Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

I added the link to faith healing because both treatments rely substantially on belief (though not necessarily religious belief) in order for the treatments to work, as well as the rejection of modern medical techniques. Is this not relevant? -- sodium

Well, I think homeopathy proponents would disagree with you that homeopathy relies on faith. They consider it to be scientifically valid. I think that a link to alternative medicine would be appropriate, though.

Ah, yet another illustration of what is wrong with Wikipedia. We had an article on homeopathy that attempted to be balanced, and I think it succeeded. Then, a series of changes were added with no interest in pursuing NPOV, complete with a long quotation from another work attacking thesubject, is added to the article. However, since deleting text is a faux pas in Wikipedia, the added text is just supposed to stand as it is and instead, presumably, for the sake of balance anyone who wants to restore a semblance of NPOV here would have to put in an equal amount of text that served as a rebuttal, so that both sides would have an equal amount of text. This does not make for an encyclopedia article.

So revert it if you want. There's no official policy against doing so. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 11
I got attacked for doing that in the feminism article. I am not even a proponent of homeopathy, but I am not about to get into another war of deletion and addition.

This does not make for an encyclopedia article.

You are incorrect. The only way to handle controversies in an encyclopedia properly is to present both sides of the controversy to the extent to which this is reasonably possible. The original article ignored facts and was therefore incomplete.

What is undesirable is to have this presentation in the form "Party X argues that .. party Y replies that .. party X responds taht .." -- if such paragraphs become the norm, the article should be split into separate pro and contra positions which can be read independently.

It is now up to the homeopathy folks to present an actual reasonable argument for homeopathy, including citations (please!). Eloquence

I totally agree. There *is* a big debate over the value of homeopathy and it should be represented in the article. The fact that one side is properly represented now should be seen as better than having no sides properly represented before, eventually the NPOV should sort itself out. -- sodium

Why do there have to be "sides" represented at all? Why not just present the facts about what is found in a belief system and let the reader decide? I dislike articles in wikipedia that have a he-said/she-said feel about them.

Well, I tried to summarize what you added and removed the long quote, but if you don't agree with what I did, then return it back to the way it was. I am not interested in getting into another fight over another article.

Sorry, you deleted critical information. Neither the nature of the quote nor its content prohibits inclusion according to the criteria of an encyclopedia. As I said, the best way to "balance" the article, if proponents of homeopathy find the current article unbalanced, is to add additional information, including quotes (which may well criticize the other side).

Why do there have to be "sides" represented at all? Why not just present the facts about what is found in a belief system and let the reader decide?

Because people disagree about what the facts are. I believe that Wikipedia should not be postmodernist and acknowledge that there is an objective reality which can be approximated, everything else would doom this project to failure. However, different perspectives on a subject deserve to be acknowledged where reasonable people may disagree. For example, I do not find "flat earth theory" worth including in the "geology" node, but only because its very premise rejects science altogether. Homeopathy at least pretends to be scientific, and this pretense must be adequately treated. --Eloquence

Oh, and who gets to decide what is reasonable? This view this does not jibe with your other statement that all proponents of all sides should get their two cents worth into an article. Either we turn the article into a dumping ground for every point of view, or we don't. If we start opening it up to various points of view, then using the article specifically to discredit an unscientific point of view isn't possible, because you have already stated that you want to present all sides. But now you are saying that you don't want to present all sides, but rather to specifically present the side that "reasonable" people believe, whoever the hell they are.
Oh, and who gets to decide what is reasonable? Don't misunderstand me: A theory or hypothesis that claims to be an attempt to approximate the truth is worth being represented even if we believe that it is "clearly" false. What would be unreasonable is to represent a point of view whose proponents argue that they, for whatever reason, are not bound by the standards of science and rationalism and do not need to defend or prove their claims: These views should be represented as "belief systems", but not in the context of statements of facts. Pseudoscience is a border case, and you know how the saying goes: in dubio pro reo.

Please don't fight, boys. I also strongly disbelieve in homeopathy, possibly as strongly as LDC disbelieves in creationism. Yet the best way to show homeopathy up for the crock it is, is to give it the most sympathetic explanation possible; then, follow up with a concise paragraph explaining its unscientific basis. --Ed Poor, reformed axe-grinder

Ed: I see no reason to be unnecessarily concise either in presentation or rebuttal. Adequacy is essential, not brevity. -- Eloquence

(from rev. 11): Proponents argue, however, that homeopathy is, in fact, effective.

This can't really be given as a serious argument. Homeopathy has not *proven* itself - both sides would probably agree that. This would simply be their opinion. Critics could then argue "that homeopathy is, in fact, not effective" etc... -- sodium

I am not a proponent of homeopathy, so I can't really give a fair treatment to this article, but it seems that this will not be an NPOV article, but instead critics of homeopathy will always get the last word in any discussion of the issues involved. I was attempting to make a feeble last gasp effort at introducing some balance to this article, but it is clearly a failed effort since Wikipedia is not a project committed to balance or NPOV.
Egern: (I know I really shouldn't tell people to, but...) calm down. There need not be any "feeble last gasp effort", Wikipedia is not going anywhere. In a few weeks it might just happen that a massive crowd of Homeopathy proponents arrive at this page and turn it completely round. After that it will be shuffled around more until eventually it reaches equilibrium. NPOV is always to be strived for, but it doesn't necessarily have to arrive immediately. -- sodium
For example when I arrived at this page this afternoon it was blatantly pro-homeopathic and had been so since Dec 2. I worked on it, but made it too anti-. Then it was re-edited etc... It is much better now than it was this afternoon though. -- sodium

It might be good to remove the link to pseudoscience, unless someone also wants to link Chiropractic to pseudoscience...

I'd leave the links in both. "Straight" chiropractic, like Homeopathy, denies the very basic scientific facts of medicine; i.e., that germs cause disease. Homeopaths and straight chiropractors both calim you can treat bacterial and viral infections with plain water and spinal manipulations. "Pseudoscience" is a good word for that. My only reservation is that most chiropractors today are not the old "straight" variety, but are rather the more sensible variety that only treat back pain and such, and refer really sick people to real doctors, so I don't want to paint them with the same brush. --LDC

Homeopathy denies that germs cause disease? Can you provide a source for that?

Well, Hahnemann's codexes make no mention of bacteria or viruses. His treatments were based entirely on symptoms; he made no allowances at all for the source of disease. If two patients have the same symptoms, they get the same treatment according to the codex. It doesn't matter whether one of them has Tuberculosis and one of them has AIDS--they both get the same distilled water. Modern Homeopaths might accept basic germ theory, but they are still restricted to making their magic potions according to the codex. --LDC

I think there is no question that modern homeopaths do accept that germs cause disease. So your earlier statement that homeopaths deny that germs cause disease just isn't true. It is true that their approach to treating disease doesn't focus on, or even care about, the pathogen that causes the disease. Instead, it attempts (in theory, and perhaps it is a totally bogus theory) to use the body's natural defenses to fight the disease, rather than using modern medicine's method of attacking the pathogen directly via powerful drugs. Clearly this mechanism doesn't depend on the pathogen per se. Maybe the homeopathic remedies are nothing but useless "magic potions", as you describe it, but let's at least be accurate and not accuse them of something that isn't true.

I said no such thing, and I don't appreciate being misquoted. What I said was that Homeopathy denies the germ theory, and that is true, regardless of whether ot not particular homeopaths do (even if all of them do). This is an article on homeopathy, the theory and practice, not individual human homeopaths. And the issue (remember, we had a topic of discussion here) was whether or not the link to "pseudoscience" was appropriate. If the theory is pseudoscience, it clearly is, regardless of individual beliefs in the theory. --LDC

No, it is not true. Homeopathy neither denies nor affirms germ theory. Germ theory is simply irrelevant to the remedies that it proposes. That is why homeopaths can be homeopaths and still accept germ theory. To assert that homeopathy denies germ theory is simply incorrect.

Oh, all right, how about "...fails to acknowledge the germ theory of disease as the primary means of understanding and treating illness."? At any rate, that's still not what we're talking about--I only used that as an example. What we were talking about is whether or not the link to "pseudoscience" was a good idea, and I maintain that it is, since the theory itself--being encoded in an unchanging set of books--resists scientific discovery and improvement. --LDC

  • Hahnemann had one very good reason for not mentioning germs. He lived from 1755 until 1843. Pasteur's groundbreaking observations about childbirth fever took place in 1856. Doesn't this qualify Hahnemann's personal efforts as protoscience? Eclecticology

I am not a proponent (or an opponent of homeopathy), and there are aspects of it I don't know much about. If it is really true that homeopathy resists any investigation into new ways to apply, alter, or improve upon its method, then I would agree that it is unscientific. On the other hand, I am curious how much scientific research is even being done on ways to alter the homeopathic method that some hypothetical dogmatic homeopathic practitioners would be resisting. -- Egern

At least in the US, homeopathy is tolerated as an "alternative" medicine without any oversight only because their preparations are known to be harmless (because they don't contain anything). If homeopaths started producing products that had actual effects and measurable amounts of active ingredients, those preparations would be considered normal medicine and would fall under regulation by the FDA, and homepaths wouldn't be allowed to dispense them. This has already happened to a small degree: there are a few preparations loosely based on homepathic principles except that they aren't diluted as much, and therefore actually contain medicine. These are advertised as "homepathic", but they require a prescription from a real doctor and can't be sold by homepaths. Vertigoheel, for example, contains measurable amounts of some ingredients (including hemlock!), and is used to treat dizziness (which is a side-effect of larger amounts of those ingredients). It is sold as "homeopathic", but it's really just a medicinal herb mixture that requires a doctor's prescription because its ingredients are dangerous. Typical of the homepathy business, they market it by pointing to a study that compared it to another drug--betahistine--which is commonly prescribed, but that did not properly compare it to a placebo. Although betahistine is commonly used, it has never been adequately tested either, so their study proves nothing; it is only a deliberately dishonest tactic to give their drug an undeserved reputation by comparing it to a non-homeopathic drug with an existing undeserved reputation. --LDC

I'm not sure that's entirely true -- lots of homeopathic remedies in the US are not the dilute formulae recommended by Hahnemann at all -- they are just some formulation of whatever the substance is -- often just straight herbal remedies. As such, many are unregulated, not because of potency, but because herbal remedies, unless proven to be either efficacious or harmful, aren't normally regulated.

That's true of many herbal things, but homeopaths are specifically allowed to use even illegal herbs, because their final products don't contain measurable amounts. Sure, anyone can sell you feverfew or St. John wort, and that's almost totally unregulated. But homeopaths can sell you diluted preparations of opium, marijuana, and other things--so long as they are prepared according to the codex and diluted to the vanishing point. Some homeopaths might also sell St. John's wort, but calling that "homeopathic" is disingenuous.

What you are describing is the marketing of a non-homeopathic substance that is incorrectly called "homeopathic", so the comparison you mention is between two non-homeopathic drugs. That has nothing to do with the efficacy or validity of homeopathy, though, and has everything to do with marketing. -- Egern

Hi, I haven't returned to this site since I put in the original entry, and to be honest I'm both thrilled and disappointed. Thrilled because people have obviously felt strongly enough about the issue to write so much about it, but disappointed becuase of the fact that so many stereotypes about homoeopathy have been used here and that people have obviously not actually made much effort to really find out whether what they are arguing is valid. However, I do think that everyone is entitled to their view and in a sense that is what the whole issue is about. I am a 'proponent' of homoeopathy, because it has worked for me on many different levels (it corresponds to my social and political beliefs as well as simply improving my health and well-being). Essentially the discourse in the West about health and healing has been dominated by a small groups of health practitioners who benefit economically and socially from their privileged position as 'doctors', and the focus on drugs and hi-tech equipment for surgery has chiefly served the interests of the pharmaceutical companies that produce them. This is not a question about 'science' because science itself it subservient to the system. 'Science' as we commonly understand it is a result of the conditions of its production, someone mentioned earlier in the discussion that:

This is an article on homeopathy, the theory and practice, not individual human homeopaths

Now, in fact pure science is a myth, because humans are fallible, and humans produce scientific knowledge. This does not mean that science does not produce useful knowledge, it is just that it is not too be accepted on faith. Otherwise why would scientific theory need to be modified. (For a more eloquent desciption of this argument, see Thomas Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions)

I am not asking people to discount 'scientific' medicine, because it has undoubtedly done so much to improve the quality of people's lives. Things such as hip replacements, anaesthetic, insulin for diabetics and incubators are wonderful. Just do not assume that what it says now will never change, just think about what 'scientific' doctors were prescribing for people a hundred, or even fifty years ago, that now seem antiquated. There have been articles in the BMJ and the Lancet that demonstrate that homoeopathic medicines have an effect beyond placebo, there is also beginning to be more research into the unusually powerful effect of extreme dilutions. Our current theories in science can not account for these effects, but are we so arrogant and to presume that we know all there is to know. I don't believe so. And it is just because these effects could not be hypothesised by current understandings that they are so under- researched.

One last point before I sign off, earlier discussions mentioned that homoeopathy 'fails to acknowledge germ theory a the primary means of understanding and treating illness'. The response that homoeopathy by no means denies the importance of germs, it is just not relevant to the way that dis-ease is treated, I agree with. However, that is not my point. It is that I think that most orthodox doctors today would be most offended if you were to suggest to them that germ theory was their 'primary' source of understanding about disease. The majority of ill-health that the health services deal with in the West, and certainly (for the money conscious) the most expensive, is chronic illness, such as heart disease and cancer, and these are such complex phenomena that they are not reducible to a single or even a combination of 'germs'.

Just don't assume that something we don't fully understand (yet?) is necessarily without any worth. -Nicola

(Addition not written by Enter the Dragon, just on his computer)

I don't agree with you that there is some kind of conspiracy between doctors and pharmaceuticals. Any student who goes in to medicine to "benefit economically and socially from their privileged position" is going to be sadly disapointed, working in the city gives a better paid and very much less stressful job than as a health practitioner. I also disagree with your statement about the "stereotypes of homeopathy" present, any examples? The trials have been included but in context--there has been both success and failure and this is why whether homeopathy works is still debateable. Also why the quote marks around " 'scientific' medicine" and 'germs'?


I dunno....all this talk of meta-analyses (with all the problems of selective publication of results) being required to show statistically detectable effects from dilutions containing no molecules of active agent sounds remarkably like Irving Langmuir's definition of Pathological science, particularly his first two criteria.... Malcolm Farmer

Surely conventional medicine entirely rejects the idea that symptoms (as a group) are the body's attempt to fight disease. Sure, some symptoms of some diseases are the byproducts of immune system actions, but to make that claim *in general* doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. --Robert Merkel

  • Well, but fever and inflammation are both considered symptoms, aren't they? According to my understanding - and I am not medically trained - both are mechanisms by which the body attempts to raise its temperature (globally or locally) to fight off bacterial infections. Likewise, nausea can plausibly be seen as a biological attempt to expell an offending substance as soon as possible...
  • Now, if someone is claiming that this is any sort of "planned attack", then I would agree that there's no concious action here - just a reaction that happens to be largely beneficial and therefore has been favored in natural selection. Of course, in individual cases, the reactions can also work against the body's global best interests, as very high fevers, arthritic inflammations, et cetera. -- April

As the "esteemed gentleman" would no doubt say, I should not have merely copied his Talk comment verbatim into the article. I admired his way with words, but I apologize and withdraw the admiration :-) -- a repentant User:Ed Poor

There is little doubt that the proponents of homeopathy bear the burden of proof when it comes to establishing the validity of their practice. However, where a critic has made a comment that double-blind experiments have been made to disprove homeopathy, he owes us a little more than that bare statement. The critic's new burden of proof is to lead us to the alleged studies so that we can evaluate them ourselves, and see whether they are "falsifiable". Eclecticology


--

Current discussions

RK: You clearly feel very strongly about homeopathy, but that is no reason to discount the fact that it works just fine for millions of people, including many MDs. Several of the statements you made in the article are factually incorrect, and the rest are subjective and shouldn't be presented as fact, but as opinions of critics. Plese think twice before committing changes to wikipedia articles on subjects about which you feel strongly. Mkweise 20:24 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Homeopathy does not work fine for millions of people. In fact, it has never been shown to work at all for anyone. Homeopathy advocates may not present wishful thinking about their supposed successes in medical treatments, and present such unsubstantiated claims as if they were verified. I could just as easily claim that eating Rhinocerous horn powder "works just fine for millions of people, including many MDs"; yet this claim has the same amount of evidence to back it up. I am thus restoring the recent addtions and changes. This article must be science based and NPOV. Pushing pseudo-science and deleting mainstream scientific criticism is not acceptable here. Further, you had no right to delete the primary criticism against homeopathy (the fact that it totally contradicts itself.) RK

RK, you wrote Restoring the recent addtions and changes. This article must be science based and NPOV. Pushing pseudo-science and deleting mainstream scientific criticism is not acceptable here. I'm not sure I agree with all of that, although I sure liked the part about NPOV.

Homeopathy is a theory which is believed by its advocates. In addition, these advocates make claims about homeopathic cures, such as how effective they are. I don't think it's the role of the Wikipedia to evaluate these claims.

I agree with you, Ed. It is the role of the scientific community to evalulate these claims. And for 150 years scientists and doctors have reserached these claims. All they have found are lies, frauds, hoaxes, bias, the placebo effect, and errors. And this article needs to present the results of the last 150 years of scientific research. RK

Rather, a neutral article would balance the claims of Homeopathy supporters against reports from Homeopathy opponents and others who disagree with the supporters' claims. The essence of neutrality, as I'm sure you recall, is not to take sides.

Actually I suggest that this would not be neutral. Should our article on Unicorns and on Leprechauns also present their real existence as equally valid concepts, one in which both points of view (pro their existence, and against their existence) are equally scientifically valid? If someone claims that something huge and imporant exists, they need to show reason that it exists. This has been done for Special Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has not been done for Unicorns or homeopathy. RK

(Personally, I think homeopathy is utter foolishness: at best, homeopathic remedies are mere placebos. But my p.o.v. is not important to this article.)

Let the article report the claims of homepathy supporters as well as the claims of "mainstream" scientific investigators, and trust that the reader is competent to make up their own mind, eh? --Uncle Ed 20:42 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

RK: Just because a theory is not scientifically proven to your satisfaction should not prevent you from reporting it.

Alright, I am sorry. Maybe I have been too caustic with you, and that was not my intent. I am just a real purist about science. However, I hope we can agree that anyone can easily prove that homeopathy (or any claim) is real. Just perform an experiment in a double-blind controlled study. This prevents the placebo effect from fooling anyone, and it also prevents scientists and doctors from being biased. If homepathy is fallacious, then the results of the control group will be about the same as the experiment group. If homeopathy works, then the experiment group will experience a measurable and repeatable difference. However, such experiments have been done, and they have failed every time, even when they are done by those who are advocates of homeopathy. At this point, I believe we are bound by NPOV policy to present the topic in this light, until and unless other evidence comes forward. RK
My understanding of NPOV policy is to report beliefs and theories as such, to report or summarize the results of specific studies as such, perhaps to cite the conclusions of specific experts, but never slip in our own conclusions. I also believe that, in the interest of clarity, controversial subjects are best covered by first describing the controversial thesis, then presenting the antithesis. Not by going into soapbox mode halfway through the opening paragraph. Mkweise 00:30 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
Quite an old comment, but I will reply. I agree regarding beliefs and hypotheses (not theories), but disagree regarding the facts. Facts shall be reported very clearly and not be balanced with speculations and wishful thinking.

The existance of Heaven and Hell is not scientifically proven, nor is the feficacy of prayer -- yet I don't see you going over to the Christianity article and lacing every single paragraph with your caustic POV remarks. The article has an extensive Criticism section, as it should. If you have anything rational to add, put it there and don't interfere with the objective desription of the practice and how it is believed to work by a great number of people. Mkweise 21:17 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I have gone over the Christianity, Judaism and theism articles, and laced them with NPOV remarks!. And I say this as a monotheist; I don't hold myself to standards that differ from anyone else. All of our articles on Judaism, Christianity and Islam present a great many claims. However none of these articles present any of these claims as factually true; they only present them as the religious beliefs of those faith's adherents. And believe me, this has pissed off members of my own faith... RK
I really don't see how you can honestly refer to such changes as "some consider" to "is" or the removal of qualifiers such as "possibly" as NPOVifying. Also, your statement that all MDs reject homeopathy is factually incorrect, as the majority of serious practitioners of homeopathy are MDs (including Hahnemann, Kent and Boericke.)
I've written a summary of how homeopathy is supposed to work, and I'm incorporating the new paragraph you added under criticism, but reverting the changes you made that don't add anything but a point of view to the article. Mkweise 01:52 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
The thing about the opening paragraph is that the chemical composition of the final remedy varies - it's never pure water AFAIK; most remedies are sold in the form of lactose pellets, and liquid remedies contain ethanol. Mkweise

Eloquence: Your commend about eastern Europe and threshold nations is news to me, but I can tell you with certainty that homeopathy is taken very seriously in Germany (the only country I know of where remedies are regulated as drugs.) There as well as in the UK, it's taken seriously enough for insurance companies to offer health plans that cover homeopathic treatment. I'm not quite sure about France, but it's definitely more widely accepted there than in the US. Mkweise

As for how wide-spread homeopathy is, unless you can provide some statistics, I am not willing to accept the claim that it is "widely accepted as valid in parts of Europe". What does that mean? That there is a large market? No doubt about it. That the academic/scientific establishment accepts it? Hardly. This may be the case in threshold nations where science is often corrupted by snake oil salesmen. As a German, I can say that the opposition to homeopathy as a pseudoscience is hardly unique to the US. --Eloquence 02:16 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I have no statistics, only anecdotal evidence from living there for a decade. I'd say that maybe 1 in 50 Americans has ever taken a homeopathic remedy, whereas among my European acquantances it's more like 1 in 2. Doctors in Germany can and do prescribe homeopathic remedies, allbeit (with the exception of actual homeopathic doctors) mostly in cases where conventional medicine can't offer much help, such as migrane, tinnitus and what they collectively refer to as psychosomatic conditions. Hell, in Germany you can pick up homeopathic remedies at any corner Apotheke, whereas most US pharmacists wouldn't even understand what you're asking for.
Unless you know something about eastern Europe and those "other threshold nations" you mentioned that I don't, you should remove those statements. Homeopathy definitely is more prevalent in Germany/Switzerland/Austria than in the rest of Europe. Mkweise
Once again, I am well aware that there is a large market for homeopathy in Europe, and that it enjoys some political support, especially in Germany (political interest in pseudoscientific remedies in Germany dates back to the Third Reich). There are many reasons for this, one key reason is that the pharma industry has succesfully lobbied against the introduction of a whitelist for medicine that is refunded through public health insurance, which benefits both large corporations like Bayer and small manufacturers of homeopathic "medicine" Such a whitelist was already prepared under the CDU government. The list was given to the president of the association of the pharma industry (BPI), Prof. Vogel, on his 60th birthday -- in shreddered form. [1]
In spite of this successful lobbying, reputable scientists have long attacked the status quo. This speech by Prof. Johannes Köbberling gives a good summary:
"Noch eindeutiger ist die Situation bei der Homöopathie. Für die gläubigen Anhänger dieser Therapieform existiert eine Art Bibel der reinen Lehre, nämlich Hahnemanns Organon. Hahnemann hat vor 200 Jahren ein in sich geschlossenes und von ihm selbst als definitiv erachtetes Lehrgebäude errichtet. Solche geschlossenen Systeme, so unsinnig sie auch sind, üben eine gewisse Faszination auf manche Menschen aus. So haben es die Vertreter dieser Lehre geschafft, daß in der Öffentlichkeit der Eindruck entstanden ist, hier sei eine ernsthafte Alternative zur Medizin zu finden, eine Auffassung die nicht selten auch von sonst kritischen und in anderen Bereichen vernünftigen Menschen geteilt wird. Weder der bekannte Ähnlichkeitssatz noch die Potenzierung durch extremes Verdünnen sind in irgendeiner Weise wissenschaftlich belegt. Erfolgsberichte über homöopathische Heilungen betreffen nie größere Patientengruppen mit bestimmten Krankheiten, sondern bestehen aus einzelnen Fallbeschreibungen. Fallbeschreibungen entziehen sich aber der Falsifikationsmöglichkeit, sie sind prinzipiell wahr."
Short version in English: It's a dogmatic belief system and there's no evidence that it works, but these people have managed to create the public impression that homeopathy should be taken seriously. The crucial question for this article is: Is the situation in academia, with regard to homeopathy, in Europe different from the US? --Eloquence 04:29 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
Exactly: The public impression that homeopathy should be taken seriously exists in India and parts of Europe (especially Germany/Austria/Switzerland). This is not the case in north America, and certainly not in China, nor (AFAIK) in the rest of the world. I think the phrase widely accepted is accurate, but if you want to put something like enjoys widespread public acceptance instad, that's OK with me.
Also, your 3rd Reich comment is interesting - if you have any information relating specifically to homeopathy under Nazi rule, that certainly belongs in the article.
I'm not sure it's relevant to distinguish between the views of non-medical academia and those of the general population. I hold a Dipl.-Ing. degree in IT, but I don't see how that qualifies me as a medical expert.
FWIW, I was sceptical of homeopathy until I personally witnessed my wife's cat go from completely unresponsive to being able to stand up and walk around within minutes of receiving a single pellet of Belladonna C30. Conclusive evidence? No. But certainly sufficient to warrant keeping an open mind. Mkweise
Certainly, homeopathy enjoys more acceptance from the general public in WE than in the US. Similarly, in the US, creationism enjoys a lot of acceptance from the general public. This is interesting, but it has nothing to do with the views of scientists. Nor does the fact that German doctors are willing to prescribe homeopathic remedies: They are, first and foremost, businessmen, often with an education based almost exclusively on memorization. It is the views of medical researchers and biologists that give us the most insight into the scientific view on homeopathy, and the cited speech above gives a good impression where these people stand. (The views of physicists and other "hard" scientists are also interesting as these people usually have a sound scientific mindset.) My reference to threshold nations was to researchers in those countries; there's quite a lot of room for parapsychology and all sorts of charlatanerie masked as professional science in such nations.
As for the Third Reich, yes, they explicitly supported homeopathy, see [2] for a summary; I might add a few facts from there to the article. As for your personal experience, there are a lot of similar experiences regarding prayer, touch healing, acupuncture, hypnosis etc. The critical question is that of reproducibility. If people continue to believe in something that, according to the laws of physics, cannot work, and that has never been demonstrated to work, one has to wonder why they do that. --Eloquence 05:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Are you aware that many drugs claiming to be "homeopathic" are 'not actually homepathic, and in fact contain measurable and significant amounts of medically effective pharmaceuticals? (This is one of the complaints against the homeopathy industry that has yet to make it into the article. The title "homeopathy" is used, but actual medicine is in them dilutions...) RK
Yes, I've been intending to add a section on pseudohomeopathy, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Chemical effects can be ruled out at C30, though, as that equates to a dilution factor of 1:1060. Few remedies retain any measurable chemical effects beyond C3 or D6, and AFAIK none beyond C6 or D12. Pseudohomeopathic remedies usually contain multiple ingredients (a big no-no in classical homeopathy) at D3 and lower potencies. Mkweise

The top-level (double =) headings are now:

Theory
History
Current status
Criticism
Arguments by supporters
External links

I am a bit undecided as to whether "Theory" belongs before or after "History". What do you all think?

The new "Current status" section consists of the former 2nd paragraph and various other paragraphs that had been under headings they had nothing to do with. It flows logically into "Criticism", so that's probably the best place for it. The opening paragraph is a bit short for my taste, but has the virtue of containing only undisputed fact. Mkweise

My main problem is that status/criticism should be summarized in the first paragraph. I don't want to read several paragraphs to first notice that the majority of scientists considers it bunk. --Eloquence 05:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
IMO the status is very well summarized in the word controversial. Putting any opinions in the opening paragraph is bad, because then everyone and their uncle will want to squeeze their own opinion in too.
Also, keep in mind that ideally, encyclopedic writing aims to inform while allowing the reader to form his own opinion. Check out how Encyclopedia Britannica manages to avoid taking sides, or the short but informative article at http://encyclopedia.com/html/h1/homeopat.asp. Mkweise 19:34 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
That's Columbia, not Britannica, and the article is obviously worthless. NPOV dictates that opinions need to be represented according to the number and status of their adherents, so "everyone and their uncle will want to squeeze their own opinion in" is not a valid argument. --Eloquence 19:40 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
I said check out EB or (meaning in case you don't have an EB handy) encyclopedia.com. Mkweise 20:40 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. Would you mind pasting the EB article on my talk page? --Eloquence 20:46 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
I really don't want to retype the entire article, but find it noteworthy that - as is usually case in encyclopedic writing - value judgments and criticism are strictly confined to the last paragraph, which starts out:
"In the medical profession homeopathy at time of writing remained under the stigma of being a dissenting sect. In the United States [...] there were comparatively few practitioners and no medical schools emphasizing this approach to therapeutics."
It goes on to cite the US FDA's position of official recognition without endorsement. Mkweise
Ah, I thought you had an electronic version. I still have a CD around here somewhere, but it doesn't work under Linux. I'd have to see the whole article to judge whether it puts the practice in its proper context. However, my experience with classical encyclopedias is that they have a tendency towards apologism when lobbies are involved, that's why I love Wikipedia. I should be able to come up with an intro summary that will make you happy, though. --Eloquence 22:06 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)


Nope, just the 1982 dead tree edition. I can open it on *any* desktop, and it's a lot more stable than any Windows application will ever be. Mkweise 23:17 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
P.S. Your statement is very much akin to saying "I don't want to have to read all the way to the bottom of the article on Iraq to find out that the US Government considers it evil." Mkweise 19:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not interested in putting any claim like "Dr. Xy said homeopathy is evil nonsense" in the intro. But like an article about Iraq should mention the impending doom, an article about homeopathy (or in fact any remedy) should prominently mention the opinion of the scientific mainstream. --Eloquence 20:07 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Pasting without comment: NPOV - Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a very popular view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present various competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though the content of a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
Exactly. That homeopathy is a pseudoscience is hardly a minority view, esp. in the scientific community. --Eloquence 20:07 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Re pasted text: I'd have put it quite differently myself, but if that's the official policy I can accept it.
What you seem to be forgetting, is that the subject of this article is homeopathy. Among experts in the field of homeopathy, the majority view is that homeopathy is an empirical science, the inner workings of which are as of yet unexplained by chemistry. The number of critics who have studied homeopathy closely enough to be considered experts is certainly minute, albeit vocal.
Let's just present both sides and let the reader make up his own mind, shall we? POV words like "pseudoscience", "quackery" or "bunk" (or "wonderful" or "excellent") have no place in encyclopedic writing, other than in specifically attributed quotations. Mkweise 23:17 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
By this reasoning, should Holocaust denial be written by experts in the field of holocaust denial, who hold as a majority view that the holocaust did not happen?
Not sure whether misquoted me intentionally or not, but generally as long as the author manages to write from a NPOV, it doesn't matter what his personal POV is. And yes, of course the bulk of an article titled Holocaust denial should be devoted to describing the Who/Where/When/Why/How of Holocaust denial - if I looked up an article by that title, that's what I'd be looking for.
A brief paragraph citing (or linking to) evidence to the contrary should follow. If that part went on and on for ten pages telling me things I already know, it would be wasting my time. Mkweise 02:10 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)


The NPOV writeup guides us in balancing the points of view, but not as to which view should be presented first. Do we write an article that says "Homeopathy is believed by scientists to be quackery, supporters say it works" or do we say "Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine, scientists say it is quackery"?

Deleted some stuff and rephrased the rest. Some key notes:

which exempts most of the remedies used in classical homeopathy from rigorous testing on the grounds that they contain little or no active ingredients

Yes, homeopathic drugs are exempt from testing. Yes they contain no active ingredients. No, they are not exempt BECAUSE they contain no active ingredients.

However, this is from the FDA web page: "The reasoning behind [the difference] is that homeopathic products contain little or no active ingredients," explains Edward Miracco, a consumer safety officer with FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "From a toxicity, poison-control standpoint, [the active ingredient and strength] was deemed to be unnecessary." Stephen C. Carlson
That statement is being read slightly out of context. Mr. Miracco was addressing the reasons for solid oral homeopathic drugs having different imprint standards than other drugs, but he wasn't making a blanket statement about the FDA's general approach to homeopathic drugs. The "imprint" in question are the codes and symbols stamped onto a pill that are used primarily by poison control centers (see 21 CFR 206.10 for the specific requirement and homeopathic exemption).
Here is a little background on this. In 1994 the FDA proposed that all drugs in a solid oral form be imprinted with a code that would allow instant indentification of the drug. This rule was supported by the conventional drug industry because several states had already passed similar laws, and the industry wanted one nationwide regulation instead of 50 different statutes. The homeopathic drug makers resisted this regulation as being overburdensome. Some small companies produce thousands and thousands of unique products and producing unique imprints was going to be expensive. Because there is nothing in solid oral homeopathic drugs that could be considered an "active ingredient", and therefore no overdose (or drug interaction) risks, the FDA and the industry compromised on the current imprint that just identifies the drug as being homeopathic, and thereby lets the poison control workers ignore it.
I'll accept your clarification (see latest change to main article), but if you've got a clarification, just do it rather than delete it. Stephen C. Carlson

It is the homeopathic practitioner who makes health claims, not the manufacturer of the remedy.

Homeopathic drugs sold over the counter are REQUIRED to make specific health claims.

including herbal and pseudohomeopathic medications

What is "pseudohomeopathic" and who uses this phrase? Google gave zero hits on this word.

Stephen, maybe we can work out something here. This is your most recent version Homeopathic drugs do not have to list their active ingredients on the grounds that they have little or no active ingredients.

Please don't take me wrong, I agree completely with the statement that these substances contain little or no active ingredients. I'm just trying to make sure the FDA's position is accurately stated.

So, here we go... There are a whole bunch of substances that the FDA recognizes as "homeopathic drugs", mostly because there is a law that defines them as drugs. For clarity, let's call these (for now) "homeopathic ingredients". The FDA does require that homeopathic drugs sold over the counter have to list on their LABEL all their "homeopathic ingredients". What the FDA doesn't require is that the PILL ITSELF be stamped with symbols or codes that a pharmacist or poison control center could look up to figure out what the pill is.

So why I removed your above statement was that it implied that homeopathic drugs didn't have to list their contents, when in fact they do (even though they get to do it in their own "6X 100C" homeopathic language).

So... Is the point you are trying to insert in this statement simply that these substances contain no active ingredients, or are you trying to create some sort of cause and effect between having no active ingredients and some FDA action?

I'm trying to give a reason why the FDA treats medical and homeopathic drugs differently. Stephen C. Carlson

Hmmm... I think we can give that a go. You would probably have to start by considering that the FDA is a weird position. The Congress has passed laws that declare homeopathic medicines to legally be drugs, and those laws require the FDA to regulate homeopathic medicines. It wasn't the intent of congress to ban homeopathic medicines (considering that the author of the original laws was a homeopathic doctor). This kind of forces the FDA into having to treat homeopathic drugs differently, since if they applied the same rules that they do to conventional drugs, homeopathic drugs couldn't be sold. So pretty much every time the FDA makes a rule that (if applied) would ban homeopathic drugs, they carve out some sort of exemption for these substances. For example, "real drugs" are only allowed to be 10% alcohol (or 0.5% if intended for children). But the FDA doesn't apply this rule to homeopathic drugs (some of which are 90% alcohol) since it would in effect mean banning many of them. Another example, homeopathic drugs are exempt from being tested to insure content since chemically there might not even be one molocule left. For the most part, the FDA is content to ignore homeopathy as long as they don't do anything that could be a health risk and they don't do anything that is fraudulent. Other than that, people are free to believe in (and use) homeopathy, healing crystals, energy fields, magnetic bracelets, or whatever other "alternative medicine" they want. Anyhow, if and when I edit that paragraph again, I will try to hold onto the intent of what you have added.

Thanks for the explanation. The article can benefit from some discussion of the FDA's policy bind concerning homepathy, as you've insightfully done right here. Stephen C. Carlson

Wow! Excellent! Very well done.

The fact, put bluntly: homeopathy doesn't work! Properly controlled studies show no effect at all other than at the placebo level. In a better world, this scam would be prosecuted as the fraud it is. Desertphile

If I overdose on homeopathic sleeping pills, will it keep me awake? Mintguy 09:43 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

All the jokes that you overdose homeopathic medicine by taking too little aside, possibly yes, it might keep you awake. Lactose is sugar, “a disaccharide consisting of two subunits, a galactose and a glucose linked together” (from the Lactose article) so depanding on your ability to metabolise lactose, it actually might help keeping you awake if you eat enough. Rafał Pocztarski 03:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Homeopathy saved my life. A placebo cannot reverse the likes of what was happening to me. Sorry y'all think that's so crazy! --anon

Many people nowadays find it difficult to accept anything that cannot be explained to their satisfaction. But that is their problem, not yours. It is indisputable that anyone who has experienced homeopathy in action can't deny the results, regardless of whether or not the postulated mechanism conflicts with prior beliefs. Mkweise 21:16, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I wonder if preparation has some kind of bearance on results. Hypothetically, say homoeopathy works, then what percentage of homoeopathy companies are producing dud remedies? Anyway, the power of a social group to hold opinions for less than healthy reasons should not be underestimated, such as the farse of dentists using mercury for the last 160 years while fanatically scorning the idea that it is harmful. Science is riddled with this kind of thing. Crusadeonilliteracy

Instead of devoting the entry on homeopathy to a discussion of how it must not exist, wouldn't a NPOV, scientifically-oriented article simply describe homeopathy as a hypothesis and note some evidence that supports, and some that does not support -- the hypothesis? It is factually incorrect to say, for example, that homeopathy has never been shown to work at all for anyone -- I know a midwife who has seen a homeopathic remedy placed on a blue newborn's tongue, followed immediately by the child turning a robust pink and quickly recovering. How does a scam artist get a placebo effect from a baby whose eyes haven't opened yet? And what could possibly be wrong with this mode of therapy if 1) nothing else is known to work, 2) it works, and 3) it's incredibly inexpensive? (I also myself am experiencing much greater health than I have had since my early youth as a result of homeopathic treatment.)

Homeopathy does exist, does work, and cannot be wished away simply because it doesn't seem to obey all of the rules that science has decided govern nature -- nature itself doesn't obey all the rules; ask an astronomer or particle physicist. If there's an observable phenomenon that seems to disagree with the current body of science knowledge, shouldn't we ask questions rather than use Wikipedia as a soapbox to declare that it Must Not Be So?

I think Wikipedia deserves a good discussion of what this hypothesis is. Follow it with acres of criticism if you must, but the current article is inexcusably biased. John Platte 21:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

John, the article does exactly what you ask -- it presents evidence from homeopaths as well as arguments from its critics. It links to pro-homeopathy and anti-homeopathy websites. What you seem to want, however, is for anecdotal stories like the above to make it into an article that should discuss verifiable facts. These anecdotal stories satisfy about the same scientific standard as the ones of the "I got healed by Jesus" type. Even if the story is true (for which there is no evidence), even if it is not just the placebo effect or coincidence of natural recovery, the main problem with such stories is that we do not know exactly what kind of "homeopathic" substance was used. Many practitioners of homeopathy mix its principles with traditional herbal medicine, which is a much more serious and more scientific undertaking. Now, without controlled double blind studies, how are we supposed to know whether the effect was caused by the supposedly "memorized" molecules or by an undisclosed substance which was part of the "homeopathic" remedy?
Homeopaths are not much different from religious believers. Their arguments are the same. We are supposed to accept on the basis of faith what science "cannot explain", without a scientifically consistent theory or verifiable evidence. As it stands, the evidence for homeopathy is as strong as the evidence for the existence of God: There is none.—Eloquence 22:04, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)


John: Because two events are coincident does not imply that one is the cause of the other. You can find similar anecdotal "evidence" for practically anything if you wish, including monsters under the bed and Santa Claus. The simple bold facts are that there is not, and never has been a single shred of real evidence that in anyway whatsoever proves or even hints that homeopathy does or even might possibly have any effect whatsoever on human or animal physiology, other than the placebo effect. It's as simple as that. Mintguy 22:08, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


If homeopathy is 'rubbish' or is 'only placebo effect', why does it work in animals? I have also given it to two friends, without their knowledge, and observed in one a cure, and in the othera complete change of personality and lifestyle (10-15 cigars per day to ZERO in two days elapsed time??) How does the placebo theory fit here? Regardless of the subject matter, the various raving and rantings of the opponents who keep talking 'scientific theory' demonstrate the ideal that 'science', i.e. the 'knowledge that is named science' is complete and finite. Surely a 'real' scientist looks beyond what he/she reads in text books and looks for facts and reasons? This is summed up by the Nature magazine editioral headline about Beneviste's experiments 'when to believe the unbelievable'. Regardless of whether the experiments were valid we have a 'major' science journal offering protection and shelter for only what we know and ignoring the potential for what may be. Surely if something can't be measured the option that you are using the wrong ruler has to be a 50% chance. Isn't that scientific research, or is resting on laurels and degrees, and nice government grants more like it?

If all it takes is a homeopathic pill or two to get someone to give up smoking, may i suggest that there are millions to be made in prescribing it to the wider public. Don't just stop at this article. Go for the millions.

Requests for comments on RK

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK.

Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievences of your own. At least two users must document and certify my efforts in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be removed. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)