User talk:Homy/homeopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the user page I invite editors to rewrite homeopathy. --Homy 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
New outline on homeopathy and classical homeopathy

Contents 1 Consensus about Homeopathy in Wikipedia 1.1 Wikipedia 1.2 Suggestions to have a open quality page 1.3 Other suggestions 2 Discussion 3 Mixed remedies 4 Speacial relativity 5 Video clip of succussion 6 Suggestion 7 Physical reality [edit] Consensus about Homeopathy in Wikipedia [edit] Wikipedia
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
[edit] Suggestions to have a open quality page
- Wikipedia must support or at least not oppose this consensus - There are supporters and opponents of homeopathy - The subject must have neutral, pro and contra arguments each with relative space - The current version of Homeopathy is incomplete, not reflecting all versions or opinions of homeopathy. The neutral reader can not see which argument is neutral, which reflecting homeopathic opinion and which argument oppose homeopathic opinions - Neutral comments must have general consensus - Past contributors may be invited or notified - Readers must see the difference. - A declaration or summary like this could be on top of the page - A neutral person or party could organize or support this consensus - A preliminary page could be available for all parties to give their arguments - Respect for the 'other' or his/her opinion must have the highest priority - Contributors need to stick with their arguments to the subject, never becoming personal or judging people on their backgrounds or act emotional on arguments - Neutral contributors could help to reach a proper English style or grammar, help with any other linguistic problem or way of expression - Other suggestions are welcome --Homy 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other suggestions
.... ....

[edit] Discussion

I suggest that you look carefully through WP policies and guidelines on controversial articles, and especially note a) the importance of verifiable reputable sources (V RS) and b) the rule of no original research. Anything that does not have a V RS and is disputed can be removed, nothing with a V RS should be unless it is argued that it is irrelevant, redundant or not notable. NPOV does not mean equal space to all sides. It does mean observing the factual basis of disputes.Gleng 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. If you leave the word "you" out of it, you can place it back in the "other sugestions" as this was meant as common guideluine. I changed "equal space" with "relative space". Agree ? --Homy 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed remedies

OK here is a specific you said complex homeopathy, that is using mixed remedies, is tosh; it isn't' it works. examples Gunpowder a brilliant remedy for war wounds [which is Sulphur, Kali nitr [Potassium nitrate] and Carbo veg or Charcoal]...another good one that is excellent for non-descript childhood fevers is ABC = Aconite Belladonna and Chamomilla...the purists are dead against these remedies but pragmatic homeopaths USE THEM and to hell with the theory that says they don't work...so I think if you give some examples and citations then this can easily become a short and useful additional section. thanks Peter morrell 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are partly right. I wrote to fast on this. I will rewrite it. It is however a well known principle in classical homeopathy See: Law of simplex - the single remedy. --Homy 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

O, You might refer to Causticum. There is a difference in mixing substances and then potentiate them, this is oke, or making dilutions and then mix them. This is done, but according to classical homeopathy wrong. I did some research after this and it is an opinion among most (classical) homeopaths. I did also (by mistaken) a proving (test) with this. A repeted complex remedy (x times a day) as presciption (on those medicines) IS dangerous and could be a reason for some problems in homeopathy. Just ONE single dose of for example ABC per disease is the ONLY alternative. I realize some things here are opinions, but this is the general idea. Later I will change it --Homy 23:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Causticum is not really a mixed remedy but more an alchemical remedy prepared by a very strange method; likewise Hepar sulph; however, I will find some examples of mixed remedies for that paragraph but not for 2 weeks. thx also for your msg to my talk page; I am happy to help improve this article. Peter morrell 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The chief objection to mixed remedies says that what is proved singly should be used singly which is fair enough so far as ot goes BUT if they work then who cares what the purists say? I will try to make a list of them and at some point add a short paragraph on this. Peter morrell 10:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was already trying to edit this section. Caust. and Hep. are pure homeopathic remedies. In classical homeopathy however it is a reality that there is a scale from purists to 'new agers'. I have a very strong opinion about this. The 'principles' of homeopathy are unchangable. I am 'in principle' an opposer of 'laws', because they are time framed, depending on the opinion of those make the laws. Principles can not be changed, only we have to figure out what the principles of nature are.

What is the principle here: Homeopathic diluted remedies cause fixed and reliable symptoms (Organon § 111). Mixed remedies are not proved and there is no materia medica pura of these thus they are not part of the principles of classical homeopathy. Why and how the remedies work (or not work) should be explained differently in the section complex homeopathy as I already started. It should have a mention of controversy with classical homeopathy. However my opinion is that therapies can be based on different principles, the principles should not contradict. Now I just have to write it in consensus language. --Homy 15:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speacial relativity

<< There is one principle which should be mentioned here, namely the consequences of special relativity. The combination of homeopathy and relativity seems counter-intuitive but as the earth is traveling through Space-time, mass itself contains dilutions or dilations of time, space and momentum. In this way of thinking a remedy could not be considered a random act, but creating a relativistic frame where the ratio between the medium, the tool which is used and the target dilution becomes infinitely great. This could be called quantum potentation [28] or relativistic potentation. >>

I think you are going to have a massive problem with this paragraph. First your link is broken, is there another? Second, it reads like original research and you will have to find a very reliable source to be able to discuss this idea here. Third as it reads now it is hard to understand the point. This last poin can be solved, although, i see no point until we have decided on a reliable source. One thing i will point out is that this style of writing, for example this: "There is one principle which should be mentioned here" is not encyclopedic. It will have to be tightened up a lot for inclusion. David D. (Talk) 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the link. I knew someone would come with these arguments. I did original and primary research on this. However it is also an opinion among homeopaths that it is based on relativity. I simply found the "right" words to express them. I only don't see the problem of your example, how should you write it ? --Homy 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to read the source before I can give you my ideas on how to write it. To tell you the truth i have never heard of this use for relativity. From a scientific perspective it seems like hot air and bluster. Sorry, but I'm sure you'd rather I was candid. David D. (Talk) 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I just checked out the reference. You realise that the paragraph above is 100% plagiarised from the web site? This is not accepted by wikipedia you need to rephrase it. Actually may be you can make a better paragraph because to tell you the truth your source reads like random words. For example: "The Broglie imputed the frequency of particles not to the inward periodic behavior of the particle, but to a wave which is tied up with the particle in time and space, in such a way that it is always in phase with its internal process, he called those waves guiding waves." What on earth does this mean? Is it possible the web site is referring to resonant frequencies?

It is my website. About the Broglie. I could use some citations. And my mother tongue is Dutch, maybe I translated the sentence wrong. --Homy 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out for the Broglie (easy to understand) http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/debroglie.html --Homy 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the source: "The Wave nature of Matter The Broglie imputed the frequency of particles not to the inner periodic behavior of the particle, but to a wave which is tied up with the particle in time and space, in such a way that it is always in phase with its internal process, he called those waves guiding waves" Is this better expressed ? --Homy 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In places it is just nonsense. For example: "Transfer takes place in a infinite small moment" this makes no sense. The time for an electromagnetic wave to travel a set distance is not infinitely small. This is just wrong.

I rewrote: "Transfer takes place in an almost infinite small moment (compared to our normal speeds). Nowadays we can understand this with our advanced equipments. Electromagnetic waves have the speed of light in vacuum. How fast does this dilution takes place ? - The elementary time which is necessary to get information through a particle is: t = 10 -23 sec."

Here is another using words like black hole in a context that makes no sense at all: " With Potentation we create as it were a black hole, because the mass of the mediu becomes relatively endless times heavier than the diluted substance". A black hole is not about ratios of mass. It is about absolute mass.

I disagree: "In Scientific American from December 2005 black holes analogies to the quantum level are predicted (with sound, as yet in laboratory conditions)." By the way I wrote it long before this" http://www.homeopathy.healthspace.eu/phyics/black-holes.php

Are there better sources for this concept. It really reads like it is written by someone who knows some terminology but does not understnad the concepts. In summary, i think you will find it hard to get this source accepted. David D. (Talk) 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This was said before on my user talk, but it could be reverse. I know the concepts, but do not always use the right terminology.

I just thought is this your own web site? If so then it really will not be acceptable. It is not permissible to do original research then put in on your own web site and cite it as a primary source. If it is your own site, then what we need to see are the sources you used to make the above statements. David D. (Talk) 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and the effort you took. I'll add the sources. I could need someone to check my site about terminology and proper English. --Homy 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed my source:"Ultimately the potencies are diluted according to relativity. With Potentation we create as it were a black hole or black hole analogy, because the mass of the medium (the substance you dilute with) becomes relatively endless times heavier than the diluted substance." --Homy 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be away for the next week but will check back and see the other sources etc. Sorry to be harsh about your web site. There could well be a language translation issue here so again other sources will help to help understand this concept. David D. (Talk) 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked a Dutch MD to review the matter. --Homy 06:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video clip of succussion

For people who don't have a Windows operating system on their computer the video clip link comes out as a page filled with a string of characters. One solution would be to link to the page http://www.dhu.com/company_profile.htm but it's probably too commercial. The best solution would be to upload a video file to Wikipedia using the recommended Wikipedia video format. See also: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Media_help --apers0n 06:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this clip no copyrights  ? --Homy 06:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to view the clip as I am not using a Microsoft Windows-based computer. Perhaps contact the company and ask them if it can be used, giving a reference to them? --apers0n 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Another suggestion would be to include a short point-by-point critique of allopathic medicine as most homeopaths see it; this would illuminate key homeopathic concepts, outline major conceptual differences and balance up the critique from the pro-molecular lobby. Peter morrell 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will enter the area of controversies when I have orientated myself a bit more. This would not take long. --Homy 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen myself as part of a "pro-molecular lobby" before. I must get around to lobbying my elected representatives on the evils of non-atomist thought. TimVickers 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physical reality

I see someone added a point that physical reality says a potentised remedy and water are the same. They should read Kant, and very carefully, before they spout on about so-called 'physical reality' because nobody knows what reality is, we just have fluid models and ever revisable concepts of what 'reality' is, so it is a bit premature, not to say arrogant, to dismiss homeopathy on the basis of a molecular paradigm, which is merely one way of looking at the world. To mistake molecules for reality is to commit a grave error. That's my ten pennorth on that Peter morrell 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the only point, I've seen many of those perceptions. That's why I CLAIMED the page has many mistakes. --Homy 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go and create your own version of reality, please feel free to do so. I suggest you start by re-defining gravity and walking to the moon. TimVickers 03:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, no comments on personal remarks, it just shows emotions instead of objectivity, this should lower the standards of "science", still high regards. --Homy 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)