Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Encouragement

I just wanted to say that I find that the Homoeopathy article is pretty good now. It seems to me to take a balanced view, as it should. I bet that was painful for many! :) Philip Howard 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody is entirely happy with it, then it must be correct!--TimVickers 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming more popular?

Tim, this is the quote from the article cited in the introduction. You think this is not specific enough? David D. (Talk) 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy are growing in popularity and are increasingly being endorsed by doctors."

It is ambiguous, see my talk page, we need a better reference, prefereably with survey data.--TimVickers 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note for 193.193.199.127

Please do not see this last revision as a rejection of the material you have produced, this is well-written and interesting. However, it needs to be integrated into the current version, which is the result of a long and painfully slow process of compramise by multiple different editors with different points of view. Although I personally agree with many of the points you make, they are expressed in a non-encyclopedic style. Wikipedia articles cannot only approach things from one viewpoint. --TimVickers 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

this guy has repeatedly attempted in recent months to vandalise this article and replace it with his own useless, highly subjective and pejorative POV version. This has to be resisted by consensus. There is nothing in it of any historical value or that is remotely factually accurate. It is pure anti-homeopathy POV Hysteria. It is NOT well written or remotely interesting; indeed, it is a corrupt and bastardised version of homeopathy that is not, and never will be, remotely acceptable. Peter morrell 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the historical things seemed interesting Peter, such as the flow-dilution machine and the spread of influence through contact. Are these not true? They are not all properly referenced. --TimVickers 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly anything accurate or useful can be salvaged from that material but the broad thrust of it is extremely negative and hysterical and thus unsound. If you can salvage stuff from it that can be referenced then nobody can seriously object to that. Peter morrell 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy

I have followed the debates on this page, and figure I'll chime in with a question. The tag on the page lists that neutrality and "factual accuracy" of the article are disputed. Does people at this point feel it might be appropriate to change this to just a neutrality dispute tag. I understand if people don't, especially because of the possibility of future edits inserting unsourced claims. Just wondering if there were currently factual disputes about the article, since most of it seems to be well sourced. In any case, I'll defer to the regular editors here. Not my leg 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see it as factually accurate and reasonably neutral in tone.--TimVickers 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TimGleng 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

there was a factual error in the opening sentance. I've fixed it (although perhaps "attempts to" or "tries to" would be a better wording).Geni 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. People were treated with bloodletting or cupping in the past. Mostly unsuccessfully it is true, but the outcome is irrelevant to the action. It would be wrong and POV to say "cured" but it is entirely accurate to say "treated".--TimVickers 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm agree with Tim on this. A cancer patient may receive Chemo to treat cancer, and end up having the cancer kill him. It would still be appropriate to say he was "treated with Chemo-therapy."
Proper tests of provings show that they are probably not using a like.Geni 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the wrong homeopathic remedy is selected, treatment fails and the patient dies, it is still accurate to say that the patient was "treated" with homeopathy. This may be unfortunate, but it is true!--TimVickers 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You've missed the point it isn't the treatment claim I'm objecting to but the solid like cures like claim. Homeopaths claim to be following that but the evidence sugests otherwise.Geni 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
correction, what you previously objected to was the specific word TREAT like with like and that is what they do...cure like with like is of course a CLAIM, but that is not mentioned here. Peter morrell 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Please no strawmen. No lets look at the opening sentance. "that treats "like with like"". That is phrased as a dirrect stament of fact. However proving protocols are poor and their result don't appear when proper protocols are put in place. Thus the claim that homeopaths really do treat like with like (rather than treat like with random or sod all) cannot be supported.Geni 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
when are you going to start talking sense? you talk rubbish and know naff all about this subject. Go and study the subject before you spout such utter mindless nonsense. Your views are worthless. how can you have such strong views about a subject you never even studied? it's pathetic Peter morrell 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Peter, this kind of reply won't help create a stable article. A classic case of count to ten before posting. For what its worth i agree with Peter in this case. Homeopaths obviously treat patients. I don't think such a statement implies that the patients are cured. David D. (Talk) 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Tim I know a lot more about the subject than you think I do. I fact in certain areas I probably know more than you do. Now It is not the word treat I'm obujecting to but the "treats "like with like"". In order for that to be the case we would have to accept proveings as valid which is clearly a POV judgement.Geni 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get real

I'm not happy about "preferring instead to view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded"" the Organon says something slightly different and homeopaths don't appear to be united on any one claim in this area.Geni 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)\
The recognition of divided opinions is why it says "many homeopathic practitioners" rather than simply "homeopathic practitioners" It is only the practitioners who do not recognise conventional diagnoses who are part of this list of the reasons why homeopathy is controversial. I'm not being very clear here. One of the reasons why homeopathy is controversial is the views of a segment of homeopathic practitioners on conventional diagnoses. It would be fine to change "many" to "some" depending on people's assessment of how common these views are, but it would be wrong to omit these views from the list of reasons why homeopathy is controversial.--TimVickers 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The first mention of proveings follows the classical line to far and should prbably link to Homeopathic proving.Geni 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section on Hahnemann

[removed and restored to article] I was wondering if this section might be better in the article about Samuel Hahnemann, since although it is interesting, it seems only tangentially related to homeopathy. What do people think? --TimVickers 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted it; it is certainly a crucial aspect of the subject if you wish to seriously understand the subject. You cannot realistically separate the views of Hahnemann from that of homeopathy. The discussion is NOT the place for this info. Peter morrell 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
further: the scetion balances out the criticisms that were mentioned about his miasm theory and show there is more to homeopathy and him than mere miasms. I find it ridiculous that you bang on about the recent critique over malaria and completely ignore the serious diseases that homeopathy has a good track record of curing, even in its early days. Study the literature of the subject before you pontificate from the armchair about its alleged dangers. You have lost your editorial neutrality on this one Tim. Peter morrell 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Name one.Geni 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
if you read the literature of homeopathy, as opposed to deriding it with extremely limited knowledge but strongly held views, then you will see dozens of cases homeopathy has cured including Yellow fever, mumps, measles, whooping cough, diabetes, cancers, psoriasis, alopecia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, and at least one case of haemophilia. You profess to know about and edit an article about a subject you have not even studied. Tim's deletions and amendments in general have been balanced, neutral and very fair, but his latest deletion about miasms lacks balance because that paragraph about miasms includes criticisms about miasms as if they are the be all and end all of homeopathy, which they are not and it ignores the broad swathe of Hahnemann's advanced views on a range of medical aspects of which he was a pioneer...such as psychiatry and microbiology. Including that revision balances that section up nicely. Peter morrell 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So personal attacks and argument by assertion. You see the problem is I have studied. I know what you mean when you claim homeopathy has cured X (anicdotal reports based on questionable diagnosis and in the more amuseing cases carfuly ignoreing the conventional treatment involved). So no I'm not impressed by your bold claims.Geni 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's at least attempt to adopt the veneer of civility. Let us also stop with the anecdotal evidence ("you will see dozens of cases homeopathy has cured including...at least one case of haemophilia...") Modusoperandi 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veneer of civility cont'd

They were not 'mine' and they are not 'bold claims' or 'anecdotal evidence,' they are just extracts from the literature of homeopathy, which if you studied you would know about already...study as in 'study openly' as opposed to study in order to pick fault with, find holes in and try to discredit; there is a huge difference. Regarding your problem with similars...is it possible for you to state more clearly why you feel that homeopathy does not employ similars all the time axiomatically? also, it would be useful for me to say that I think the issue here is not about homeopathy per se but about the entrenched and probably unmoveable disbelief of people like you who are not really 'qualified' to edit an article about it, by which I mean to say that you have strong anti- views on the subject and are clearly under-informed about it; I would say those qualities uniquely qualify you to leave it alone rather than to interfere in it...but I am merely expressing a POV; the article should be an accurate and balanced account of this subject and need not include the views of its critics except insofar as they are relevant to the topic in question; balance is the key word; I cannot think of any homeopath who would say that homeopathy does not employ similars as you have stated. what do you mean by this comment? it just sounds bizarre. OK let us be more civil, but please answer the points raised. thank you 213.40.131.66 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ...ooops sorry I had not even logged in!Peter morrell 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to accuse everyone but you of bias and then call for increased civility.
One could alternatively argue that because you are so firmly entrenched in its dogma, you are unable to be objective about homeopathy, which is necessary to achieve NPOV. The nature of science is to examine claims with a critical eye. To demand that science give homeopathy a pass in this respect is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates that you know the homeopathic literature is of poor quality according to the scientific standards of pharmacology and physiology, two subjects about which homeopathy makes specific claims.
Oh, but I forgot, homeopathy has nothing to do with chemistry and science or controls or placebo, right? It's magic and therefore should be excluded from scrutiny.
Furthmore, regarding "like cures like." It is trivial to note that an uncontrolled proving may elicit symptoms that are not necessarily caused by the specific substance being proven. As such, while homeopaths CLAIM to treat like with like, they may not actually be doing so, because the provings are by and large unreliable or unverified. (By scientific standards, but since homeopathy is magic, it's all OK!) T.J.C. 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult, as I am sure you are aware to treat this subject objectively. If it helps you can look at the pages of this encyclopedia on practices such as Christianity, Voodoo or Islam. None of these areas are scientifically proven and they also make claims about the natural world that are in conflict with current scientific ideas. However, this does not make it correct to have "This is only superstition" the only content in a page on a form of theism. This requirement we put aside our own convictions makes editing difficult, however co-operation, compromise and careful changes are still possible. --TimVickers 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not call for civility, so please try to get your facts right. I agreed to be more civil on the request of another. Don't you read the posts? As for being soaked in dogma I think that's a bit rich considering you fail to view the world except solely through the distorting dogma of science, which is inapplicable to something like this subject. This article is supposed to be a neutral and accurate account of homeopathy; and so far, thanks to people like Tim, it is just about becoming that. As for the views of its critics, who crawl all over it and pull it to pieces and just try to ruin the factual accuracy of the article, they are not really of much relevance to achieving the task in hand. They are never going to change their view...how dogmatic is that? these exchanges do not improve the article. Peter morrell 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The root problem Peter is that while you may assert that science does not apply here, this is only a personal opinion. Some other people have a different opinion and feel that science does indeed apply. This is similar to religion, where some feel science applies and others do not. It is not sensible for me to insist that my opinion that science applies to this subject is more reasonable than yours that it does not, however strongly I feel this to be true. --TimVickers 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
you are probably right but I do not accept that science has the right to demand every other branch of knowledge and practice, viewpoint and experience is accountable to it. How dogmatic and arrogant is that? in fact it has a name scientific imperialism, which is precisely what it is. Science is actually a belief system, the religion of today, and you see the rants here against things like homeopathy that cannot be quite pigeonholed in the way science demands, and they are the rants of science zealots pure and simple. There is more to life and the world than science. But these cardinals of science want the world to answer to them. they have lost the original science which is to look at the world and try to make sense of it with open eyes and an open heart. Their heads are just stuffed with theories. As I have said before, you just cannot understand something like homeopathy through the filter of science. I tried and gave up years ago. It can't be done; it is an entirely different beast. So who cares it is hopeless trying to even bridge the gulf between us. Let us just try to improve the article. Peter morrell 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Emphasis added above is mine: Science is the study of the natural, observable, quantifiable universe. If science cannot be used to study homeopathy, then homeopathy is supernatural. If that is the case, I suggest we reflect this in the article by changing "is a system of alternative medicine" to "is a collection of fabulous magical powers." T.J.C. 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
...and it's not so much "scientific imperialism", rather it's "scientific empiricism"... Modusoperandi 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sCAM is a scam

Good point above by T.J.C. 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC). This just points out a fact - so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM) is a collection of very diverse methods, including "a collection of fabulous magical powers."

Now why is this situation problematic? It is because sCAM practices that are actually metaphysical belief systems ("religions") are clamouring for financial support from Medicare ("state") and insurance. This violates the constitutional principle of Separation of church and state, and causes non-believers to pay for the missionary efforts of alternative therapists who are actually proselyting for their religion, even when they aren't aware of doing so. This is documented in the book The Aquarian Conspiracy.

I believe in the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, truth in advertising, and "freedom of informed choice". If sCAM practitioners and promoters would only be honest and admit that they are practicing a religion, and quit trying to scam the state, insurance companies, and the public by claiming their methods aren't religious, but are scientifically proven (which is far from the case - if they were proven they wouldn't be considered "alternative" anymore), then I'd have no trouble with letting responsible adults choose to use these practices, as long as they paid for them themselves, but that's not the case. The sCAM industry is really trying to scam us! -- Fyslee 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- Fyslee 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a sunday service right there!:) --Dematt 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What else can one expect from a PK (preacher's kid)? ....;-) -- Fyslee 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say you listened well! ;)--Dematt 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandolier: evidence-based or evidence-biased?

The Cochrane Collaboration commissions and conducts systematic reviews of clinical efficacy in all areas including homeopathy. Bandolier does not, so its role is misrepresented here. The 'Bandolier reviews' are secondhand reports of other researchers' reviews. The Bandolier flu review, which I have removed, was in fact a report of the Cochrane review already cited. Bandolier's distortion of the Cochrane conclusions (flu is of shorter duration with Oscillococcinum 200 than placebo) is connected with Bandolier's long history of antagonism to homeopathy.--Jedermann 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding lost reply from Tim

Tim, your previous reply now seems to have vanished but this is my reply...In any case, there are longer articles than this on wikipedia, so I don't really see what the fuss is about. The main point really is about balance and neutrality and presenting correct information, instead of POV drivel, with which this article has been periodically saturated. Thanks, mainly to your editing skills, Tim, that phase now seems to have passed, hopefully on a permanent basis. Peter morrell 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy is very much eligible for scientific review and judgment

Peter morrell wrote:

"...the distorting dogma of science, which is inapplicable to something like this subject."

That statement is far from true since homeopathy makes very definite and falsifiable claims, and that places it right in the sights of any scientific rifle scope. It has not only been sighted on, but has been repeatedly shot at, and with much success. It is a highly testable method, in spite of the fact that its advocates constantly keep moving the goal in attempts to avoid being proven wrong. But whenever an experiment has been properly performed under well controlled conditions, homeopathy turns out to be nothing but so much water:

  • "Homeopathy is God's way of thinning the flock". - dpr
  • "Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It's completely safe to drink." - Peter Dorn

-- Fyslee 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What we do here is write an encyclopedia. We are not in the business of deciding if something is right or wrong. As long as an article is an accurate record of a belief system then it is entirely correct for it to describe the belief system in detail. --TimVickers 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Total agreement. The talk page is where we indulge in other things, like discussing the rightness or wrongness.....;-) The article itself must include all significant POV and present them in such a way as to leave it up to the reader to weigh the evidence for themselves. It is not our job as editors to make up their minds for them, but the talk page can certainly be used to attempt to convince each other. (Better informed editors are better editors.) The article should cover all aspects of the subject: tell about homeopathy, its claims and mechanisms, its belief system, its history, and its controversies, including the research and criticisms, all in a NPOV way. -- Fyslee 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yet more total agreement. Hgilbert 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My word, I thought there might be an argument here, all I can see is a group hug in text. --TimVickers 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in on it! --Dematt 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
the usual hateful diatribe is a such a turn off. I only intend to focus on improving the article in future, these morons are not even worth talking to. Peter morrell 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Peter, please don't take it so hard. You have to admit, editing makes us hold in our frustrations for so long, then we blow. It is better that it is with humor than with anger.
Your work is the most important here. You are the only one that actually uses these principles and if this article is left to those that don't, who knows what will be left. Remember, here at wikipedia you are an editor first, homeopath second. No-one here is any better or any worse than you are, just looking at it from a different POV. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not. Take what you can when you can and leave the rest. If you do your best to be NPOV, other editors will back you up. If what you say is POV or opinion, at least expect it to get balanced with the other POV by another editor. You don't have to like the other editor, but it helps to respect their POV if you expect them to respect yours.
Everybody- Not to belittle anybody's edits, but thanks mostly to Peter's knowledge and Tim's editing skill this article is full of factual and useful information for the uneducated reader. I think all of you agree it was not so useful 2 months ago. I don't have to tell any of you that even if you do not agree with some of the information, that does not mean it does not belong in the homeopathy article. This article requires the mutual respect of each editor's unique POV. So lets keep working together to get it right.
And Fyslee, be nice.
--Dematt 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I see editors who have very different views here. You are getting on very well I think. I will offer some positive feedback. I see the article is quite comprehensive. I see also that the opening represents the article well. I wish other controversial articles will do the same. I will do some good research on this article. I expect only very small changes. This article is good. Hylas Chung 04:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on reliable sources

User Peter Morrell is currently edit warring in a POV on scientific testing of Homeopathic mechanisms. [[1]]

This sort of thing is clearly covered under WP:RS. Namely that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The studies (which Peter is presenting at face value as fact) are not exceptional reliable reliable sources. Either they get presented as opinions (in which case my point becomes one of WP:NPOV#undue_weigh) or they should be removed entirely. Jefffire 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest listing any studies that have been done that show no effect. (Unless all the studies to date do show significant effects.) Let the scientific work speak for itself, without prejudice, however difficult this is on issues in which emotions run high. Hgilbert 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I take it you agree with me that the current wording is POV? This is a matter of reliability of sources. A paper published in the Lancet is highly reliable for example, whilst the papers cherry picked in the current wording are not from reliable sources. Simply listing all studies is a clear breach of undue weight, not all studies are equally valid. Unless Peter makes some comment here I will assume he cedes this point and change the article back. Jefffire 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not edit warring...you are edit warring...this article is about homeopathy NOT the view science zealots take of it, which we know all too well. NPOV presents the case as-is not as science wants it to be. The Lancet is an allopathic organ wholly opposed to homoepathy, it is not in any sense neutral any more than Bunty for Girls. The listings supplied by HGilbert should stay, they form a decent slab of attempts over a 70 year period to explore in vitro the effects of potentsied substances on enzyme reactions, plant growth etc. What is so wrong with readers knowing that [a] these studies took place, [b] that they form a part of the corpus of homoepathic history and literature, and [c] what the results SEEMED to show? what is wrong with that? you just can't have this article all your way. like it or lump it we know why you are wholly opposed to homoepathy and why it offends your dogmatic beliefs in science. Please leave the article as it is. Peter morrell 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the tone of the above speaks for itself. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, in particular WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. You will see how the presentation you have introduced is clearly a violation of these. Jefffire 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
tone? read the content. Do you deny then that you are wholly opposed to homeopathy because it offends your dogmatic beliefs about science? Why not just state your own bias then we can see what you really think? these studies go back to the 1920s and before, and yet you dismiss them because you regard them as bogus just because they appeared in non-standard journals. Where else do you think homeopaths, and their sympathisers, could publish their studies? There is not a standard scientific journal in the world which would publish such studies back in the 1920s. It would be professional suicide for such journals to do so. So your claim that they are unreliable, like your view more generally of homeopathy, rests on unsound assumptions and armchair theorising. Is that not entirely evident in the tone of your interventions in these articles? You are a perfect example of a science imperialist acting like a science police force, enforcing what you think is true and what everyone else should believe. a truly NPOV view would simply accept a neutral stance, which you are evidently incapable of adopting. Peter morrell 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The content of your message relating to ad hominem was irrelevent, so I ignored it. My personal beliefs are irrelevent and not your business, comment on edits, not editors. The failure of homeopaths to publish in reliable scientific journals is their problem,not mine. Wikipedia guidelines is very clear on this subject, if the "truth" is not published in reliable sources, then the "truth" is not reported here. Wikipedia is built on verifiability, and has to be verified from reliable sources. Read the links I provided to our guidelines for a more detailed analysis. If you want to report differently, then you must first change the scientific mainstream view in the real world before trying to change Wikipedia in such a manner. Jefffire 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The sources provided simply are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion. Unless you have a reliable source, please refrain from adding this to the article. And no, that's not imperialistic science dogma talking, that's Wikipedia policy and that's all there is to it. Infinitenoodles 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What we are talking about in this section is scientific studies on homeopathy. Consequently, we must adopt a scientific view to accurately report these studies. This is not POV, instead it is a simple requirement of the section we are discussing. A problem with including a set of positive studies without context is that "water memory" is incompatible with the dose response relationship. If you pick up any issue of any scientific journal you will find dose-response relationships in almost every paper you choose at random. These are found in data such as drug EC50s, enzyme assays or almost anyithing involving a dilution series. The reason therefore why people regard reporting a few positive studies from the last fifty years as POV is that they feel it ignores the hundreds of thousands of negative studies published over the same time. It would be literally impossible to fit even a fraction of the papers showing a dose-response relationship that have been published this month into our article. Selecting a few positive resutls from this huge number of negative ones is therefore seen as seriously misrepresenting the literature. I have moved the "context" section I put in the study on histamine release up to the into to this section, does this make it more acceptable to everybody? --TimVickers 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You might misunderstand what these studies are about, Tim. They are not medical studies per se; they look at in vitro reactions of allergens, etc. to various potentizations, or the growth of grain seeds with various potentizations of various substances. They are a wholly separate field from the studies of homeopathic treatment, and really belong in a separate article on potentizations, with a summary in this article. Perhaps we could begin gathering information towards this article...under a section titled potentization in the homeopathy article initially, with positive and negative research of various aspects of this subject, with the aim of creating a separate article as soon as we have a reasonable beginning? Hgilbert 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You could put any such data in the Dose-response relationship page. However, to avoid giving a slanted view of the literature you would have to find the percentage of scientific papers that do not describe the dose-response relationship and the percentage that do. You would probably end up having to cite a few thousand papers that describe this relationship for each one that does not. Do you see the problem? --TimVickers 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any papers that explore the effect of potentizations in vitro or on plant growth that have not found this effect. Could you give some citations, please?
Incidentally, the distinction between potentization and simple dilution is being blurred by some edits to this section. Since homeopathy expressly focuses on a particular method of preparation, potentization, tests using simple dilutions must not be confounded with those that use the potentization technique. Hgilbert 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do not have access to the Davenas Nature paper on degranulation, I can send you the Pdf. When you read this you will see that vortexing, which is a standard laboratory procedure, was used to prepare the dilutions used in this study. Since standard dilution methods were used in one of the papers cited as positive results, it is incorrect to say that the methods used in studies giving negative results are different from the methods used in the studies giving positive results. --TimVickers 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done my final modification here to try to clarify things, moving the Davenas to separate the potentizations from the dilutions. I do feel there should be clarity here, but let's work it out without edit wars. Hgilbert 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no scientific evidence that potentization and dilution result in solutions with signficantly different observable properties. Basic chemistry and physics dictate that the mechanics of potentization (shaking/hitting/chanting) will not significantly alter a dilute solution. Therefore, in the scientific section, there is no justifcation for treating the two separately. T.J.C. 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We can side-step that point by including the studies that attempted to reporduce the effects seen with "successed" solutions and found no difference. This and the summary review contributed by Hgilbert makes a reasonable section. --TimVickers 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cholera, Germ Theory, etc

Someone today deleted a factual sentence stating that Hahnemann was the pioneer of microbiology. It is not a claim, it is historically factual. Here is the timeline...

Following his observations of cholera epidemics in 1830 and 1831, "Hahnemann published four articles on cholera from June to October 1831." [2]

"in 1860. Pasteur's experiments proved conclusively that fermentation is caused by microorganisms." [3]

1876 Koch published his paper on anthrax

1875 Ferdinand J. Cohn publishes an early classification of bacteria

1884 Koch's publishes his postulates

1885 Pasteur virus expt 'proves' link between a germ [he called it a virus] and a specific sickness

So which way do you want it? 1831 to 1885 is 54 years - does that make Hahnemann a pioneer of bacteriology or not? I think the answer is yes. Peter morrell 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it. I was the one that deleted the sentence. Please see my post in the other section. Infinitenoodles 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hahnemann as Pioneer in Microbiology

So as not to turn this into an edit war, let's talk this out here. I don't contest that he conceived of microbes. I just don't feel that this, without evidence of additional work in the field, qualifies him as a pioneer. I'd like to have something in there about it, but something that seems a little less opinionated. Do you think we could work out some way of phrasing this without it sounding as over the top? Infinitenoodles 14:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

the word pioneer means the first - what else is there to say? it is the correct word, even though folks like you detest it. Same with the psychiatrists, they passed him over too as the pioneer of gentle psychiatry. Its not a big deal it is simply historically true. The evidence is in the dates. How wide a gap would you like? 100 years a thousand? 54 is enough surely? He was the first to say that cholera is caused by infinitesimally small living creatures. Read it yourself it is online: those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists [4] Peter morrell 14:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If by "folks like you" you mean people concerned about having overblown claims that compromise credibility present in this encyclopedia, yes I suppose so. I'm trying to be reasonable here Peter. My issue is not with the gap. It's with calling him a pioneer. The definition of pioneer being, "n 1: someone who helps to open up a new line of research or technology or art." [5] He postulated the existence of microbes, yes, but did this postulation influence Pasteur and Koch? If not, he didn't exactly contribute to the field. Unless there's evidence that he made solid contributions, we really shouldn't be saying he's the first pioneer in microbiology. Infinitenoodles 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I see what you are saying and that is a valid point. However, whether or not he influenced Pasteur is a side-issue in one sense...he can be credited as the first to state that a specific disease was caused by minute living creatures. That foreshadows the work of P & K, but I am not sure they knew about his work. In that sense, your idea of further fieldwork is a good one. But again, it is extremely hard to prove who influenced who in any line of historical inquiry; this is a general point of enormous importance. Anyone can assume that 2 people who lived in the same town and did the same things must have known each other, but to prove they did requires a very different set of problems. I live in the same street as a homeopathic clinic but I never go in there and they do not know me. I live opposite a good landscape artist and I am also an artist but we have never even said hello to each other. Do you see the magnitude of the problem? To prove that A knows B or has been influenced by their work is historically very problematical. Even if you have evidence that B read the work of A, and lived in the same street, this still does not prove concretely that they did influence each other, does it? Anyway, to repeat, Hahnemann was a pioneer of microbiology in the specific maybe narrow sense he says above about Cholera. In the sense about the wider field as it became after P & K, then he contributed nothing further to the field. Maybe you can suggest how the wording in the article might be changed? I hope this clarifies my previous comments. Peter morrell 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The entire passage states, On board ships – in those confined spaces, filled with mouldy watery vapours, the cholera miasm finds a favourable element for its multiplication, and grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists. However, cholera is not a miasm (energy being). This precludes him from having any important impact on the field of microbiology. I suggest we remove the part about him being a pioneer in microbiology (severely POV and undefendable), leave in the part where he suggested that cholera was a minute living creature, and let people draw their own conclusions about what that means. T.J.C. 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Pasteur was 9 yrs old in 1831; Hahnemann died in 1843; Koch was born in 1843. you would have a lot of fieldwork to do to prove conclusively that P & K were influenced by Hahnemann or even by homeopathy, or even knew of them. It is possible, but to prove it might well be a mammoth task. Regarding the point above about being "severe POV" that is plain nonsense. He was indeed the pioneer of psychiatry and microbiology, but you just don't like it, do you? How neutral is that for such a science imperialist? Peter morrell 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you fanboys will see whatever you want to see. I'm interested in having evidence for assertions, despite how 'difficult' they may be to demonstrate. T.J.C. 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It certainly clarifies. Thanks. Let's see if we can agree on a good version of it here and then we'll toss it into the article.
However, we should not regard the miasm theory as the 'be all and end all' of homeopathy. For example, these criticisms ignore the fact that Hahnemann strongly advocated good hygiene, fresh air, regular exercise, good nutrition as precursors of good health [see his 1792 essay: The Friend of Health]; he was a proponent of humane treatment of the insane in 1792-3 [1796, Description of Klockenbring During his Insanity] a year before William Tuke and Philippe Pinel. He also published tracts in which he described the cause of Cholera as "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures" Asiatic Cholera, 1831, making this one of the earliest recorded speculations on the existence of microbes. These considerations clearly indicate a modern feel to his medical views that may be justly regarded as advanced for his times.
This version acknowledges the same accomplishments but avoids the issue of pioneering. Any suggestions? Infinitenoodles 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK that sounds fine, so long as you insert back in the citations...I am happy with that please go ahead. Peter morrell 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have put in a new edit referring to others expressing similar ideas one hundred years before. Koch and Pasteur only proved a theory that had been around for centuries. Since Anton van Leeuwenhoek people had the clear idea that microbes caused disease, but it was Koch who provided clear experimental proof of this idea. --TimVickers 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, there was an edit conflict and I seem to have broken my links. I'll take care of that first. I'll try to work with the info you just put in there Tim. I think it's very pertinent, thanks? Infinitenoodles 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I mildly object to the 'clearly indicate a modern feel to his medical views' passage - it's POV (and kind of silly). T.J.C. 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As long as we have consensus, please do whatever you think is necessary to fix up this part. Infinitenoodles 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I dumped it - it really contributes nothing to the article. T.J.C. 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed and replaced it. It is neither POV nor silly...as compared to the dumper. Peter morrell 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Call me all the names you want, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not for drawing conclusions or making speculations. It is for providing verifiable information. T.J.C. 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
At least we agree on the factual content of this section. Minor stylistic concerns aside, this has been greatly improved by our efforts. Thanks people. --TimVickers 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute: Miasms

Hahnemann's acceptance of this emerging idea of infectious disease before its final proof by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur clearly indicate how his pioneering medical views may be regarded as advanced for his times.
This statement should be removed, for two reasons. First, it is easily disputable, and thus subject to POV. More importantly, it is unreferenced, indicating that it is a Wikipedia editor is drawing conclusions from the facts provided. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If a reference is found and this assertion is attributed to an anthropologist or medical historian, it would become appropriate to include it. Otherwise, it's just ramblings (and poorly written - never, ever use the word 'clearly' to make a point - similar to "obviously" or "undoubtedly" it just conceals a lack of sound argument.) T.J.C. 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you happy with the new version? --TimVickers 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it's perfectly fine now. Cheers! T.J.C. 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Peter morrell is a medical historian!Peter morrell 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And you are a very valuable resource for this page Peter. How is your book of Hahnemann essays progressing? --TimVickers 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on this page

See User talk:Homy/homeopathy

[edit] OR tag

In which section is the disputed material? T.J.C. 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

user:homy/homeopathy --Homy 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm removing the tag. T.J.C. 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify - your own article is irrelevant. I have no idea why you decided to rewrite to a significantly more controversial and poorly researched article, but if there's nothing wrong with the main one, don't add tags to it that don't apply. T.J.C. 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and web links

The direct links to web pages in the middle of the text jar (i.e. see This Website), and don't fit with the citation format on the rest of the page. Should they be moved to cite-web references instead? --82.33.54.90 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost divisor

The section "Advocacy" (or whatever it's precursor was) from the external links sections seems to have gotten lost, so I restored it. I don't think this will be controversial, but a few advocacy sites may now be in the neutral sections, and visa-versa, so watch out for that. Jefffire 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Homy

The quantum nonsense is still ridiculous pseudoscience. The grammar is terrible. The article is not improved by your massive rewrite and in some places becomes incomprehensible. Make incremental improvements instead, unless you want to be the new Aegis. T.J.C. 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also object srongly to the high-handed replacement of text it has taken a long tome to reach broad consensus on with a semi-random jumble of impenetrable physics jargon. TimVickers 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it was an honest attempt to do good, but the new version really was terrible, being filled with original research, apologetics, and outright mumbo-jumbo. Jefffire 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's two examples of bad grammar, Homy, it's effectively ubiquitous in your version. You may be ESL, so I'm trying not to be too harsh, but Tim spent a LOT of time correcting mistakes in the existing version, not to mention the work to get rid of the NPOV tag. Jefffire is too kind, IMO. Your edits are a thinly veiled attempt to gain credibility for your ridiculous 'homeopathy is relativity' nonsense.
In Europe regulations are tightened as well as a new pharmacopoeia (Pharmeuropa) is implemented and watched by the EDQM.
Statistics show homeopathic alternative medicine don't work enough.
Well, I certainly do agree that there are no "less" grammatical mistakes in your version, Homy. T.J.C. 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted again, Homy i am sure I reverted some good stuff too but there is no way you can make such sweeping changes to a relativly stable (but controversial) article and expect it to stand. I would suggest you make the changes gradually to allow people to discuss them. A wholesale rewrite will be reverted again and again and will be very frustrating for you as an editor. David D. (Talk) 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Homey i see you add back many changes again. I'm not going to revert but don't be surprised if someone else does. If you want these edits to be taken seriously add them in gradually. You have made so many changes it is impossible to analyse everything carefully. Can you work on one section at a time? David D. (Talk) 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative endevor Homy, please do not trash other people's work.TimVickers 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No apologies for destroying others work are needed because I accurately adapted the changes all the time. I do apoligize when people feel offended when I introduce concepts which are a POV among a great deal of homeopaths. At least in Europe there is a move towards accepting QED and relativity. The GUT is another way of expressing the view of holism. --Homy 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last paragrpah of introduction

It currently reads as follows:

Homeopathy is controversial for four reasons. Firstly, medical studies of its efficacy have not been clearly positive, and often show no benefit.[6] Secondly, homeopathy is inconsistent with the known laws of chemistry since it states that dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their undefined spirit-like medicinal powers,[7] even at dilutions so high not even a molecule of the original ingredient is present. Thirdly, many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses, preferring instead to view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded"[8] as a result of either the patient's lifestyle or shocks, mental traumas in their past and bad weather.[9] [10] Fourthly, cases have been reported in the medical literature of serious illness resulting from people attempting to prevent or treat serious conditions like malaria solely with homeopathic remedies.[11] [12]

Is this appropriate for the introduction. Wouldn't something more general be appropriate, certainly shorter. Something along the lines that homeopathy is controversial but without getting into the specifics? David D. (Talk) 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it a bit shorter certainly. TimVickers 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph seems to be written from the standpoint of an opposer of homeopathy, not NPOV. Homeopathy is controversial, that is evident; the second line "Firstly, studies of its efficacy have not been clearly positive, often showing no benefit" depends on which study you read and how this study was orientated. I have not found neutral studies in this regard. Most studies are oriented on clinical homeopathy which do not present homeopathy in general. I agree with the NCCAM: "The reviews found that, overall, the quality of clinical research in homeopathy is low. But when high-quality studies were selected for analysis, a surprising number showed positive results." homeopathy
This seems more neutral to me. (And I will add it) --Homy 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
O yes, homeopathy is controversial, so are the studies of it. This is NPOV --Homy 06:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that approach is that the most reliable studies clearly show no effect, whilst the highly dubious studies are generaly more likely to give a positive effect. To combine the two with the word "ambiguous" is highly POV, since the best tests have been rarely ambiguous. Jefffire 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've inserted the words "mainstream scientific" before studies to differentiate between the proper studies and the, ahem, "studies" carried out by homeopaths. I've also removed the words "not clearly positive", as obvious weasel words. Homeopathy is controversial because the tests are often negative, so that is what the sentence should say. Jefffire 08:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The study which is refered to:Homeopathy versus Standard Treatments a summary of a paper by E. Ernst published in Perfusion 1999;12:13-15. Bandolier Journal.
Findings

Without exception, all of the trials were of poor quality with serious methodological flaws. The studies of "homeopaths" are maybe not of high quality, therefore "scientists" gave this conclusion:

Clinical bottom line: There is no evidence to demonstrate the relative efficacy of various homeopathic remedies in comparison to standard drug treatment.

Therefore the NCCAM concludes:

Five systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluated clinical trials of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies as compared with placebo. The reviews found that, overall, the quality of clinical research in homeopathy is low. But when high-quality studies were selected for analysis, a surprising number showed positive results.13-17
Overall, clinical trial results are contradictory, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition.

There is simply no conclusive evidence homeopathy works, but also that it does not work. This is not found back in the current sentence and is therefore POV. --Homy 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That was their view in 1999. Other, better, reviews have since been done. Homeopathic trials are often negative, this is referenced and cited. The (controversial) 1999 trial shows over a dozen ineffective trials as being ineffective. The Lancet and BMJ show many more. These are fairly reliable sources for the statement "studies often find no effect". Jefffire 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There don't exist "homeopathic trials", they are called "homeopathic provings", that's why homeopathy is called protoscience, homeopaths are used to follow different methods, science should adapt these methods in order to do a neutral research --Homy 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, that's why homeopathy is called a pseudoscience. You are now using the ridiculous homeopathy belief that rct are somehow unsuitable for homeopathic trial. If you can find a serious scientific authority making that claim then you might have half a leg to stand on, but you don't. I find your edit warring petty, so I'll let others in the community regester their opinions on this matter. Jefffire 12:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't comment on this since comments become personal, this is pseudoscience --Homy 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are repeatedly inserting a POV version of the text with consensus from the other editors, that is edit warring, and I do find it petty and disruptive. Try and build consensus for changes like this first rather than engaging in such a disruptive practice. The previous version of the introduction was produced by involved interaction by a large group of editors of various view-poiints. It was neutral and agreed upon by many people. Your version simply will not last due to the POV pushing that is evident in it. Jefffire 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Homy, a newspaper article does not imply legitimate scientific controversy. The current introduction is defended by the most reputable scientific papers available, and despite what homeopaths say, homeopathy is open to scientific scrutiny as it makes claims about the observable world. I and others will continue to revert your POV changes. T.J.C. 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not deny that homeopathy is controversial. Even the sentence: "Firstly, studies of its efficacy have not been clearly positive, often showing no benefit" is true, but hides the nuance that as much studies proves the opposite and hides the nuance that many studies which found homeopathic remedies placebo's were not carried out according to homeopathic practice; this makes those studies ambiguous as the studies themselves say they are. When all citations from opponents and 'disciples' are mentioned, let the reader decide what he/she 'believes'. My version has both viewpoints, there does not exist one "observable world", there are always differences in perception. I respect the current viewpoint, but this viewpoint does not respect what the other half of the world thinks or beliefs or feels. I think current USA is badly informed about homeopathy and the article represent this view and is therefore POV. I will place it back unless you can reformulate the sentence in such a way it respects both POV's. If the changes are "petty", why than bother all the time, this is contradictus intermus. And please is it not easier to copy than do a rv, I get blamed for the loss of information, but it were the rv's which did the harm. By the way I think we are not so different, I am a critic as well, just with a different perception. Hight regards and respect --Homy 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The only citation left, is one study of just classical homeopathy and is not representing homeopathy as a whole. I hardly consider the viewpoint of my citations as a "newspaper", the overview of NCCAM is still mentioned in the headline. "Prominent U.S. Research Scientists Counter Lancet Claims on Homeopathy" is not my POV either. etc. etc. --Homy 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are still deeply POV, and give undue weight extreme minority views. The original version is extremely good and was built by collaborative effort by many people, there is no need to change it. Jefffire 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Again: "But when high-quality studies were selected for analysis, a surprising number showed positive results" (NCCAM) is opposite what is mentioned. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, whether this is nice or not --Homy 13:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That was then, this is now. Read the 2005 Lancet report, or the BMJ report on cancer.Jefffire 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Their statement is dated May 25, 2006 and is still online. A known opposer of homeopathy (as they did before) will continue to give negative reports (other reports sources positive), this report is just on cancer, not a general report obviously. My link of the Indian prof proved also otherwise. In my view following science without reservation is not a smart thing to do, that why I'm said, I'm a critic as well. "better-quality trials have given mostly negative results" is just a temporary statement and doesn't give a conclusive answer as many people would maybe like to --Homy 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link to the "Indian prof" was removed as spectacularilty failing WP:RS. That better quality trials give more negative results is verifiable from reliable sources (a peer reviewed one at that). Yes, it may change, but this is the situation as it stands today. Read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV#faq:pseudoscience, which details the rules for this kind of situation. Jefffire 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Prominent U.S. Research Scientists Counter Lancet Claims on Homeopathy Date : Thursday, August 25, 2005 More now than old now; the TWO citations have the same origin: Lancet --Homy 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This particular citation is taken from a media news source. Jefffire 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oke, it is everywhere even in the same source [13] date: 2006 Apr --Homy 14:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This citation appears to be the South African medical journal. Shall we have to debate on whether the Lancet or the SAMJ is considered a more reliable source? A trip to WP:RS might help... Jefffire 14:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is lost. I consider an Indian prof with the Albert Sweitchzer price a reasonable reliable source, western sources are not more reliable than others, this is western POV. The statement remains that studies are NOT conclusive. --Homy 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Western sources are indeed not more reliable than eastern ones, but highly respected peer reviewed journals are considered more reliable than opinions from single people (cited from a geocities webpage), a news article, and an insignificant journal. Please read WP:RS. Jefffire 14:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't discriminate between eastern and western sources, neither does wikipedia. The piece you refer to has to do with MEDICAL science. There are two standards here:

  1. Homeopathy is rejected as medical science
  2. But is treated like one when it sees fit --Homy 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to what exactly you are trying to say here, so I'll go over the points in review. That better studies are give more negative results is verified from reliable sources, as per WP:RS and WP:V. This section in the introduction is about why the topic is controversial, anything else is off topic. There is plenty of room for apologetics (and it's debunking) later on in the article. Jefffire 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one more citation: Some positive results were described with homeopathy in good-quality trials in rhinitis, but a number of negative studies were also found.[14] 2006 May. This has even a peer-to-peer review, the other citations have NOT ! Thanks for pointing this to me. The sentence "better-quality trials have given mostly negative results", is thus a subjective conclusion based on selected sources and a reverse POV conclusion. OF course other negatives can be found, others positive; bottomline: INCONCLUSIVE is the best description. --Homy 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Better-quality trials are more likely to give negative results is a conclusion of the quality-analysis in the review by Shang A et al. TimVickers 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Homy is rather missing the point. There are positive result, and there are negative results. Both of which are verified from reliable sources. It is also verifiable that the better quality studies are mostly negative. That doesn't mean that all good quality trials are negative, and the intro says nothing of that nature. All it says is what it says, that there is positive, there is negative, and there is a negative correlation between quality and outcome. That the data is inconclusive is very much your opinion, since it is verifiable that a number of sources consider it to be a closed matter. Thus, "inconclusive" is as POV as saying that it's real or a hoax. Wikipedia does not make judgements, it reports what is already freely available. Jefffire 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did NOT change the edit from this morning, current issue seems more neutral, so don't change it --Homy 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) .

[edit] Chronic disease

Hahnemann: Long ago these allopathic physicians would have been left had it not been for the palliative relief obtained at times from empirically discovered remedies whose almost instantaneous flattering action is apparent to the patient and this to some extent served to keep up their credit. Organon 56

If these ill-effects are produced, as may very naturally be expected from the antipathic employment of medicines, the ordinary physician imagines he can get over the difficulty by giving, at each renewed aggravation, a stronger dose of the remedy, whereby an equally transient suppression1 is effected; and as there then is a still greater necessity for giving ever - increasing quantities of the palliative there ensues either another more serious disease or frequently even danger to life and death itself, but never a cure of a disease of considerable or of long standing. Organon 60

The current reasons given are details which should be taken into account, but do not represent the main philosophical reason which is still the main school. --Homy 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the whole page is still full of such arguments which are maybe true, but sound silly when read out of context, this is why I made the new consensus outline. --Homy 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cancer is a disease where the causes are known in molecular detail and a clear and thoroughly-proved chain of causation has been deliniated. To claim that a chronic disease such as this is due only to "disturbed energy flows" is in direct contradiction of a huge body of research. This homeopathic view is thus controversial. Is this clear, or do you have any other questions about why homeopathic etiology is controversial?
Just to clarify, I'm not saying homeopathy it isn't right about this (although I think this view is deeply flawed), I'm simply trying to explain to you why it is controversial.TimVickers 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"disturbed energy flows" is not the main reason homeopathy is controversial, it is just a detail, Hahnemann (and still many homeopaths and me also many times) reject normal medicine because "we" think it does not treat chronic disease, this "rejection" is controversial, not that just one method which seems to come from ayurveda or other eastern methods. "disturbed energy flows" is no "official" homeopathic language. --Homy 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rejecting mainstream science does make it controversial in the eyes of many people. Wikipedia is here to report that, notmake judgements. Jefffire 13:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I'm saying, so we agree on that. --Homy 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here the point of sources. Hahnemann is founder homeopathy. The ECCH represents European homeopaths. This is above the cited websites. --Homy 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"The vital force" is a key part of Hahnemann's theories on the causation of disease and is contradicted by moden physiological, genetic and biochemical theories on the cause of disease. This conflict is therefore one reason why homeopathic theories are controversial. TimVickers 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I'm repeating all the time. I'm aware of the controversion. Hahnemann said that this vital force is able to heal chronic disease and declined therefore 'allopathics'. But the sentence ""many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or causes of disease and view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded" by shocks, poor lifestyle, mental traumas or bad weather."", this "flow of energy" is no homeopathic terminology you find in books, it is an personal assumption and not an accurate translation of "vital force", "shocks, poor lifestyle, mental traumas or bad weather" are widely accepted as causes and are not even debated. CAUSATION is one issue, homeopaths consider CONSTITUTION even more important as other factors.

My sentence "many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses because they want to enhance the quality of life especially for chronic disease instead of searching for a short term relief", gives the personal reason why there is a conflict. Homeopaths believe that much in these powers to do this (SEE ECCH on: The place of homeopathy in healthcare) that they often don't trust regular medicines; this IS controversial. If there must be a description why homeopathy is controversial because of the Vital force, than this is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue and should be seperated from the PERSONAL issue "many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses". --Homy 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Revised --Homy 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)--

This is why I was making a much longer and sepreate heading list of controversials, were both side of arguments could be listed, because I can think of a few dozen reasons why homeopathy is controversial, but it deserves proper context. --Homy 18:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Flow of energy" is a direct quote and referenced to a homeopathic practitioner. Likewise, each of the subequent hypothetical proximal causes are referenced to homeopathic websites. Whether or not you share these views is irrelevant. The fact that these views are expressed by "Some homeopathic practitioners" is one reason why homeopathy is controversial. TimVickers 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is missed. I don't deny this is a POV. But personal and philosphical issues are confused. --Homy 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be a problem with insufficiently clear linkage between these two parts of the sentence. Does the new version make this more clear for you? TimVickers 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One website says: "The idea that we are treating a unique individual and not a disease or diagnosis is key to understanding classical homeopathy. This is one way that homeopathy differs significantly from allopathic medicine, in which the physician looks for a pattern of symptoms in order to make a diagnosis and then gives a medicine for that diagnosis. [15]"

than later: "Observation and Determining a Remedy. The job of the homeopath is to try and understand where the flow of energy is impeded".

The current sentence takes the websites out of context (view them all). The sentence just does not make sense. --Homy 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am conscious English is not your first langauge, so I am worried this sentence may not be fully comprehensible to you due to the numer of clauses.
"Thirdly, many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or current scientific ideas on the causes of disease because they view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded" by shocks, poor lifestyle, mental traumas or bad weather.
This sentence describes a view held by many homeopathic practitionsers that is controversial. Namely, that disease is caused by a disturbance of "the vital force" by environmental or mental factors. The quotes are referenced and each part of this description fully supported. Does anybody else find this sentence confusing? TimVickers 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't find the senstence confusing !!!!!!! It is out of context. The connection why homeopaths do not accept current diagnosis has nothing to do with the reason given. As the above citation says. READ READ --Homy 19
34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some homeopathic practitioners do accept modern knowledge on the causes of disease, some do not. Some accept the idea of "named" diseases, while others do not. As to quoting things out of context, one of the articles I cited clearly states "Dis-ease, as the name suggests, is first and foremost an energy disturbance, a derangement of the vital force's normal harmonious vibratory frequency." This is a controversial opinion and this section is a perfectly clear summary of such controversial opinions. TimVickers 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again:

  • Website 1: Observation and Determining a Remedy. The job of the homeopath is to try and understand where the flow of energy is impeded.
The "flow of energy is impeded", where is here a citation of causations ?
  • Website 2:Causations (aetiology) - Shocks, traumas, injuries, poisons, diet, drugs, vaccinations, stresses, surgery, bad weather, etc., are the roots of many acute and chronic disorders and weakness.
Where is here a mentioning of the "flow"? It says many disorders, not all.
  • Website 3: Dis-ease, as the name suggests, is first and foremost an energy disturbance, a derangement of the vital force's normal harmonious vibratory frequency. Something must cause this derangement. The true origins of chronic illness, as identified by Hahnemann, lie in two factors. The first factor is the miasms, which constitute the fundamental cause of a state of dis-ease (in that they represent a kind of genetically acquired weakness or over-susceptibility to pathogenic forces). The second factor is the various shocks the vital force may receive during one's lifetime (which can be accidents, viral infections, drugs, or mental/emotional stresses).
Here is a mentioning of "a derangement of the vital force's normal harmonious vibratory frequency" but gives as second reason the shocks etc. The first, miasms, is given as fundamental.

The sentence: "many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or current scientific ideas on the causes of disease because they view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded" is a collection of misinterpreted citations. "many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or current scientific ideas on the causes of disease because they view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded" by shocks, poor lifestyle, mental traumas or bad weather." states that disease is primary because of those causations. Even the citations do no prove this.

Site 1 again: "The idea that we are treating a unique individual and not a disease or diagnosis is key to understanding classical homeopathy. This is one way that homeopathy differs significantly from allopathic medicine, in which the physician looks for a pattern of symptoms in order to make a diagnosis and then gives a medicine for that diagnosis."

This is the context. The CAUSATION can be considered as part of the pattern of symptoms. The sentence "because they view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded" by shocks, poor lifestyle, mental traumas or bad weather." is a clinical not a homeopathic view, it is just a part of the problem, this is what the websites explain.

The site says even why there are problem with "allopathic medicine", because it is a "holistic" treatment, and the causations are just part of it.

The sentence I propose: "Thirdly, many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses because they want to enhance the quality of life especially for chronic disease instead of searching for a short term relief." is clear and well documented. --Homy 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be clear end well documented, however it does not explain a reason why homeopathy is controversial. All doctors, homeopathic or otherwise want to enhance the quality of life of their patients and aim to cure the root cause of a condition instead of merely using symptomatic treatment. I am searching for a way to express how controversial homeopathic etiology is. Your proposed alteration does not deal with this subject. TimVickers 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it not that this is a personal issue as the word I is used? Is somehow a clinical view mixed up with the homeopathic ? maybe this is what I taste in this page. It is clinical, not homeopathic, let me do some work here, please ? --Homy 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) revised --Homy 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't understand your English here. Could you edit this to be a bit clearer? TimVickers 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How about: Many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or current scientific ideas on the causes of disease because they usually practice that what is called "the constitution" or the whole person should be treated instead of local symptoms. (Organon § 13, 15, 19)

Something like that --Homy 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you're missing the point entirely. We are trying to describe why the practice is controversial. It's not controversial because of what they believe they are doing, it's controversial because of what they aren't doing. Secondly, that version is POV, treating homeopathy as if it actualy were "holistic" and valid. Jefffire 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What aren't they doing? --Homy 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking Horny's version and trying to make it more specific.
"Many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or current scientific ideas on the causes of disease" (this is fine, this is the root of the controversy, we're finally getting somewhere.)
How about
"Many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses or current scientific ideas on the causes of disease, instead they see disease as a disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force" to be treated without inquiring into its causation." TimVickers 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Causation is a part of holistic treatment, not acceptable --Homy 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) I get pretty horny sometimes too

What I can't understand: Holism is good, homeopathy not? Hahnemann introduced it into the western world --Homy 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Many homeopathic practitioners do not accept conventional diagnoses because they think homeopathic remedies are able to enhance the quality of life while regular mediciens are not.

It says what homeopaths don't; and what they think. --Homy 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's original research, and unverified. WP:NOR I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding some your messages here on this matter, could you write in a clearer fashion? 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Jefffire
  • It is what Hahnemann said, see citations on top of this header, maybe we have this discussion later in another context.--Homy 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Organon § 12 Fifth Edition says causation is irrelevant. I suppose you must differ from Hahnemann on this. Well you had no problem with the first part of the sentence. What about
"Many homeopathic practitioners do not accept current scientific ideas on the causes of disease, instead they see disease as a disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force" and do not accept conventional medical diagnoses of simple, named diseases." TimVickers 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Many homeopathic practitioners do not accept current scientific ideas on the causes of disease, instead they see the diseased person as having a disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force" and do not accept conventional medical diagnoses of simple, named diseases."

This latter is acceptable to me. I'll leave § 12 as this becomes a religious discussion, but it is not in proper context. --Homy 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Consensus reached and new sentence inserted. Thank you everybody. TimVickers 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS

Given the wide spread nature of homepathy on the internet it is important that those that do get cited are reliable sources. There was an RfC that is relevant to this issue: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto. This is the major problem with the quantum physics. It is well cited but how many of those cites are reliable. We need to be hypercritical when dealing with dubious web sources. David D. (Talk) 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On that note I've removed [[16]]. It's almost laughable how badly it fails RS. Jefffire 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unhappy sentence

I am unhappy with this sentence and propose that we change it: "However, in terms of physical reality, a dilution of anything at 30C is physically identical to water." any suggestions? all hinges on what one means by physical reality and physically identical. Comments please. thanks Peter morrell 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove "in terms of physical reality", it doesn't add anything. Jefffire 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
well, for example we could change 'physical' to 'chemical' but that does still not solve the issue...chemical reality makes no sense either because 'chemical reality' so-called is really only a perception of reality, not reality itself. the point is that homeopathy could be part of a reality that sits a little bit wider than 'chemical reality' or in other words if a potentised remedy is different from potentised water, then clearly the molecular paradigm needs widening to take into account such new phenomena. I realise that this idea is not acceptable to those soaked in the molecular paradigm who harbour a strong disbleief in homeopathy, precisely because of their adherance to this molecular paradigm. However, it is still correct to say that 'physical reality' or 'chemical reality' is more of a concept or interpretation of 'reality' based upon the theory of molecules and is not reality per se. how did that sound? this may sound like farcical hair-splitting, but it is a genuine issue. thanks Peter morrell 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
To cover both points, firstly it is difficult to allow grossly divergent accounts of reality in this encyclopedia since some people's idea of reality may include such things as the holocaust being a myth or Elvis being a martian. I think we must therefore limit ourselves to describing what is provable. Since both logic and experiment agree on extreme dilutions being identical to diluant, this description seems entirely reasonable to me. How about "Since once a solution is diluted past a certain point no molecules of the original remain, extremely diluted solutions are simply water." Since nobody has ever shown this not to be true, Ockham's razor applies and we must take this simple model as accurate.
that might be a bit silly! the elvis bit...however, homeopathy is described by all who use it as being empirically valid, subjective though that may be; however, it is also logically inadequate, because it defies the known laws of chemistry...however, empirical validity is always superior in a true science, which is observation driven rather than theory driven. we must remember that Chemistry and molecules are not empirical, they are theories about the nature of matter. they are NOT matter itself. Thus, we do not actually KNOW what happens to a homeopathic remedy when it is being diluted and succussed; we think we know according to our theory of molecules, BUT that is not quite the same thing is it? oh well, at least I tried! Peter morrell 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Subjective empiricism is not a reliable relacement for experiment, if it is, then you are not talking about science. Good to see you back by the way Peter. TimVickers 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose we change the sentence into this: However, in terms of chemistry, a dilution of anything at 30C can be regarded as identical to water. how does that now sound? thanks Peter morrell 16:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"However, in terms of chemistry, anything diluted to 30C is simply water." TimVickers 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
well, Tim, we cannot say IS can we? we don't KNOW...it is a human interpretation based on the theory of molecules, as I said above...it can be regarded as simply water, yes, but we cannot strictly say that it IS only water...this is the point I was trying to make above. Make another suggestion perhaps? thanks Peter morrell 18:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. In terms of chemistry it is water. In terms of your faith in homeopathy it is something else, but in terms of chemistry it is water. I agree we cannot say it is water, but we can certainly say that in terms of chemistry it is water. It is a narrow, precise and accurate statement. TimVickers 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I can just as easily say based on your faith in molecules, which are purely a concept. Think about it. The sentence you have given is neither correct nor acceptable. A 30c remedy is not just water, but solely in molecular terms it might be regarded as such. This is a crucial concept which you seem to be dogmatic and flippant about at the smae time. You are not thinking about this deeply enough but just giving a reflex and hardline pro-molecular view. I am trying to create a conceptual ground that can include both homeopathy and chemistry; stop giving me such a hard time and ease up a bit. Or the bad sentence stays as it is. Peter morrell 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since molecules are the basis of chemistry, anything expressed from a chemical viewpoint will be by definition expressed in molecular terms. The sentence "However, in terms of chemistry, anything diluted to 30C is simply water." expresses the chemical viewpoint. Since I have never met a chemist who didn't think matter is composed of molecules, I really can't justify any qualification in this summary of their views. I hope I'm not being impolite Peter, I'm just telling you what I think about this. TimVickers 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you're not impolite at all, I just cannot agree with the sentence and for the reasons stated. it is all quite amicable. However, I do think you are giving me a hard time! which is something else of course. I will think this over and maybe someone else will chip in. Maybe it can stay as it is if no consensus is reachable. It's not such a bigdeal but I like to try to improve the wording wherever I can for the sake of greater clarity. That's all it is about. Thanks. Peter morrell 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I skipped a few days. It is the senstence: "However, in terms of physical reality, a dilution of anything at 30C is physically identical to water." Could it become:
"However, according to current science, a dilution of anything at 30C is physically identical to water." --Homy 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy_tag (part2)

I just removed a tag from the main article placed by a former contributor to this page. For part 1, see the following section in the archive: Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy_tag. I don't see how this tag improves the article and we have a more suitable tag at the top of this talk page. There is a lot of activity on this article bring it closer to consensus. Tags don't help us achive consensus. David D. (Talk) 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

why does the article need a tag? it is surely approahcing neutrality now as it is becoming a blend of many views...it is now a more or less complete and accurate view of the subject...is it not? Peter morrell 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is moving in the right direction towards neutrality. There is no need for a tag. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A good definition of neutrality is when everybody thinks something favors the other side! TimVickers 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork?

Is the classical homeopathy page simply a POV fork? TimVickers 21:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I will have to concur with you on this Tim because it looks rather thin in citations and supportive references and does seem pretty POV. Were you going to suggest folks wade in and kill it! ;-) or maybe clean it up? you are the guy to do that I feel. Peter morrell 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reject, with all due respect to Tim, I don't think he is the person for it. "Classical" homeopathy is not waiting for a "clinical" review, maybe just proper English, this is oke. I did study this subject and I am already adjusting it with proper citations. --Homy 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A page on the difference between classical homeopathy and other forms of homeopathy seems justified, but I can recognise stuff there I have written that has been simply cut and pasted across. I think shrinkage may be the answer, but this certainly needs consensus. I have added a "Disputed" tag to the article. TimVickers 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice a lot of your work has been copied to Drug dynamization Peter. I am not sure if this fragmentation is a positive development. TimVickers 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving the article Homeopathy relativity which by now earned some interesting comments on its AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeopathy relativity (The only good news is that this verges so far into the patent nonsense realm that I doubt people could base healthcare decisions upon it (but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me) and I think this article should be used as an example to let Wikipedians (and especially newbies) know just how dangerous WP can get are my favorites), all contributions of Homy (talk • contribs) should be taken with more than one grain of salt and thoroughly reviewed. --Pjacobi 07:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy has many aspects and cannot be rejected as just a "fork". Classical homeopathy is the theoretical base for "homeopathy" and has more devoted practicioners, classical homeopaths, than just homeopaths which is a vague description.

I cut and pasted some contents to it as well to drug dynamization because those are the theoretical issues involved --Homy 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My "contributions" are already thorouhgly reviewed, as they should with everybody who contributes --Homy 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Success of homeopathy in USA

If the huge success of homeopathy in the US in the 19th century is doubted by the ignorant and ill-informed, and its subsequent decline, then I can add a short fully referenced piece on this to substantiate my statement, now removed, that Kent's efforts [amongst those of others] was an effort to purify bad practice among a rampant and loosely licensed profession. Anyone who contests this is clearly ignorant of the facts about its history in the USA and is not therefore equipped to criticise the NPOV point previously made...not for the first time. Peter morrell 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter, calm down, then read over what you've just writen and consider how that might not be constructive to a collaborative project. We must bear in mind that homeopathy isn't some megalithic institution, it's very disperse. Many of those practicing what Kemt regarded as bastardised rubbish believe that they are right. So under NPOV we can't write what you proposed. Jefffire 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly calm; you should get informed before you edit neutral statements. What I said was correct, homeopathy in US did indeed become a victim of its own success, so successful that it lapsed into very sloppy practice, as a result of which the purists like Kent wished to see it cleaned up. That is a perfectly NPOV statement. Non-informed persons like you should not be bad-editing articles on subjects they manifestly know very little about. Peter morrell 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's hardly likely to be viewed as neutral by those who are being criticised as "sloppy". That's Kent's own view. It's perfectly alright to describe it as his view, but to write it as being the absolute truth isn't NPOV. I've no problem with the rest of your edits, let's not start a war over this. Jefffire 10:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
a short summary of its success and decline in the US might not go amiss, I will try to do that at some point. Peter morrell 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That's absolutely fine. Kent's opinions are important, but they must be carefully presented. Jefffire 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter, your statement missed a citation. When you add it to it I back up your statement --Homy 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try, but please bear in mind there are several weighty textbooks on the history of homoepathy in the USA, summarising which is no mean task and there is little meaningful online to back it up citation wise. I will get to the task at some point as time permits. It's OK no probs. Peter morrell 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it has also to do with the short collective memory of people in the USA concerning homeopathy, since my memory is, I believe with some research I can back it up, that just opposition of medical organizations were the main reason of its downfall. I can not find it yet at wiki --Homy 06:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I now have all the main points to hand concerning the rise and fall of US homeopathy and will compile a short paragraph on this to insert in the next few days...fully referenced. It will be a useful addition. Peter morrell 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its main differnce to conventional medicine

"Its main differnce to conventional medicine is that Homeopathy helps the body to heal itself through the careful selection of appropriate remedies."

I was wondering if this is a real difference between the two medical systems. For example, if you have a bacterial infection the conventional medical approach is to give you antibiotics (the appropriate remedies) that will help the body in its attempts to heal itself. It seems to me that this "difference" applies equally to allopathic and homeopathic medicine. TimVickers 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a standard claim by homeopaths. It doesn't really hold up to questioning (if you consider all the attempts by conventional medicine to get people to smoke less eat better and take more exersise).Geni 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose vaccinations are anther example of allopathic medicine helping the body cure itself, as are antibody-based antitoxins or even simple things like oral rehydration therapy. TimVickers 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Since a lot of homeopaths are close to the antivac lot they would be unlikely to accept that.Geni 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The removed section is clear POV, as well as factually incorrect. I don't think it warrents further discussion. Jefffire 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] diluted with water??

the current page says that the original components are diluted with alchohol or water. i dont know any homeopathic drug that is diluted with water. Atleast all the ones commercially available are dil. by alchohol. if there is any drug that is diluted with water, please tell me.--nids(♂) 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

most of them since water is somewhat cheaper than ethanol.Geni 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
90% alcohol is mostly used; check out a leading UK homeopathic pharmacy to read it for yourself: Helios Pharmacy However, for plants the starting point is a mother tincture often using 40% alcohol ['stewed' and shaken hard daily, usually for 4 weeks], but for seeds, barks and roots the alcohol strength might be 70% so as to extract more active ingredients from such dense plant material. There is no single answer to the question as it depends on the animal, plant or mineral material you start with to make the potentised remedy. Peter morrell 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that the solvent in some cases is a mixture of alchohol and water. Accepted. But definately no drug has all its dilution in just water.--nids(♂) 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that means that there actually is an "active" ingredient in it - the alcohol!
A few good quotes from The Memory of Water
  • "Homeopathy is God's way of thinning the flock". - dpr
  • "Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It's completely safe to drink." - Peter Dorn
  • "Homeopathy, where a little of nothing is better than something at all." - Jeanne E Hand-Boniakowski, R.N.
-- Fyslee 12:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Alcohol is not an "active" ingredient since it is taken in such tiny amounts (1-2 drops) that it will have no measureable physiological effect. Please try to be polite people, we are working on this article as a team, there is no reason to be deliberately insulting. TimVickers 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. What is the alcoholic content of a solution? I had though it was reasonably high in some cases. Jefffire 16:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite true, however even if something is 70% (v/v) alcohol, if you are only taking 1-2 drops per day the ethanol isn't going to have any effect. TimVickers 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

can i atleast say that there are no drugs which are completely diluted with water.--nids(♂) 16:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undemocratic Editing

Jefffire, it would be better and more democratic not to just delete stuff you happen to disagree with, but to put all that stuff back and place a bracket saying 'citation needed' in the places where you want a citation to support the contention being made...e.g. that stuff on royals...i can supply that, but it would be far nicer for you to adopt this approach than simply wading in and deleting stuff. agreed? thanks Peter morrell 08:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia guidelines unverified material should be removed. I give the benifit of the doubt in most cases, but I found it unlikely that every member of the royal family used homeopathy, given the large number of member with disparite opinions. Many or most would have been acceptable however. Now if you do find a reliable verification that I was incorrect, please reinsert it. There is absolutely no need to go creating section on the talk page or accusing people of being "undemocratic". In any case, it explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a democracy in the guidelines. Jefffire 09:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of what you say, the fact is that you and a few others are always acting arrogantly as self-appointed judge and jury for the minutest wordings in an article even though repeatedly it is evident that you know very little about the subject, and which you detest on scientific grounds, while hiding behind the 'wiki regulations' for your acts of vandalism. Well, at least we know what you are up to even if those of us who do know a bit about homeopathy don't like it. Peter morrell 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your change to the wording is perfectly acceptable. However, if you continue to act in this incivil and confrontational manner I will regretfully have to report you. Jefffire 11:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
report me for what? what on earth are you talking about? you nit pick over minutiae and then accuse me of being uncivil; quite the reverse, it is you and your actions based on very limited knowledge of homeopathy who act in an uncivil manner...repeatedly and consistently hostile to any even slightly pro-homeopathy person who visits this article or attempts a rational discourse about the subject. Look at your posts. Peter morrell 11:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You are making allegation such as "arrogant" and accuse others of "vadalism", and that is just three paragraphs above. Editors are expected to be civil. Jefffire 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
correction: the things I said about you were not claims or allegations; they were observations made over a period of the bad way you present yourself in talk and in editing. It is you who are consistently uncivil and who do indeed intimidate other contributors by editing their work without consultation. And your knowledge of homeopathy is extremely limited. Peter morrell 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Warning has been issued to user. Jefffire 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
the article is the main cncern of mine not all this petty personal nitpicking; and the article is now much improved thanks to the many editors who have contributed towards its great improvement in recent months; let us celebrate that first and above all. Peter morrell 15:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for subarticles?

The article is much better now, but the subject is so wide and well-developed that there are several specialist areas (e.g. history, basic research and mechanisms, clinical efficacy) that would benefit from their own in-depth articles. The astrology article is a good model, with short sections describing history and horoscopes linked to separate articles. It is also a model of how to write about a controversial topic. Jedermann 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

More a warning than an example. Validity of astrology became a battleground, before being deleted, erasing many months of work. Any sub-article ideas should be discussed on talk before creation as anything controversial will inevitably become POV-forks and get deleted. Jefffire 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, i think you should calm down. This is a good suggestion as the article is a bit long now and we can create subarticles for details.nids(♂) 11:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said otherwise. I think you are reading something different into my good faith caution. Jefffire 12:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry for the missunderstanding. I thought that in your previous post you said that sub-articles shouldnt be created (as they are POV). never mind, if you agree for the creation of new articles, then there is no problem.nids(♂) 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No trouble. Basicaly I'm warning against any article with titles like "Effectiveness of Homeopathy" or worse yet "Evidence for Homeopathy", as they would inevitably lead to disaster in my experience. Articles about history, popularity, legislation or other uncontroversial topics are generally safe. Sub-articles are fine, it's POV forks which cause trouble. The dividing line isn't clear, which is why I urge caution. Jefffire 12:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diseases as human constructs

New sentence Homeopathy regards named diseases as morbid derangements of the organism,[5] preferring instead to treat each case of sickness as a strictly individual phenomenon. Old sentence Homeopathy regards named diseases as misleading human constructs, preferring instead to treat each case of sickness as a strictly individual phenomenon.

New homeopathy? The organon is the beginning of homeopathy. (1810) The book refered to is (1807) and the reference proves just the point that the word "homoeopathy" is used for the first time. I repeat what I said in 'history' only homeopaths who believed in divine predestination could have said: "misleading human constructs" and Hahnemann was Lutheran so this phrase is not his. There is no way the sentence "Homeopathy regards named diseases as misleading human constructs" is a fair expression in any context. The burden of evidence is reverse: Prove the sentence is true and I accept it. Until than I take my sentence back. WP:VERIFY

The words new and old refer to versions of the article. TimVickers 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The point this tried to make was that many homeopaths do not accept a single diagnosis such as "arthritis" can be applied to a population of patients and that they regard every case of disease as different. The new version needs editing to make sense, but even then it would not express this point. TimVickers 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is a morbid derangements of organism. I reverted it as gibberish. Jefffire 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not gibberish, conventional medicine regards diseases as "morbid derangements of the organism" as well. It is a bit of a clumsy way of expressing the idea of pathology, but the real problem is that the suggested change loses the sense of the original. TimVickers 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. The plain English version is infinitely then. I think Homy got confused about the meaning of the sentence. Jefffire 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You can talk the way you want the sentence is correct and is from Hahnemann --Homy 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you do not recognise that your change has created a nonsensical sentence. I suggest either you change your addition so that it is grammatical or you tell me what you are trying to say so I can change it for you. TimVickers 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Miasms are part of classical homeopathy. AS said before I delete it because there is no relevance for readers to 'homeopathy'. I rv to my changes --Homy 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is poor editing practice to delete a large section of an article without consulting the other contributors. If you do not think this topic is relevant to Homeopathy, then why do you think Peter Morell spent about a week working on this section when he first created it? TimVickers 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please this subject is about homeopathy, it is annoying people with no inteligence of the subject change the subject to what they think it should be. This is what Peter also says. Leave the subject to that statement which dellivers prove. The history of the subject is good, there no doubt about that --Homy 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I can't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that Peter would agree with you that his work in this section is unrelated to Homeopathy? TimVickers 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
the confusion here is that to say 'disease' is an abstract human construct imposed upon nature, which it is, is NOT the same meaning as saying a disease is a derangement of the organism. so what? of course disease is a derangement of the organism bigdeal that is pretty obvious stuff, and is saying a totally different thing from saying that to see a disease as an alleged entity that affects everyone the same is absolutely unhomeopathic...so until the meaning of the orignal sentence is preserved you can't substitute Homy's new point from the Organon for the very different point about human constructs...is that clearer? maybe both points can be made? I don't know. but the point about sickness as a strictly individual phenomenon, as viewed by homeopaths, is a very crucial conceptual distinction from the allopathic mode of thinking that derives originally from Thomas Sydenham in the 1600s when he classed sickness into alleged entities such as measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria, etc. Peter morrell 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anything be more clear than the Organon ? --FredRoter 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. Before reverting make your case here. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone made his case already if I read this discussion --FredRoter 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So your argument is ditto? Who is the someone, homy? What about the comments from Peter and Tim? David D. (Talk) 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred's command of the English language is strangly reminiscent... Jefffire 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy emphasises the importance of treating individuals as individuals and of understanding the whole person as opposed to only understanding a single "diseased part". British Homeopathic Association

Homeopathy is patient-centred and holistic; it does not clump patients together on the arbitrary basis of a humanly created disease classification scheme. Homeopathy Views the Uniqueness of Each Patient by Peter Morrell

Please read Peter's article on this question Homy, it is very comprehensive. TimVickers 22:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. If you truly believe the difference between a patient being diagnosed with "cancer" and another with "arthritis" is purely determined by the irrational whim of the physician, then you should provide some proof of this. Otherwise, it is incorrect to describe modern disease classifications as "arbitrary". TimVickers 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On being a good article

The article is currently sitting in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. There's only one unsourced statement in the text, but it will need to be sourced or removed if it's to get to GA status. --SeizureDog 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

well maybe you should tell us what that unsourced statement is? then we can deal with it. ok thanks Peter morrell 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I tagged this about a week ago, I've removed it now.

(This evoked some controversy since part of the government's own study showed that three of the therapies, including homeopathy, did in fact meet these criteria.{{fact}})

Jefffire 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
well if that has been removed then there is no longer any barrier to obtaining good article status, is there? Peter morrell 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibook on Homeopathy

It looks like someone started a Wikibook on homeopathy this spring, but it hasn't been worked on since then. I'm just adding a note here in case anyone is interested in contributing to a wikibook on the subject. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why ignore discussion?

Homy you have ignored all the above points and just gone ahead, once again, insisting you are right when everyone else disagrees with you. That's OK I guess, in a wild & anarchistic kind of way, and right on for you, but I have added the 'human constructs' phrase back into what you changed. Discussion does mean trying to reach consensus not just doing what you want on an impulse regardless. The Organon is NOT as absolute as some people think; afterall, Hahnemann changed it 6 times in 23 years...by now he would be on edition 35 or something so it is NOT the Ten Commandments of homeopathy as some people like to think...and almost every 'law' he states in it he broke himself at some point. what does that tell you? he was just like you! Peter morrell 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you. Please read my thick lines above. --Homy 21:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) As addition: There is no single "law" of Hahnemann I follow or believe. But I think he made some basic points or principles which still hold. If those are not true, so what is basic about homeopathy? --Homy 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

will deal with this in the morning good night! Peter morrell 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Homy, let me know if you still want me to clarify the 'misleading human cinstructs' theme. thanks Peter morrell 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedenborg

Well, it's a good edit I suppose so I have not touched it, but it is a rather hairsplitting point...the so-called vitalism of Hahnemann is the same thing as the spiritualism of Swedenborg...just read sections 10-16 of the Organon [17] for example and it is very clear what he means as the cause of all sickness; example: §12 Sixth Edition...

It is the morbidly affected vital energy alone that produces disease, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis.

Here he certainly alludes to 'spiritual factors' within the vital force as the ONLY cause of those dynamic derangements of the organism we call disease. Kent's Swedenborgian views are virtually identical and call them Swedenborgian if you want, but they mean exactly the same thing as what Hahnemann says. Beyond being an interpreter of the Organon, Kent has little new to say on this matter. Peter morrell 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving it, as it is not hairsplitting. There is a large semantic gap between 'vital energy' and 'spiritual factors', hence my original request for a supporting citation. The Organon translation you reference here gets 'geistig' and 'geistartig' wrong. There are no religious overtones to the words Hahnemann used, and I have translated them thus: 'immaterial, vitalist'. If he had written 'geistlich' it would have had the same connotations as the English 'spiritual'.
Kent is listed in WP as a Swedenborgian celebrity, so identifying that tendency in this article adds value, IMO. You may of course wish to remove the embarrassing Kentian references altogether - as you point out he has little new to say. As a minor contributor I don't feel it's appropriate for me to do that. Jedermann 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I think you have to view Kent, as with many things, in the context he found himself and I think he felt his mission was to translate the Organon and make it accessible through his commentaries to the religious transcendental audience of late 19th century predominantly East Coast America, which intellectually was wholly dominated by that spiritual view of life. He wished to open up homeopathy and the Organon for that audience and in that respect he did a superb job, regardless of whether we today agree with him; that was what he did. as regards the meanings of German words, I frankly find this a tiresome point and being no linguist I cannot comment BUT I have seen many people hide behind such obfuscation in an attempt to twist meanings into the Organon which simply are not there. I do not wish to labour the point, but here check out these pieces of Organon and explain your so-called large semantic gap [your words] between vital force, dynamis, spirit, vital energy...etc:

"it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life…[Organon, Aph. 11] for it is the morbidly affected vital force alone that produces disease, [Organon, Aph. 12] [and cure must remove] all such morbid derangements (diseases)…by the spirit-like (dynamic, virtual) alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, [Organon, Aph. 15]…[for] it is only by their dynamic action on the vital force that remedies are able to re-establish and do actually re-establish health and vital harmony." [Organon, Aph. 16] Aphorisms 9 and 10 state that the organism is ruled over by a spiritual autocracy or vital force; aphorisms 11, 12 and 17 declare that disease is solely a derangement in the vital force. Aphorisms 20 and 21 declare the spirit-like nature of the drug in both its curative and its health-deranging action. Aphorism 63 medicines derange the vital force – that is their spirit-like power [provings] and is called the primary action. He also states that "diseases obviously are not and cannot be mechanical or chemical changes in the material substance of the body...but are an exclusively dynamic, spirit-like untunement of life." [Organon, Aph.31] "The champions of this clumsy doctrine of morbific matters ought to be ashamed that they have so inconsiderately overlooked and failed to appreciate the spiritual nature of life, and the spiritual dynamic power of the exciting causes of diseases." [Organon, 9] "...homeopathy...can easily convince...that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity...any disease matter, but that they are solely spirit-like [dynamic] derangements of the spirit-like power [the vital principle] that animates the human body." [Organon, xxix] All disease is construed as a "dynamic aberration of our spiritlike life," [Stuart Close, Genius of Homeopathy, 1924, 67]; "a perverted vital action," [Close, 70]; "disease is the suffering of the dynamis," [Close, 72]; "disease is primarily a morbid disturbance or disorderly action of the vital force," [Close, 74]. I think it is clear enough that Hahnemann saw no distinction whatsoever between the terms 'spirit' and 'vital,' both being approximations to an insubstantial something that holds sway and controls and regulates the life processes of a living organism. In which case, the 'large semantic gap' is somewhat narrowed to nothing. Thanks Peter morrell 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"diseases obviously are not and cannot be mechanical or chemical changes in the material substance of the body." Amazing stuff, thanks Peter. A real breath of history for somebody like me, rooted in the material world. TimVickers 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL Jedermann 11:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks for making my point so eloquently, Peter. As you say, Hahnemann may well have made "no distinction whatsoever between the terms 'spirit' and 'vital'". But I didn't refer to a distinction between 'spirit' and 'vitality'. I queried your use of 'spiritual' as in 'spiritual factors'. In current usage 'spiritual' has strong religious and theological overtones. Hahnemann did not use religious terminology when explaining disease and cure, whereas Kent frequently did. Kent derived from Swedenborg his belief about the "very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness...", clearly related to Biblical notions of the Fall.
To compare current English usage of 'spirit' versus 'spiritual' see WordNet, "an online lexical reference system whose design is inspired by current psycholinguistic theories of human lexical memory." Ironically, there is another WordNet, the Word of God Broadcasting Network, which "presents the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ through the media of radio". The difference between 'word' and 'the Word' compares nicely with the difference between Hahnemann's vitalism and Kent's spirituality. Jedermann 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that the best you can do? it is an incredibly feeble argument to use for an important topic. I disagree with all you have said; you have created an utterly futile discussion. I made the assumption that you are intelligent and well-informed. Your change can stay, it is a minor point; please try to be serious if you want a proper discussion on the teachings of Hahnemann and his followers; it is tiresome to end up wasting time on people who are so ill-informed. I have nothing further to say on this matter. Peter morrell 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Peter, please, you make a lot of useful contributions. I don't want to have to report you for incivility. If you find someone point incorrect there is no need to flame them. Jefffire 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry, you are right; in this context in which we are talking, the term 'spiritual' merely means insubstantial and nebulous, intangible, certainly that is correct and is what Hahnemann meant; Kent likewise; it is just a way of talking about the vital force--as the quotes I supplied clearly demonstrate; it does not mean anything to do with a specific religion like Christianity - please try to talk sense! It is a generic term meaning insubstantial and nebulous...obviously. To drag the church and radio into this is an utterly hopeless and farcical diversion. Who says Hahnemann had no religious views? can you prove that please? thank you Peter morrell 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you really asking us to believe that when Kent used the word 'spiritual' he merely meant ‘immaterial’ or ‘nebulous’ (i.e. Hahnemann’s ‘spirit-like’)?
Kent demanded blind religious faith in his followers: “a man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homoeopath… You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural … very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness...” (Kent, New Remedies, 1926).
In contrast, Hahnemann kept personal religious beliefs separate from his medical writings. He seems to have been a Deist, in common with other contemporary scientists and freethinkers, many of whom were Freemasons like him. His ‘Great Architect’ did not intervene in history and punish human transgressions. Hahnemann thought psora stemmed from suppression of skin eruptions. Kent blamed psora on man’s ‘Original Sin’ (ibid.).
Kent’s homeopathy is saturated with the mystical Christianity of Swedenborg and the New Church. Recent discussions show the astonishing dependence on Swedenborgian ideas and terminology in Kent’s hierarchical repertory structure, methods of case analysis, potencies and so on:
And to bring this up to date, present-day theory and practice is often Swedenborgian - since Kent’s ideas have been presented worldwide as ‘classical homeopathy’. Pro and anti Kentians like Cassam and van Galen agree on this, so why you are so keen to suppress discussion on a crucial point? Is the article correct to say that Kent is virtually as important as Hahnemann in the development of homeopathy? If so, why do you repeatedly dismiss the vitalist / spirituality distinction as trivial, when you have used many of the above quotes from Kent in your own writings? Harris Coulter ignored Swedenborg in his history of 19th century homeopathy, and in his review Anthony Campbell thought it was because Swedenborgianism was too inconvenient for the quasi-scientific version of homeopathy Coulter tried to present.
A similar sanitization process won’t wash in a peer-reviewed context like WP.
PS. I wrote that yesterday. Before posting, I’ve just dug back in the archives, and lo and behold:
“Can I suggest that the stuff on J T Kent be lifted as it is irrelevant to modern homeopathy except the use of high potency, of which he was a prime advocate. His quasi-religious views on Swedenborg included here have not become accepted as core dogmas in homeopathy and thus do not add anything of substance to the discussion. Peter morrell 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)”
Well, well. Now we can understand your paranoid reaction to my mild comments about the nuances of the word ‘spiritual’ and whether it correctly applied to both Hahnemann and Kent. You are trying to conceal a POV that you managed to impose in May. Well, I’m with Campbell, Cassam and van Galen on this: the Swedenborgian turn in homeopathy is pervasive and has to be acknowledged.
Finally, I don’t accept bullying abuse. Take this as a warning. Jedermann 07:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Peter has already apologised for flaming. Kicking people when they are down isn't very nice. Jefffire 08:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kent

I disagree with most of what you have said but accept that there is confusion over Kent's position and role in homeopathy. He is as irrelevant to modern homeopathy as is Swedenborg, and my comment does not smack of paranoia as you make out. He simply is irrelevant, an old fossil, that is all. I like Kent a lot and you are quite wrong in what you speculate about my views about him. He is a complex character without a doubt. My point simply was and still is that the words 'spirit' and 'vital' overlap in homeopathy to such a degree that any meaningful argument that they are intrinsically different somehow, such as you have been peddling here, is far from convincing. I cannot speak for Campbell or Coulter neither of whom I have a great deal of respect for; they are probably not neutral, but Coulter is at least generally factually accurate and largely accurate in his interpretations too. His books are the finest that we have from a modern scholar and for you to dismiss them so lightly diminishes you considerably. If you think I have been guilty of 'bullying abuse' then I am sorry of course; I don't like that either, but the bottom line is that I just think you have presented a shabby and unconvincing case mounted on flimsy and biased evidence and if you can do better then please have a bash. I hope that clarifies my position. best wishes Peter morrell 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kent's Swedenborgianism is everywhere. Listen to this authority on current thinking and practice just spotted in the opening paragraphs:
"It is the man that is sick and to be restored to health, not his body, not the tissues." Lectures on Homoeopathic philosophy. J.T. Kent M.D. Lecture 1. § 1. "The Sick" 08:39, 8 September 2006 FredRoter (Talk | contribs) (add quote JT Kent)
Don't you just love "not his body, not the tissues"? Personally, as a patient I like to make my own decisions about what is to be cured. See ya. Jedermann 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Jedermann but the quote is merely a statement of holism--treat the whole person, not the parts; what is so outrageous about that? This is core to homeopathy and has nothing whatsoever to do with Kent or Swedenborg. I think you obsess to some degree about this so-called Swedenborg connection. What is so wrong with Swedenborg? what is your problem? it is just a set of ideas and theories about matter and life, which Kent saw a strong parallel between and the ideas of homeopathy. so what? none of it is set in conceptual concrete, is it? you can believe what you like and so can Hahnemann and so can Kent and so can I. who cares? homeopathy just soldiers on in its own way. It is not a theory, it is a method. Science is yet another set of beliefs and theories. Nobody working in homoepathy gives a damn about Kent; they are busy treating patients, oblivious of all this navel gazing and tortuous metaphysics. They don't gives damn about Kent or Swedenborg--it is all just ancient history to them. Sadly they do give a damn about science, which they should learn to ignore. Campbell I gave up on as he spent 30 years as a failed homeopath so it seems to me and a dyed-in-the-wool allopath; he slams homeopathy having spent his whole life in it. What kind of example does he set and how can such a person have any useful views on it. I find the man an incredible anomaly. He is like a failed artist writing books on art. What credibility does that convey, honestly? So his views about Coulter, can't really be much use either. These are not neutral people. You cannot trust their view because it is biased in some way...there are hidden agendas on every front. Sorry to have rambled you raise some useful issues. regards Peter morrell 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I just read that so-called review by Campbell of Coulter. The first half of it is about Hahnemann and is riddled with factual errors; the rest of it is an inaccurate and rambling diatribe not about volume 4, which it purports to be, but about Coulter's first 3 volumes of Divided Legacy. He gives his own weird views on that. You cannot trust this type of gibberish. I assume you got your obsession with Swedenborg from Campbell, he says the same stuff. I would suggest that Coulter is about the most accurate historian of homeopathy that I have read. Very rarely does he get the wrong end of the stick and most of the time he is reliable in fact and in interprettaion. I would go even further: his 4 volumes of about 700 pages each is one of the best histories of medicine in existence. How a man like Campbell can begin to stand in judgement over a work like that and merely end up slamming it all as trash is beyond belief. It tells you more about him than about the sheer quality of Coulter's brilliance as an historian. I know who I trust more as neutral and accurate; they are not even in the same street. thank you Peter morrell
the various branches of homeopathy treat different figures with different levels of importance.Geni 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomeopathy_Archive_11_587c.html"