you would like to make changes to this article, you must make them one at a time. If you try to rewrite the whole thing (inserting your POV throughout) it will simply be reverted. --Lee Hunter 23:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the view of miasms is not Hahnemann's: that's because Hahnemann is not the last word on miasm. I've tried my best to combine my knowledge (admittedly limited) of the details of Hahnemann's theory - though as I mentioned your highly selective critique of it hardly does it justice either - with my knowledge (admittedly not comprehensive and probably biased) of modern developments in the field, with the intention of painting a balanced picture of the relation of miasmatic theory to the rest of homeopathy. I am not saying what I wrote is not biased, so go ahead and improve on it, but bit by bit: mentione Ortega, edit out "highly influential" (I actually recall somebody doing just that it but it was one of those edits that got lost in the necessary reversions due to your massive edits), etc. Still, I did mention miasms were contentious even within the homeopathic community, and capped the section by stating that some homeopaths disbelieve the whole thing, and that others use the ideas but regard them as useful categorizations rather than objective reality; adding to that that miasms have not been proven as physiological realities is arguing against something that's not claimed in the first place - though some of Hahnemann's speculation about the origins of miasms gives them material form, again something that can be included (I didn't write about that part because I don't know enough about it). But you reject the possibility of anything non-material (at least in our current understanding) as possibly real - but that's a general philosophical criticism of homeopathy which could be included, say, near the beginning of the Scientific Validity section. The possibilities are endless without needing to hack the article to bits...
Davidnortman 02:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

LM potencies

Anyone got a source for that claim that susiquen dilutions of LMs are only a factor of 100 to 1?Geni 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That's an error - thanks for picking it up. I've made the correction (still a little simplified as LM1 is more dilute than 1:50,000, it is in fact 1:50,000 following an initial 3c preparation - but this degree of detail is not relevant to the article).
Davidnortman 05:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Status Quo section

Hi all; new here, but I'd like to contribute. For the record, I'm currently studying Molecular Biology and Biochem, so I have a significant bias against homeopathy - hopefully that won't impact my contributions too much.

With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following change to the Status Quo section:

From:

Although there is a lack of solid evidence supporting homeopathy, upwards of 130 clinical trials have been carried out investigating homeopathy or related uses of ultradilutions, mainly isopathy. Surprisingly, around 70% of these trials are in favour of some kind of efficacy above placebo[18], but most of them are of poor quality. Moreover, numerous meta-analyses reviewing these trials have yielded inconclusive results. It is notable that two of these reviews observed that higher quality trials were more likely to reject claims of efficacy over the placebo effect. Most of the studies took some safe middle ground and reached an inconclusive stance, citing the lack of convincing evidence.

Linde et al (2001) [19] summarize close to 20 meta-analyses of trials of homeopathy or isopathy, reporting the following status quo:

To:

Upwards of 130 clinical trials have been carried out investigating homeopathy or related uses of ultradilutions, mainly isopathy, and approximately 70% of these trials are in favour of some kind of efficacy above placebo[5]. However, several meta-analyses have yielded inconclusive or unfavourable results, with two in particular observing that the higher quality trials were more likely to reject claims of efficacy over the placebo effect.

Linde et al (2001) [6] summarize as such:

Edits include: deleting the "Although there is a lack of..." part because it's not a logical beginning, deleting "Suprisingly" because it's subjective, deleting "It is notable" because it's a useless phrase, deleting the "safe middle ground" part because it's part subjective and part rehash of what was said two sentences before, and deleting the "close to 20..." part of the quote lead-in because IMO it takes away from the strength of the quote.

[edit: shuffled 'studies of poor quality' idea]

[edit: "numerous" becomes "several"]

Any opposition?

T.J.C. 08:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A definite improvement! --Art Carlson 10:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I object to the part that says "most of the trials are of poor quality". This is clearly an opinion and should be attributed or removed. As a side note, I suspect that the trials that are supposedly "poor quality" are those that study homeopathy as it is really practised rather than trying to force it into a "drug trial" model which will never work for homeopathy simply because remedies are nothing even remotely akin to drugs. In other words, giving the same remedy to 100 people with the same condition is meaningless from a homeopathic perspective. --Lee Hunter 11:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Err most of the metal anyasis say somewhere the overall quality of trials is poor (they are being polite). They are poor from a scientific perspective (small sample sizes, pathetic protocols, poor to appaling use of statistics (hint If you don't know the difference between the null and aluturnative hypothsys then you may not be readdy to move on the chi squared and the like)). The question of how well they follow homeopathic protocols is much harder to answer since you have the problem of which type of homeopathy to follow. Persoanly I'm supised the lancet paper came up with so many trials they though were good. I think there are only three (and one of them I don't completely trust because the results seem to fit with the authors theories (which are complete rubish) a little too neatly).Geni 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
My problem is that the sentence is worded to imply that only the favorable studies are of poor quality. There is a huge bias in both directions - people who support homeopathy think studies with positive results are good quality studies, people who don't support homeopathy think studies with negative results are good quality. For example, most of the studies included in the recent Lancet meta-analysis did not address classical homeopathy, they were attempts to squeeze homeopathy into the drug trial model, a kind of pseudo-homeopathy. [7] --Lee Hunter 13:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I did assume originally that the 'poor quality' was a value judgement from the meta-analyses, though I agree, it does appear subjective as written, because it precedes the part on meta-analyses. Perhaps in order to reflect the spirit of what the original writer was saying, it should be changed to: However, numerous meta-analyses have yielded inconclusive or unfavourable results, with two..." I've changed the edited paragraph above so we can see it in context. T.J.C. 16:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
an amusing article there I love their claims about there being no such thing as clinical homeopathy. There is. It is a lot more common than people think. So already we are running into the problem of how you define homeopathty. Now if we look the article contains Cucherat et al (2000) as supporting that sentance. It has to be remebered that for a long time there were no good studies at all. Homeopaths had no real interest regerious tests and clinical researchers had other priorities. I go as far as to say that the first true good quality studies into homeopathy don't turn up untill 2001[8] and the ones I think are best don't appear untill 2003[9][10](those studies follow both scientific and clasical homeopathic principles.Geni 15:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the proper ref. for the third study? --Art Carlson 17:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Id just like to add some feedback here. I am the orginal author of that section of the text. The reviews show that higher quality trials are statistically MORE LIKELY to yield negative results.
The recent lancet paper is pretty conclusive on what is what. However it does not allow for a critical appraisal of homeoapthy on a disease by disease case. It also compares to conventional medicine. I doubt this analysis or future ones will do affect anything major in the homeopathy world.
lastly i am pleased with the edits which includes
However, numerous meta-analyses have yielded inconclusive or unfavourable results, with two...
ps everyone - am back in university so will not be able to contribute as often. PhatRita 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What do we mean by "numerous"? I'm only aware of two or three met-analyses. "Numerous" to me would suggest ten or more. --Lee Hunter 19:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The original text suggests there were around 20, assuming that the Linde research dealt with the studies that are the subject of the first paragraph. T.J.C. 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
the article itself lists at least 6. I could probably find at least ten without too much dificulty.Geni 01:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
But the earlier meta-analyses were mostly positive and you yourself were writing a little earlier that "I go as far as to say that the first true good quality studies into homeopathy don't turn up untill 2001[8] and the ones I think are best don't appear untill 2003". Either the earlier meta-analyses should be discounted (i.e. they showed positive results so therefore they must be wrong) or the later meta-analyses don't have enough quality studies to be meaningful (meta-analysis requires some meta to analyze) --Lee Hunter 11:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In that case, let's all compromise and call it "several."

T.J.C. 04:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

describeing the eary meta-analyses as posertive is a ittle missleading. At best they were look warm any many were not even back (there is one before the three homeopaths like to quote that was decidely not posertive).Geni 11:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Real discussion happening again!!! I vote for the original edit above by T.J.C. unchanged: I may have an issue with the literature (trials not designed to test classical homeopathy, how trial results are rejected so there is little point in doing them, authors'interpretation of data, etc.) but actually think that it is a fair statement about the trials insofar as they exist. It is also balanced by the quote that follows.
I think the number of trials should stay to avoid interpretations of just what constitutes several or many; e.g., my take is that several is under 10 and many is over 30, so neither fits...
BTW the latest Lancet trial (Aug 27 issue, I think, and the accompnaying editorial which has nothing to do with the article) is a real disaster and in my opinion an embarrassment to clinical trial methodology: the authors break the cardinal rules of meta-analysis, begin with a presumptive hypothesis, base their analysis of two systems of medicine on a statistically inadequate sample size (or just adequate to make a point), fail to mention which studies out of their initial pool they based their statistics on, use teh word "bias" in a generic sense as though it means one thing when in fact dozens bias types have been described in the literature, and provide only one of at least three possible interpretations of the data. Either a political 'piece of work' or just an innocent trial that shouldn't be receiving world-wide attention because it doesn't actually say anything much... See [11] for a compendium of criticisms of the article from the homeopathic community, there are a few good ones in there, the best single one I think is if you search for "Chatfield" on that page. But first, for those who don't have online library access and for educational purposes only, here's an available copy of the article, truly a must-read!
Davidnortman 05:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
interesting anrticle you link to a few questions 1. how many of these Scientists and experts from around the world are called Steve? 2.) has Prof. Chaturbhuja Nayak read the previous papaers because if he has he is either lying or incompetant (ok so he used the word prove in relation to a meta analysis so we know he is incompetant)? 3.) Why have they got medical doctors talking about chemistry? Wouldn't it be more logical to use chemists?. All in all a third rate smear peace.Geni 11:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The lancet paper vindicated the exceptional quality of the Reilly's challenge study as something like 'too good for to be missed by our readers. Now the same editors attribute the positive attitude to homeopathy due to a "laissez-faire attitude". Is that irony or hypocrisy? If studies like Reilly's challenge are wrong then what does that say about every other conventional medicine trial which may have been accepted because it is more of a possibility? It is the entire EBM process which is at fault. PhatRita 15:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Reilly's papers cover isopathy not homeopathy. They have never been independalty replicated and what Reilly claimed were replications weren't. The papers produced inconsistant results with only a few of the meansure produceing statisticaly significant results. Finaly there are questions over the corretness of the dianosis of the people takeing part in the trial.Geni 18:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
vindicating isopathy vindicates homeopathy. simple as that PhatRita 13:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
In order to take that position you have to accept that any negative study into isopathy (and there are a few) is a failure for homeopaty). I realitiy your position still isn't legitimate since there is the difference between like cures like (homeopathy) and same cures same (isopathy). A bit like claiming that because appendicectomies work all surgery works (we know due to blinded trials that not all surgery does work. Man those were tough to design though).Geni 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A double standard is applied: if a study shows a submolecular effect then it offers no evidence whatsoever for homeopathy, even while addressing precisely the most contentious aspect of homeopathy; whereas when the same study is judged critically (as it likely was in the latest Lancet study though we will never know for sure as the data was completely ommitted) it is seen as evidence against homeopathy, as if it has the same potential clinical efficacy as homeopathy. Regarding replications: it is quite rare for medical studies to be perfect replications, they almost always have some variations, possibly because in order to receive grants one has to propose something original - replications are not at the top of financers' agendas. Reilly's studies haven't been independently replicated, but who is there to do the work? Whoever does the work de facto becomes a sympathizer of homeopathy (and therefore not to be believed)! This is precisely what happened to Benveniste when he turned from an illustrious career in conventional immunology to sub-molecular immunology. The playing field has proven to be full of mines and no one wants to step on one.
Davidnortman 05:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

no what happened to Benveniste was that his use of a flawed protocol caught up with him. As for your claims of a double standard are we living in the same reality? I've seen homeopaths rush to embrace the results of studies that had protocols that made no sence from the POV of homeopathy (no individualisation useing conventional diagnosises and the like) while at the same time rejecting negative studies that were far more robust from both a homeopathic and a scientific POV. I mean look at White et al [12] a lovey protocol. Makes sense from both a scientific and a clasical homeopathic POV. You don't want to know how many homeopaths I've seen try and reject this protocol as un homeopathic.Geni 10:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Benveniste experiment was too complex for such a delicate issue as homeopathy (since it is not trivial to reproduce it - again this is not a problem confined to this study but characterizes many experiments in the life sciences), not fundamentally flawed. But to say that he acted scientifically "wrong" in some way, should have had his laboratory closed, his study accepted for publication only to be withdrawn afterward (have you seen this happen to any other poor study out there?), etc. is to defend patent ostracism. It doesn't make sense that a prominent research scientist is given the boot after one error (assuming for the sake of argument that one was made) - researchers are not surgeons.
As for homeopaths embracing or rejecting studies incorrectly: I totally agree with you that that occurs. But they are not authorities: evaluating studies is a complex skill that most homeopaths are not trained in, and it would be more correct of them to not say anything. I think what happens is that while these homeopaths do not derive their belief in homeopathy from the scientific literature, they attempt to defend what they do through the scientific literature, usually in ignorance of the history of clinical trials, their strengths and limitations, etc. - thus naively assume that running a trial will reveal the truth (just like many on the other side who believe likewise). What I am concerned about is when Lancet or those who are supposed to be authorities on study interpretation do a disastrous job of it, as their (unlike the random homeopath's) evaluations are taken as the truth about the matter. Moreover, if this is how the rest of medical reserach is like then we all ought to be concerned, and I think this is what the latest Lancet study demonstrated: the superficialiy and glaring subjectivity of a method alleged to be objective and comprehensive enough to serve as final arbiter (as opposed to auxiliary tool).
The trial you refernced above seems very good on first glance. Assuming this is an adequate protocol, and remembering that RCTs are notorious for producing conflicting results upon reproduction of the same trial, again the issue which I raised a while back arises in my mind, namely of not knowing what to make of a negative result: I need a scientist to sit in the clinic with me and explain away my semi-regular positive results as well as the occasional striking transformations not necessarily measured in studies or relating to the pathology, which is not always the first thing to improve (e.g. a kid with asthma and chronic rhinitis who tranforms from impossible ADHD (which he clearly has as a concurrent condition, whether or not officially diagnosed) to calm even though the asthma and rhinitis are still there: quality of life clearly better [at least for the parents!] yet this might be completely missed in a study measuring the pathology alone). Should I abandon homeopathy based on studies like these? Worst-case scenario is that I am applying placebo healing successfully, which is still medicine! But of course I don't believe this explanation, as it evades the task of making sense of what is observed in the clinic, and because there appears to be a non-random correspondence between my clinical methodology and clinical results. Basically I believe that homeopathy is a better alternative hypothesis to the placebo hypothesis because it agrees with many details of clinical phenomena and provides at least partial explanations for them, as opposed to of necessity sweeping them under the carpet and leaving them unexplained as in conventional medical practice.
Davidnortman 06:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


The Benveniste experiment is not that hard to repeate. Sure I'd have diffulty but then all my training is in the direction of chemistry. The mistake he maked does appear to be fatel seince when it was corrected he got null results. There are other papers that have had simular issues. The wakefield on comes to mind. FWIW Benveniste continued working untill close to his death. Judgeing by some of Benveniste's latter comments he had accpeted that his intial protocol was flawed. The attacks on the Lancet study are interesting since none of them appear to come from statistians or experts in meta analysis.
while I'm not in your clinic and I don't call myself a scientist (yet) I can think of a number of posibilties. The first is that you can't legitimetly make a claim that the child had ADHD. It's hard enough for profensionals to diagnoses it let alone homeopaths who at least in the clasical form are meant to reject conventional medical diagnosis. We know that children react to stress in adults. This reaction may in turn increase the stress in the adult cause a visious cycle. The stong expectation that the child was going to improved may have reduced the stresss levels in the involved adults thus improveing the child's behaviour. There would also be a strong expection on the child to improve which may also have an effect. Next up even if your diagnosis of ADHD is correct then since in about 2/3 of cases ADHD is self limiting the child may have just undergone a spontianious remission (ie you are committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy). See three posible alturnative explanitons and I've hardly started.
Placebos haven't been part of medicine for decades. They are considered unethical (you know that whole informed consent thing).Geni 10:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree - placebos are used in everyday medicine, from bedside manners to the use of air and light. Respect and professionalism, even the use of white coats. These makes no difference physiologically but matter psychophysiologically and that is placebo.
no it is. A placebo involves not giving the person undergoing treatment what they think they are getting.
The benveniste affair pretty much sums up the negative attitude towards alternative medicine. Ostracism and a kind of dishonourable discharge and the destruction of an entire man is nothing to scoff at. The great debate wont be resolved until both sides become a bit more open minded. PhatRita 13:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Benveniste's work before his slide into that rather strange stuff (sending the memory of water over the internet and the like although I suspect (I can't prove) he may have been the victem of fraud in his latter work) is still respected.Geni 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
many people use the word "tarnished" for what his reputatiion became, but his earlier stuff on immunology is not even remembered nor taken into account anymore when considering his name. And what about his associates, Davenas et al? How have they fared? Probably not so well after the nature paper. It is wholesome and total destruction of what everything a man has worked for. His later stuff which, which was utter rubbish, incidentally, is the only thing we will remember of this man. PhatRita 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-classical homeopathy

On a related note I agree with Geni that clinical homeopathy is practiced a lot - numerically it must surpass the use of classical homeopathy, certainly in places like Germany and France - so we should add a section titled Complex Homeopathy (since most clinical homeopathy uses complex remedies) or perhaps simply Non-Classical Homeopathy (in which case the use of one remedy at a time in classical homeopathy should be explained somewhere) to explain at least the basics of it. Any suggestions for location? Just before Scientific validity section might be good so that the studies make more sense, but maybe it pushes the section down too far? Toward the end? In the History section?
Davidnortman 05:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


you would also have to include practical homeopathy.Geni 09:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I am personally of the opinion that the article is long enough. What you are proposing should be added, but only at the expense of deleting some other stuff. PhatRita 16:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objections so went ahead and added a section under the existing section of Diversity which is now a heading rather than subheading. I am not sure what could be shortened in the article: I've certainly seen longer articles on other complex issues, and this article is especially contentious...
Davidnortman 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

the very fact that the article is contentious means adding new material can make the situation

extremely volatile. I also think this revert war with aegeis should be sorted out before anything can follow through. PhatRita 13:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed studies

It is important that references to articles from peer-reviewed medical journals be included here and properly identified. --24.87.210.3 01:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

These are referenced in context in the body text so there's no reason to relist them. In response I've added this fact (that they are peer-reviewed) in the appropriate sections.
Davidnortman 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

I seem to be engaged in a revert war with Aegeis and we've both exceeded the daily limit for reversion. I've asked him on his user talk page to engage in a dialog re. the content of this page and to make smaller edits. This is so that the work of other editors is not trashed and so that the edit is a reasonable size for others to work on. If this doesn't work it will have to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Lee Hunter 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I really think some kind of higher power, ie arbitration, is needed here. No compromise, no respect and no way forward here. PhatRita 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cooling off

I have blocked User:Aegeis and User:LeeHunter for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule today. When both are done with their "probation," I would encourage them to come to the talk page to discuss disputed issues instead of edit warring. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_6&oldid=447192741"