Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 2

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 Archive 3 →

Contents

Previous discussion archive

Previous discussions are archived here.

Missing information

What I'm missing in the article is the the importance homeopathy puts on matching the remedy with the personality-type of the patient. Could someone please include that, with maybe 2 or 3 examples of types, like pulsatilla or sulphur-type?

Current discussions

It is of foremost importance to make it clear to the readers of this article that it is primarily anti-homeopathy propaganda written by those who most certainly have no first-hand experience with the method. It is certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, and one might ask in such cases as to whether there is any point in having much more than a stub to explain what homeopathy is and a few pro and con links. A neutrality warning is the very least that we can do.


-- 145.254.170.46


Could you point to particular problems you have with the article?Geni 21:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Quote: 'who have no first hand experience'. So you not only know for sure homeopathy works, but you're also psychic? Wow, I'm impressed. I'm sorry, but first hand experience is useless as evidence of effifacy, only well designed scientific studies can do that, and homeopathy has failed them all. And well, allright then, I have no first-hand experience, but I do have second-hand experience. More precisely, I've had to clean up the mess made by homeopaths (and other assorted quacks) plenty of times. And I'm afraid I'll have to do that again in the future. In my experience, homeopathy only does not work, but homeopaths lack all medical knowledge, even the basics, or even willingly refuse to learn it (either that or they just refuse to use that knowledge), can not make a proper diagnosis and do not send patients to a real doctor until the problem is out of control (and refuse to take responsability). If you could see what I've seen you might alter your opinion about homeopathy and homeopaths. The only thing they can treat are self-limiting diseases. When they treat those, the disease goes away in the same amount of time it takes to go away without any treatment at all, only the patient is happier about it. It is my experience that most patients are scared of being ill (which is understandable) and that doing something, even when worthless, gives them a sense of control and that makes them feel better. That still doesn't make homeopathy usefull. Personally, I think is highly unethical to lie to a patient and tell him this useless magic water will make him feel better. Homeopathy is also bad in another way. Imagine all the time that a doctor has to take to explain to a patient that real medicine (can) have side-effects. You see, anything that has an effect can and will have side-effects in some people. But the patient has heard about this wonderfull homeopathy that has no side-effects! All the time wasted on explaining that is has no side-effect because it has no effects at all is time that can not be spent on other patients. This is costing a fortune and is wasting doctors' time on refuting nonsense in stead of giving much needed medical care to patients. In my second hand experience, the patient always suffers from homeopathy and other quackery, if only financially (the prices they ask for what is plain water is a rippoff). And in my first hand experience, scientific medicine always does what it has proven it can do.
Why don't we calm down a moment. In your world, perhaps, homeopathy never works, and homeopaths are a bunch of quacks (indiscriminately lumped together with assorted other practitioners). And in your experience, you have had to "clean up the messes" left by such treatments. I certainly agree with you on one point: many so-called homeopaths (and the so-called alternative practitioners you wish to conflate them with) are unfortunately incompetent or just plain mad. But the same can of course be said for many "conventional" doctors (I can tell you lots of stories about both in fact). You go on to say that "scientific medicine always does what it has proven it can do". While that may sometimes (certainly not always) be true, you need to understand that homeopathic remedies do not work for all people equally but interact (or don't) with each patient in different ways. You may not like this fact, and it may make it very difficult to successfully treat patients using homeopathy, but it doesn't make it less valid. You also claim that homeopathy is a ripoff and is too expensive. This is actually quite ironic, since it is in fact "conventional" drugs that can be prohibitively expensive. Homeopathy often (although certainly not always) requires only one dose for a cure, and remedies usually range below 10 euros/dollars for an amount that is much more than enough for one person's cure. This has in fact led to much speculation that the reputation of homeopathy has been a victim of the pharmaceutical industry, which would lose a fortune if more people caught on to the alternative treatment.
In my own personal experience and that of many others, homeopathy does, indeed, work, (please note that I live in a part of the world (Germany) in which a large section of the population uses or has used homeopathic treatments and can therefore discuss it) and "conventional" doctors can cause just as much, if not much more, trouble. There have also been a number of scientific studies proving the efficacy of at least a few homeopathic remedies in double-blind tests. You may wish to dispute them, but you can just as well dispute other medical findings. I also do not buy into the "placebo" theory, since babies and animals can also be successfully treated. I personally have witnessed the former many times, since pediatricians here (yes, normal everyday ones) often prescribe homeopathic remedies instead or in addition to standard chemical treatments. You are making a mistake, by the way, in thinking that homeopaths and their patients refuse to use other drugs. Often they just see chemical treatments as a less desirable, but sometimes necessary, alternative. It is also a misconception that homeopathy has no side-effects. There are often strong, negative side effects that can even make patients give up their treatments before reaching success. I, unfortunately, have experienced this myself.
We could go on like this forever, as it is nearly impossible to change a mind strongly set against something. If you do not wish to learn more about homeopathy, that may be your choice, and I'm truly sorry that you have not been able to witness homeopathy at its best. But please do not undermine the efforts of others who wish to share information on the discipline. As far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, I would suggest stripping it to a minimum explanation and leave the links presenting all views on the issue. We will never combine to write a single article. As it is now, it is at best muddled and at worst quite misleading.
16:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My 2 cents: As long as homeopathy doesn't proof its validity with double blind tests (you claim it does, but can you give us the references?), it cannot be considered efficace in treating diseases, besides immaginary ones. About the expensiveness of homeopathy, it is clear that something that contains (mostly) just water, has no research whatsoever, and is sold at a price 100 (if not more) times more than pure water should be classified as expensive. Nova77 17:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is true that many patients and doctors (particularly in Germany) feel that they have experienced cures through homeopathy. This fact belongs in the article. It is also true that it has been scientifically shown that there can be and often is the perception of healing without any objective healing. In the case of homeopathy, there have been no studies that have met rigorous scientific standards and unambiguously demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy. This is also a fact that belongs in the article. It may be of interest to critique some of the most nearly rigorous articles, but there are already voices saying that this section of the article is too long. Art Carlson 18:38, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Above again I see 'my own personal experience is that it works'. To start, please note that personal experience is irrelevant. I do not have to have used crack cocaine to be able to tell you it's bad for you. This lies at heart of the difference in perception of research between scientific medicine and homeopaths (and other alternative medicine). Personal experience or anecdotal evidence may be an interesting start for research, but it is totally useless as proof. The problem with personal experience is that we are all different. Some people cure very fast on their own while others don't. The only way to be sure that something isn't a fluke is to do research on large groups of people to eliminate the influence of individual differences. And that is what homeopaths seem to miss. If I read homeopathic books and magazines, I always see loads of individual cases where homeopathy has worked. But in individual cases, you just can't tell what happened. Homeopaths seem to regard medicine as determenistic - if the patient gets better it's due to the medicine, period. Medicine however is probabalistic. If you give a sick patient a pill and he gets better, it is not possible to tell for sure that the pill is the cause of this. You can say there is an X% chance it is, because you got that avarage chance from research on large groups, but that's it. He could have gotten better without treatment. There is no way to know for sure. Homeopaths however take individual cases as proof it works. I know it sounds like a paradox, but by stressing the results homeopaths seem to get in individual cases, they are denying that people are individuals and all different. Funny for something that claims to treat patients really individually. And as far as damage from real doctors go - there is one very crucial difference. Real doctors cause damage because they don't do what they've been taught in school, homeopaths cause damage because they do exactly as they've been taught. Oh, and I hope I'm not the only one who spotted the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy above. many so-called homeopaths..... are unfortunately incompetent - ah, so they're not real homeopaths. Real homeopaths are competent. And the 'Galileo' fallacy - the poor homeopaths are being persecuted by the pharmaceuticals (or so some rumours go). And a request for 'special pleading'- homeopathy is soo difficult and it doesn't work equally for anyone and we should accept that. Translation: if it works, we'll take the credit, if it doesn't, it still works! And I see again someone abusing the placebo effect. There a many many ways that make it seem that homeopathy works, the placebo effect isn't all it's cranked up to be and not the cause in most cases. Check www.quackwatch.com if you want to find out why quack remedies often seem to work. You'll also see why the tests on animals and babies don't mean anything. And let's not calm down (at least not on the talk page). I'm quite happy to see there are some people who use the internet for other things than watching porn and illegal downloads.
This seems to be a rather fair homeopathy study from the Annals of Inner Medicine: [[1]]
(It certainly could be used as a model for NPOV here!)
The study concludes:
Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based on the "Principle of Similars" and the use of "minimum" doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th-century health care and recently has undergone a revival in the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine (61). More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy’s possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. As in all of medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value.
Splungist 20:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) (also long paragraphs above)


Hello there, I just posted some stuff that was immediately removed saying that they're "seriously POV edits" - how can that be since I have quoted from James Tyler Kent in one post and have recommended further reading in another? As I am new to wikipedia (and not impressed so far) could you please let me know what happens now to my posts? Thanks.


I've gone through point by point at the bottom of the page. Incerdently you might want to register an accontit is quick and doesn't require an email adress and makes things a lot easerGeni 01:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Geni, I have replied to your points. I don't think i want to register an account with widipedia at this stage as I do not see it so far as useful to me. Thanks anyway.

Menthol

You can get "homoeopathy-friendly" toothpaste that contains no menthol, because it is "considered an antidote to many homoeopathic remedies". How is menthol supposed to change the effects of homoeopathy? What about menthol diluted to 30X, will it have the same effect? Are there other substances with similar effects?

--Stereo 04:36, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

homeopathy has a huge list of antidoteing substances. They make a hand excuse for when the remedy fails.Geni 14:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'if' the remedy is not curative? What Hahnemann attempts to do in recommending the abstinence from such things as coffee and mint, is to not alter the constitution as much as possible using stimulants or sedatives. It is a controversial point among homoeopaths and is constantly under review. For example, it is said that if the patient is not very much affected by coffee and drinks less than one cup a day, then it is probably fine to go ahead and drink coffee, but if the patient is adversely or obviously affected by it, then it is best not to drink it. This will make it easier to see the effects of the remedy without the effects of the coffee either antidoting it or clouding it. As with everything in homoeopathy, it is individual.

Menthol prepared homoeopathically to a potency of 30X is different to crude menthol in toothpaste. Classical prescribing does not give more than one remedy at a time and so menthol 30x would not be given at the same time as a remedy for the patient. However, if it was given, it would depend on the susceptibility of the patient to the remedy menthol - if the patient was susceptible to it, then it would have an effect and possibly an antidotal one, but more probably if the patient is susceptible to menthol the remedy, then this will be curative.

Sugar granules

You get homoeopathy like oscillococcinum in small sugar granules. They certainly do not contain water, apart from maybe ambient humidity. How is the "memory" of the water supposed to be transfered to the sugar? How is the "memory" supposed to survive in the sugar? Could you use other carbohydrates, or other substances like table salt?

--Stereo 04:36, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)


pretty much any homeopathic remedy is avaible on sugar granules. Most homeopaths when pressured will say they don't know how it works. A few will go on about energy patternsGeni 14:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The homeopathic (liquid) preparation is dropped onto the suger granules. That is supposed to transfer the 'memory of water'. Interestingly, a lot of homeopathic remedies are prepared using alcohol, not water. I suppose that has a memory too. And I suppose it all transfers perfectly to the granules. I also suppose it would transfer to just about anything, like table salt. I suppose 'energy patterns' explain it all (just don't ask any difficult questions like what energy or even what they mean by the word energy). Come to think of it, there are so many suppositions in homeopathy, one would almost start to wonder if it works if one didn't know any better........

Zicam

The over-the-counter drug Zicam displays the word "Homeopathic" on the box. Why does it say this? Does it actually have something to do with homeopathy, or is it some sort of legal thing, or what? Noser 04:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It's a legal thing. In the US there is a legal loophole that pretty much states that homeopathic remedies do not need to undergo any testing. Zicam could be regarded as a very low potency homeopathic remedy (say 2-5X I don't know the exact figure) however is basicaly a normal drug. There was a law suit against it started just over a year ago I don't know the result.Geni 10:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(a block that was posted without a header)

The current "Homeopathy" article is a failure as an article about homeopathy. The article does not describe homeopathy. The current article should start with this message to readers, "we have decided that homeopathy is a waste of time, so rather than provide an encyclopedia article about it, we are going to subject you to our arguments against homeopathy". The current article has been constructed by people who have no interest in an article that explains homeopathy including how and why some doctors and patients make use of it. Frankly, I doubt that the authors of the existing article are qualified to write an informative article about homeopathy. Based on my reading of the history of the page, past contributions aimed at an article explaining homeopathy have been systematically excluded by an anti-homeopathy group of senior wikipedians. In my view, this is a shameful abuse of power and a betrayal of the wikipedia. The name of the existing "Homeopathy" article should be changed to "The argument against homeopathy". People who have expertise in homeopathic medicine should be allowed to help write a new, informative "Homeopathy" article.

The Iridology article seems to have a good balance of description of the topic and critical evaluation. 68.109.166.14 00:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to include scientific valid information pro homeopathy if you have it. That may however be difficult for something that violates known laws of physics, chemistry, biology and medicin (and that's just a start). I don't think an article about Unicorns would be acceptable if not written from the perspective that they are purely mythological beasts. Homeopathy is a delusional cult, an ascertion which can effortlessly be backed up by evidence, and should be treated as such.


Well, it is quite obvious that this article is far too POV. I personally have not investigated homeopathy enough to make a declarative statement one way or the other with regards to its posssible veracity. However, even if I considered myself to be in such a position, it does not seem proper to present only my personal viewpoint. This article is primarily written from one point of view which is negative towards the idea of Homeopathy. If I choose to write an article about Catholicism that is as negative towards the subject-matter as this article appears to be, then I think it would be clear the article is not worthy of Wikipedia. Just because you personally disagree with an idea does not justify sticking your POV all over the place. I believe I've made my point.
Being 'against' homeopathy, or more precisely, being convinced that it doesn't work is not a personal opinion. It is the general consensus of the scientific community. No evidence that homeopathy works has ever been published in a scientific, peer reviewed medical journal, despite the fact it's been around for more than 200 years. Everything that looked like evidence, such as Benveniste's research, has been literally teared apart by science, without much effort I might add. Would you consider the fact that Unicorns are purely mythological beasts a personal opinion? There is as much scientific evidence for the existence of Unicorns as there is for the effifacy of homeopathy, that is to say, none what soever. All proper tests done on homeopathy have come up negative, without exception. To sum it up, there is no evidence that it works, there is loads of evidence it doesn't and the scientific consensus is that it does not and can not work. Until that situation changes, being negative about homeopathy is not a personal opinion, but a statement of facts. AFAIK, facts make it into encyclopedias. And with your example of Catholicism, if you're being factual about it, you should mention that many of the early Catholic popes were not exactly shining examples of good Christian morality (they runned brothels, had opponents murdered etc.). You should also mention that the early Catholic church was pretty violent in persecuting 'heretics'. It may be negative for Catholicism but it's also factual.
It is not sufficient to claim that the article is "quite obviously" POV. In my judgement it is NPOV. A lot of people have worked on it to make it that way. If you disagree, you should either fix it or state specifically where and why you see a problem so that other people can fix it. If you cannot do that, then you don't have the right to put an NPOV disclaimer on.
As for the pseudoscience category, I agree that it is on the face of it disparaging, but that is not sufficient reason to take it off. If it were, then the entire category should be abolished. It is often difficult to judge whether a field should be classed as pseudoscience, but if any field satisfies the criteria listed in Pseudoscience#Classifying pseudoscience, then homeopathy does. Again, if you disagree, then we should lay out our reasons here in the Talk page.
Art Carlson 15:12, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Encyclopedias do not exist to defend science. They exist to provide and preserve knowledge about a broad range of subject matter. If I wrote an article about Unicorns, it would be ridiculous for me to devote most of the article to attacking the notion that Unicorns exist. At most, their mythological or fictive nature should be stated in a small one or two sentence summary. A subject such as homeopathy, which appears to be more controversial regarding its efficacy, may need to have more extensive descriptions of the debates and procedures that went on or are going on in the scientific community and in the alternative medecine community, but it is hardly justifiable to devote the majority of the article to such things. I don't care if every scientist in the world declares homeopathy to be an awful practice & etc... this does not change the fact that a significant number of people consider it to be a legitimate form of medecine, and it is this subject that the majority of the article should address. All points of view must be respected, and an article must be primarily informative about its subject matter, not about some debate that surrounds its subject-matter. This article is simply not encyclopedic, and overall, is not very informative about homeopathy as it is currently practiced. The article is very informative about essentially one side of a debate regarding the efficacy of homeopathy, but it is not very informative about the core subject-matter. This is a problem. Talking about the world from solely a scientific standpoint is a POV stance. It may be a POV which is defensible and built upon a rigorous principle to which many people adhere, but it is, nevertheless, POV. You can argue against this all you want, but anyone can see that the methodological structure of scientific analysis is based upon certain assumptions and that those assumptions constitute a POV. For this and the reasons stated above, this article needs revision. Xaliqen 8:52, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Some text removed

These medicines rely on the basic theory of treating a symptom with its cause; however, they in no other way resemble the treatments offered by traditional homeopaths. Traditional homeopathy is arguably more recognized and accepted in continental Europe, perhaps because there its practitioners rely on more tradition and treatment with the "potentized" formulae recommended by Hahnemann.

I have removed this text, because IMO it doesn't make much sense in the current context. If someone familiar with the situation in the UK can elaborate on real differences (if there is in fact any difference) from "traditional" homeopathy (which isn't defined clearly anywhere), the text may be put back in some modified (clarified) form.

I also moved the text about the OTC sales in the UK closer to a similar passage about the US.

Paranoid 13:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: Forewarning remark

Wow! What an amazing example of non-NPOV!

Nevertheless, I will attempt a rational reply.

In the first place, if you find the article "subjective", "biased", "outdated", "inaccurate", and "ridiculous", then please fix the spots you can improve, rather than just declaring it all "an utter crock of lies" and a "joke".

It is not quite clear what your objection is. Are you suggesting that homeopathy works because, in practice, the dilution used is small enough to leave some active substance? That is, that the effect is simply a chemical one? Do you know of any double-blind study proving the efficacy of belladonna 7C?

Why do you consider explanations of the reported success of homeopathy in non-controlled studies in terms of the placebo effect to be a "joke"? The placebo effect is well established and can be quite powerful. Do you have evidence, with anything approaching a scientific nature and with statistical significance, indicating that the successes of homeopathy are stronger?

I think you will find the authors (not one just one author) of this article are quite willing to discuss with you how the article can be improved, in particular made more objective. You will need to be a bit more specific though. (Being calmer and more courteous would help, too, though it is not a prerequisite.)

Art Carlson 18:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IMO, you are wasting your time, Art. That guy was either a troll or a moron. In either case the best strategy is to revert and forget, not waste your time on a rational reply (that it might be useful to somebody else is not a justification). Paranoid 22:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You're right of course. I'm kinda new at this game, but I should know better. I am fascinated by irrationality, and it has cost me a lot of time over the years. Art Carlson 19:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Protoscience

An anon user added the Category:Protoscience tag. The definition of that category states that a protoscience is "a new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established. While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science ...." Homeopathy is not new. Its adherents almost never conduct double-blind studies, and its tenets aren't based on the results of such studies. The field has had 200 years to develop and it still can't satisfy the practitioners of mainstream orthodox science. Its adherents are free to believe that the scientific method isn't the only path to the truth, but there's certainly no basis for saying that homeopathy is proceeding along the road of the scientific method and just needs a little more time to get going. For these reasons, I'm removing the "Protoscience" categorization. JamesMLane 07:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protoscience... that's a new one on me. Scientific investigations themselves don't evolve in the sense of moving from 'speculative' to 'established', although a body of knowledge might. Either an area of investigation follows the laws of scientific research, or it doesn't. If it does follow then but is as yet not well understood, then it's just a little-understood area of scientific investigation, not a 'protoscience'. Gzuckier 18:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last changes by 24.34.159.181

Please take a look at the last changes by 24.34.159.181. I don’t want to revert the article to my own version, but if not reverted, those editions at least need to be corrected:

The dilution process:

Critics argue that homeopathic substances are so diluted as to contain nothing of any value: indeed, that no molecules of the supposedly active substance remain in the most dilutions. However, nanochemistry differs significantly from macrochemistry, and the macro-dilution process is quite different from the stagewise dilution-succussion process of homeopathy [ see http://home.comcast.net/~brc1717 for an update review of the pertinent "science"].

Misconceptions about homeopathy:

Another difference is that though both do use herbs, in herbology measurable amounts of the herb(s) are in the remedy, while in homeopathy it gets 'diluted' beyond measurable quantities.Further, the homeopathic remedy is subject to a cavitation process ('succussion')between dilution stages which changes the structure of the aqueous solvent....akin to doping a silicon crystal with trace impurities to create a transistor. Thus, a 'diluted' remedy is not what it seems....the remedy is actually the structured solvent(water) and not the original solute!

removed this one. You can't have a long standing structure in a liquid and the cavitation process if it did occure durring shaking would only help to destry any structer even quickerGeni 11:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lack of logical consistency:

According to the homeopathic theory, all water in the world should reflect its contact with millions of chemical substances. So, in practice we find that the "succussed" homeopathic water apparently can be influenced to change and re-orient its associative structure according to the nature of the initial solute used to seed the starting tincture. Nothing illogical about that.

Magical thinking:

Although the claims of homeopathy have not been clearly justified by conventional scientific testing, such testing is nomographic....which does not apply to an ideographic science.many people widely accept homeopathy due to magical thinking.

Rafał Pocztarski 04:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I undid the first one, as it links to a completely unrelated webpage and seems rather completely bogus. Why not step through each of the others one at a time, and save your changes with a comment so that a reason is given for each ? - Nunh-huh 04:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added a bit to the Randi prize. I thought it was important to note not just that the Randi prize hadn't been won, but that serious attempts had been made to win it, and that they had failed.

BScotland

Phillips Stevens quotation

Sorry for the problems with the quotation of Phillips Stevens in the Magical thinking section but I was worried that he might have been misquoted here. Those wasn’t personal comments but next part of the quoted article commented out, and a part of old quote I was trying to find and give proper attribution. The words “complementary” and “alternative” are quoted in the original text by Phillips Stevens [2] while the text:

Some of the principles of magical beliefs described above are evident in currently popular belief systems. A clear example is homeopathy...The fundamental principle of its founder, Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), similia similibus curentur ("let likes cure likes"), is an explicit expression of a magical principle.

is not present at all.

Since you have reverted it to the previous version (Magical thinking - Removing hidden personal comments, restoring full quote so as to show its proper context edit by RK) please make sure it is indeed a correct quotation of Phillips Stevens. There should be a reference to its source. Rafał Pocztarski 19:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just want to remind that while there are ongoing edits in the Magical thinking section, the above issues with the quotation are still not resolved. Rafał Pocztarski 14:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whhops! Thanks for the reminder. The quote is on the second page of the article. RK 15:30, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for the confusion. Rafał Pocztarski 16:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added info about new study

Hi folks,

I added a few lines about an interesting paper in Physica A which doesn't quite decide the issue, but adds more fuel to the fire regarding possible mechanisms for homeopathic effects. Personally, I don't believe in the stuff, but am always curious to hear about experiment results claiming to be for or against one pseudo/proto/fringe scientific theory or another.Mycophile


I agree completely. Still, I worry about the best way to deal with these studies in Wikipedia. I would like to see for each study cited the best references available on the Web, though it seems the original papers are seldom there for free. And I would like to see some critical evaluation based on the information available. Art Carlson 08:49, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
I second that, and checked some of the references for a few of the others cited. Links to abstracts at the journals' online homes (which in turn would link to full-text articles that some might be able to access) seem to be a good idea to me. Might it also be worth dividing papers cited into clinical and theoretical categories (i.e. moving the Physica study up to 'Reconciliation with Molecular Chemistry'?) --Mycophile 05:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vaccination

Wouldnt it be worth mentioning that vaccination works on the same principle? Like cures like?

no becuase it doesn't. Vaccinations are not sucessed and work on the priciple that simular or the same antigents can stimulate the immune system to produce the right T cells to produce the antibodies to fight the desease if it is encountered for real. They do not work on the priciple that like cures like.
I agree with the foregoing comment by Geni (who forgot to sign it). Nevertheless, the incorrect analogy between homeopathy and vaccination was also brought up by an anon on Talk:Alternative medicine. Perhaps the article should include a passage explaining the difference between homeopathy and vaccination? JamesMLane 21:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The difference between homeopathy and vaccination is best explained using an example how should the vaccination work to be analogous with homeopathy: it would mean injecting active virus, not deactivated one, after the infection we are curing has already taken place, not before the infection we are trying to avoid, and in the amount of zero viruses in the cubic centimeter of water. But that would still be quite inaccurate, since unlike homeopaths, we would treat viruses as causes, not effects, of disease. 83.31.40.72 23:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm the guy who put in the vaccination piece, and I'd have no objection if you (or somebody) replaced it or modified it with the above explanation. Gzuckier 15:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm afaraid I can't really see any way of modifying it so it might be best just to cut it and shove a "common missconceptions about homeopathy" inGeni 16:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I’ll try to merge the above explanation with the second paragraph of the Lack of logical consistency section somehow, but the resulting text will most probably have to go to the Misconceptions section or be splitted between other sections. There are few issues here. It is certainly worth mentioning that vaccination is rejected by homeopaths, as an important fact. It is also important to mention that this rejection seems inconsistent with the very fundamentals of homeopathy, while in fact it isn’t. It may be inconsistent with medicine and science, but not with homeopathy in general and like cures like in particular. Rafał Pocztarski 17:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strangly despite what homeopaths say clasical homeopathy should support vaccination. see § 46Geni 17:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I am not quite sure about that. See the Underlying theory: “The homeopathic concept of disease differs from that of conventional medicine—the root cause of disease is believed to be spiritual rather than physical [...] As the disease process is thought to begin long before any physical manifestations appear, it logically follows that bacteria and viruses must be effects, not causes, of disease.” If viruses are effects, then the vaccination doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. (What is §46?) Rafał Pocztarski 19:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The orogon of the medical art is devided into short one to two paragraph sections §46 is the 46th of these. Hahnemann admits in passing that vaccination works although the reasons he gives for this are rather oddGeni 02:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please read the new Vaccination resemblance section I have just added. It may still need some polishing but it hopefully addresses most of the issues we were talking about. Rafał Pocztarski 19:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merging with homeopathy

Moved from User talk:Rfl

You have labled homeopathic proving nad homeopathy reportry as needing to be merged with homeopathy. However the homeopathy article is already fairly long and there is very little overlap between the articles.Geni 11:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Homeopathy is long but well organized, unlike Homeopathic repertory and Homeopathic proving. The only link to Homeopathic repertory on the entire Wikipedia is in the Homeopathy article, nota bene in the same paragraph where it links to Homeopathic proving. The only links to Homeopathic proving other than said link on Homeopathy, are in Samuel Hahnemann, James Tyler Kent (a stub with, again, the only link in the very same paragraph of Homeopathy), and in... Homeopathic repertory. Those two articles, Homeopathic repertory and Homeopathic proving, seem to be used only to explain the first paragraph in the Homeopathic remedies section of the Homeopathy article with slightly more details, and as such should be subsections of Homeopathic remedies. I would say that the overlap is almost complete, or at least it should be. Both of those articles can be compressed to single paragraphs. There is no need to have an article on Homeopathy thoroughly explaining every concept, except for the two short and simple definitions explained somewhere else. Rafał Pocztarski 17:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
However neither of those explanations are complete. What you are doing is the equalivalnt of saying that effecicency testing should be combiended with medcine (with the exception that effecicency testing is a science)Geni 23:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don’t think I am saying anything more than I have explicitly stated above. When we have the Homeopathy article explaining every single concept and aspect of homeopathy, except for only two short and simple definitions explained somewhere else, both of which can be written as single paragraphs, and both of which are referenced only in one paragraph of the main Homeopathy article and virtually nowhere else on Wikipedia, then it seems rather obvious that those paragraphs should be included in the main article itself. Note that besides the List of homeopathic remedies there are only two articles with “homeopathic” in the title: Homeopathic repertory and Homeopathic proving. Every other concept is explained in Homeopathy. Their what links here pages show that they are needed for only one purpose: to explain one paragraph of the Homeopathy article, the first paragraph of the Homeopathic remedies section. But I think I’m repeating myself. If you disagree, then I will wait with the merging while you explain why the homeopathic repertory and homeopathic proving—unlike all other concepts of homeopathy—need to have separate articles. I’ll wait for comments before I do anything. Rafał Pocztarski 02:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reason is that both of these can be expanded to a far greater degree. Most of the concepts are pretty stable and are largly drawn from the orogon. Homeopathic provings and repitories are drawn more from given praticeGeni 02:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

anon aditions

The section about Psora is not required. We already mention that it is not taken ltilerly by most homeopaths

The section about the homeopathic view of desease is just a rehash of the above.

We already link to an online verson of the oragon

Treating animals does not remove the placebo effect it mearly increases observer bias. Proving effects have failed to appear when double blid test were carried out [3]

Sucession is just shakeing (well unless you are ultra claisical in which case it is banging against a leather bound book) water is often shaken in nature. Double distilled water will also contain contaminets which are quite posible to detect using modern tequies

The argument about the actions of the belgium sceptics fails because acourding to some homeopaths it should have an effect

There is no claim that the hoeizen tests used homeopathy. They are mainly significant due to the amount of media attention they gained.Geni 01:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Reply: The section about psora corrects the statement that is made about psora, regardless of whether you state that most homoeopaths do not take it literally. It is an erroneous statement. Also since I quote from James Tyler Kent, how can this be considered POV?

James Tyler Kent repersents the ir works POV he also represents the amirican semi clasical (thats how I tend to describe them) movement. Not all homeopaths accept his workGeni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- James Tyler Kent is a most respected classical homoeopath. What are 'ir works'? Not all homoeopaths accept a lot of the work you have entered so why exclude a master homoeopath who is studied in probably every college of homoeopathy?

That should be it works. You sisn't just include the quote did you? It is followed by what seems to be an opion with no citation. I also know there are a number of ultra claisical homeoapaths who reject Kent's work.Geni 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- This is what I said: "As Kent said: "Psora corresponds to the state of man in which he has so disordered his economy to the very uttermost that he has become susceptible to every surrounding influence... If we regard psora as synonymous with itch, we fail to understand, and fail to express thereby, anything like the original intention of Hahnemann..." Psora may said to be representative of the state of mind that is separated from the idea of the interconnectedness of all things, i.e. that state of mind that believes that each human is, indeed, an island. From this state, does dis-ease spring." So even if you believe the second part is no use, why not just remove the second part, why remove the quotation from a master homoeopath just because he believes it works? You are totally representative of the 'it doesn't work' POV and only include works from that POV - you are including one POV and no other.

I don't have an opinion about whether the quote from Kent improves the article (which should be the main question here). I would like to point out, before you go off accusing people of POV editing, you should be more careful about your own style. If you write "On this subject Kent said ..." that is OK. But you wrote "As Kent said ...", implying that is the way it is because the authority said so. And then, as already pointed out, you made statements about the subject without attribution, as fact. If you are interested in helping to create an NPOV article, it would be helpful if you would more critically examine your own contributions in the future. Art Carlson 10:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

- I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that it was 'on this subject'. Why else would it be written there? I didn't imply that this is the way because the authority said so, I was implying that there was more to it than was written in the article in the first place. I'm not interested in creating an NPOV article, I'm interested in seeing an NPOV article and I'll help where I can.

In fact, at most, it corrects the above and at least adds to it. It is not a rehash.

I did not see the link, so that's cool. Thanks

- And what about the recommendation for those other books? Hahnemann is the founder of homoeopathy and so his Organon must be read; Vithoulkas is a modern homoeopath who is highly respected in homoeopathic circles; and James Tyler Kent I've mentioned above.

We have a further reading section at the bottom of the page feel free to put book suggestions thereGeni 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- why did you delete them and not put them there when you knew I didn't know about that bit? You are happy to delete and discuss but not to add?

How do you know that Geni knew that you didn't know about the "further reading" section? If you want to constructively contribute, you have a responsibility to read the whole article first. If you don't, you have no way of knowing if your contribution is already covered somewhere else. And another thing, there is a convention to indent new comments one level farther than the material you are commenting on, and to sign it (use four tildes). It helps a lot. Art Carlson 10:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

- Fair enough, I didn't get to the further reading part mostly because I was just looking at the article and not looking for further reading or any links. But now that I look at the further reading section and the links, I can see how they too are so biased in the favour of the POV of the entry.

Animals that recover from physical pathology such as tumours or rheumatism are not displaying the placebo effect and there is no observer bias to what is plainly obvious.

Can show regeriously that this has ever happened? Can you show that it has happened more often than you would expect if the animals were just left alone?Geni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- I'm sure this research can be found - can you find research to the contrary?

Find it then the second part of your statement is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy (although if you insist I cite chem abs and biological abs)Geni 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- I don't have time to do your research. And how does the 2nd part of my statement, which is about 'provings' appeal to ignorance?

Geni and I have done our research and come to the conclusion that the studies out there are not scientifically convincing. You admit that you also have never seen any studies that are scientifically convincing. The only difference is that you have not looked very far yet and so still believe they can be found. Art Carlson 10:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

- But why do they have to be scientifically convincing, this (apparently) is not an argument for the scientific proof of homoeopathy - this is an entry in an encyclopedia to inform about what homoeopathy is surely. Why the need to scientifically convince if it is NPOV?

Homeopathy makes claims about objective facts. Do you really think an encyclopedia article can not say something about whether those claims are true or not? It might say the claims are proven, or disproven, or that the jury is still out, and it might take one sentence or most or the article to do that, but it can't ignore them. More specifically, an important fact about homeopathy is that it claims to be scientific. That makes it relevant what science has to say about homeopathy. (Didn't you understand what I said about indenting and signing to make it easier to tell who said what when?) Art Carlson 10:05, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
An encyclopeida article can (and probably should) point to research done on both sides but shouldn't devote most of the entry to the idea that it doesn't work. My problem is that there is too much emphasis on it not working and very little factual information about what homoeopathy claims to be.
Sounds like we can come to an agreement. There is a natural tendency for the most controversial elements of a subject to explode, but that doesn't mean it is good for the article. Unfortunately, although I feel somewhat qualified to write about the scientific studies, I am poorly fit to write about homeopathy as it is practised. Someone else will have to do that part. Art Carlson 08:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Homeopathy Proves Effective In Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/homeopathy.htm

That was a test of isopathy not homeopathy. The dianosis of the patients was questionable and finaly not all the measurements used produced significant results.Geni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- It was not isopathy, it was homoeopathy. I quote: "Twenty-four of the study subjects received daily homeopathy and 27 received a daily placebo treatment during the 4-week study period." "In an accompanying editorial, Tim Lancaster of the Oxford Institute of Health Sciences and Andrew Vickers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, acknowledge that the methods employed by Dr. Reilly and his colleagues "were rigorous and it is unlikely that their results arose from methodological bias." But you say it's questionable? So therefore it doesn't get included? How POV is that???

have you read the study? I have. When I say it was Isopathy I know what I am talking aboutGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6994789&dopt=Abstract

n=23 in a paper that is older than I am?Geni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Yes. There are only 2 papers, please do your research and you will find many many more - particularly some work done in Scotland.

I've done my reseach I've gone through rather a lot of papers and the ones that produce posertive results for homeopathy always seem to be flawed in some respectGeni 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- I disagree. And yet you include questionable 'tests' yourself, such as the skeptics who took a load of remedies in a bid to prove they don't work but didn't use homeopathic principles and when i pointed out why it may not have worked, you deleted it! This is you pushing your POV and your own research, however flawed, and nothing else! This entry in wikipedia is totally one-sided.

But there are many people practising homeopathy that expected it to work that way. These people are, according to you, deluded into believing in a system of healing that, despite their positive personal experience with it, does not actually work. Now, what makes their reasons for believing as they do different from your reasons for believeing as you do? Art Carlson 10:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

- If there are, I haven't heard of them and I don't believe they are practicing homoeopathy according to homoeopathic principles. Are you really saying there are homoeopaths who would expect a reaction from one dose of a remedy regardless of the details of the case and the potency??? Homoeopathic remedies are administered based on individual susceptibility therefore just taking a load of remedies in a bid for effect will not necessarily do anything at all - as I have already explained.

Open your eyes. Most homeopathic preparations are sold over-the-counter. People walk into the store with nausea or headaches or allergies, read the labels, and walk out with pills that claim to be homeopathic and claim to help their symptoms. Sure, that is not classical homeopathy, but it is an important part of what homeopathy in today's world is. That's why that sort of thing belongs in the article. I would like to see more differentiation between various schools of homeopathy in that sense, but I am not qualified to write it. Art Carlson 10:05, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
My eyes are open, don't be so insulting. Most homoeopathic remedies are given to patients by homoeopaths as part of the consultation (and are generally included in the price). The remedies sold over the counter do not represent homoeopathy, they are combination remedies that are helpful in acute cases to afford some relief possibly and are convenient if one doesn't have the time or money to see a homoeopath. They are no substitute for a homoeopathic consultation. Just because a remedy is prepared homoeopathically and bought in a shop doesn't mean that person is being treated homoeopathically. To be treated homoeopathically, you must be seen by a homoeopath who will match the symptoms to the action of the suitable remedy. It would belong more to the school of thought commonly known as practical homoeopathy as opposed to classical homeopathy, which would not prescribe a combination remedy on principle. OTC remedies should be included in the article as they are a part of homoeopathy, but they are not homoeopathy and are not administered homoeopathically. The best they do is offer some relief, convenience and introduce the wider general public to homoeopathy.
You are comitting the no true scotsman man logical fallacyGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be insulting.
It sounds like you are not challenging my statement (which I cannot back up with any references) that more preparations claiming to be homeopathic are sold OTC than as part of a classical homeopathic treatment. You just don't want to call that genuine homeopathy. Should we report both and call the one "practical" and the other "classical"? Are there any better terms to use? Art Carlson 08:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Succussion is not just shaking. The double distilled water will contain fewer contaminants and the substance to be potentised will be much greater in the first instance.

Wrong read up on the remedy positronium.

- what about it?

the contaminats in double distilled water are present several orders of magnitude higher than there was positronium in the mother tincture of that remedy. Also most modern manufactors of homeopathic remedies use vortex mixers so it would appear that there is nothing particulary special about the process of sucessionGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I was asking was for more information on the methods used by the skeptics. I gave reasons for it not working and methods where it would work. i believe that in a fair and balanced article, this is necessary and rational.

except of course you were useing a rather narrow form of homeopathy to base your reasoning onGeni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- I don't think so - please explain how it is a rather narrow form of homoeopathy? I believe it is classical. Also, you haven't given any more information, have you? I think it is of the utmost importance to include this information for it may provide the evidence that this skeptics 'test' of homoeopathy was flawed from the start.

Clasical is a narrow form. Anyway I've seen plenty of reports of effects after just one dose (although incerdenterly thank you for giving your defintion of a dose. Most of he homeopaths I run into seem to be afraid of giving a defintion for some reason)Geni 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Classical is not a narrow form and either way, you still haven't given more information! And you thank me for my definition of a dose but refuse to include it! Yes, there are effects after one dose but only if there is susceptibility - i have explained this already but you deleted it. Again I quote from what you deleted: "In order to manifest the effects of a homoeopathic remedy, there is a need for either susceptibility or high sensitivity or repetition of a remedy. Had the 'skeptics' taken a dose of the remedy and then in half an hour another dose and so on, they would have felt the effects. If they took only one dose - no matter how many physical pills, if they take them all at the same time, it is only one dose - then unless they were susceptible or particularly sensitive, they would have either felt no effects or been cured of what the remedy is there to cure."

You state as facts things you have no evidence for whatsoever. Your defintion is useless since I can find several others without trying. Asside from the whole clasical vs pratical thing there are also the ultra clasicals and the way homeopathy is generally used in reality to considerGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In an article on homoeopathy and its effectiveness, it is important to point out that the Horizon programme did not use homoeopathic principles on which homeopathy is based. Anyone can take a potentised remedy and say it doesn't work, but to use homoeopathic principles and to say it doesn't work is a totally different thing.

If I had a penny for every time people tried to use the orgianal Benveniste work against me I would be quite a bit richerGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the article is not on homeopathy and it's effectiveness. It is on homeopathyGeni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- This article should then be seriously edited to either take out all the arguments proposing that homoeopathy does not work or to include the arguments that it does. Also, you have incorrect information and have left out important information. This article does not present itself as an informative piece, it presents itself as a commentary with some articles to back it up on the theory of the non-effectiveness of homoeopathy.

we have an Arguments by supporters of homeopathy section. I admit it could do with some updateing in that the arguments used there have been solidly debunked so feel free to replace it with some better ones (or expand it or whatever)12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- your arguments by supporters of homeopathy is a joke - it needs to be renamed. You have a totally unbalanced entry in wikipedia.

So you thinkGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are not points of view that I have raised and I am seriously disappointed that wikipedia chooses to delete these edits. Why did you take out the piece I wrote on potency?

Wikipedia don't chose to do anything I did. I took out the section on potency because the whole section (due to what was there before) was flawed. I've rewriten it somewhat you might like to have a look atGeni 03:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- I'm glad you have rewritten it but wonder why it took 2 reads of what i wrote for you to consider that - perhaps you should not be so delete-happy in future. Could you please copy and paste here what you have rewritten as I cannot see the correct and full information on potency selection in the article.

"The choice of potency will depend on a number of factors depending on the homeopath these can range from how deep seated the disease seems to be to how the homeopath believes the patient has reacted to previous remedies in the past. As a general (although not exclusive rule) European homeopaths will use lower potencies than their American counterparts." That is about as far as I can go with reasonably universal statements. The deletion got you onto the talk page didn't it? I view that as a sucessGeni 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- This is not what I wrote, this is what I wrote: "The choice of potency is a controversial and much discussed one. Mostly it is believed that the clearer the case, with the higher the energy of the patient, i.e. the stronger/healthier the patient, and the less serious the pathology, then the higher the potency. A high potency may reach 50M and a low potency may be 6x or 30c." The deletion turned me off wikipedia and disappointed me. It was a success in what exactly? To get onto the talk page was not one of my many ambitions.


In fact I think you find it is mostly belived that it will hve no effect beyonfd the placebo effect. That asside your sectionm give the false impression that there are only two low potency remedies in existance. There is also the issue that I know that quite a number of homeopaths would describe 30C as high potencyGeni 13:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I'm talking about current thinking in homoeopathic circles, not your idea of what is mostly believed in the world. My section gives the information that potencies can go from the very low to the very high. What homoeopaths would describe 30c as a high potency in the scale that reaches beyond 50M?

french ones for the most partGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply from anon: Thank you for your replies but I am not sure that I will have the time to do the research for you to pull out the necessary information. If I have, I will certainly post it here. However, I must state that I find most of the entry here seriously biased and lacking in supportive arguments. It has definitely turned me off using wikipedia for if anyone can submit/enter a work such as this then I may as well as people on the street to tell me about things.

Why would you want to take out all the arguments critical of homeopathy--I am sure that all of us would love to see some additions to the article by people who believe in homeopathy. I find the article to be full of convincing, rational arguments. I have not heard of placebo-controlled randomized trials that prove the benefits of homeopathic remedies, but I would love to.

- I want to take out arguments for or against homoeopathy for it is not the place of an encyclopedia to argue one or the other, it is the place of an encyclopedia to inform. This entry about homeopathy does not inform, it attempts to influence.

Well I suspose we could take most of them out and change the starting words of the article to something along the lines of "homeopathy is a form of quacker that is derived from the work of samual etc etc"; however I don't think that would be very popualarGeni 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the article mentions one of the single best arguments for homeopathy--at least it does no harm.

- Homoeopathy in the wrong hands can be harmful. Again, you are mistaken.