Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

"This is in contrast to conventional medicine and biochemistry..."

The first paragraph of the The Theory of Infinitesimals section contains the following sentence: "Higher dilutions are generally considered stronger. This is in contrast to conventional medicine and biochemistry, which hold that the effects of a substance are always due to its physical and biochemical activity in the patient's body, and therefore that generally the more of an active ingredient is present in a drug, the more effect (whether positive, negative, or both) it will have." If the effect of a substance is not due to its activity IN the body, what is the alternative? Its activity OUT of the body? Its activity in someone else's body? Prior to asserting that the two POVs contrast, please clarify what the contrast actually is. Thanks! --Edwardian 07:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


"A disease is thought to..."

The second paragraph of the Basic Principles section contains the following sentence: "A disease is thought to manifest itself first in emotional symptoms (e.g. cravings, aversions) and if left untreated gradually progress to mental, behavioral and finally physical symptoms." That is thought by whom? As is, the assertion is not universally accepted. --Edwardian 06:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits of Feb 6 2005

I've made a pass through this article attempting to correct some errors, copyedit and remove some cheap shots. No doubt I've managed to annoy everyone at all at once. :) I still think the article needs a lot more work. In particular the criticism of homeopathy seems very badly organized, strident and unnecessarily verbose. I may take another shot at it if I have the time. --Lee Hunter 20:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A further note. I just noticed the reading list at the end looks like another cheap shot in that these books aren't about homeopathy per se. I wouldn't mind a book which was critiquing homeopathy from any viewpoint, but listing booka about magical medicine and superstition is just a slippery way of commenting on the subject rather than being actually helpful and informative. --Lee Hunter 20:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

still some missing info

I must say I quite like the article as it is now, but I'm missing some points, some which have come up in previous discussions. 1) Someone inquired how homeopathic remedies can be in the form of pills and ointments when they are prepared as liquid (with water). And how the 'memory' of water is related to that; 2) (classical) homeopaths seem to stress very much that a remedy must be choosen that matches not only the symptoms of the patient, but also the personality type (pulsatilla, sulfur type etc.). There is no mention of that in the article, besides that Hahnemann spent a lot of time talking to his patients. And there is a difference in that respect between classical homeopathy and OTC homeopathic remedies; 3) The 'memory' of water is mentioned, but AFAIK, there are also plenty remedies prepared with alcohol in stead of water. I'd like to see something about that in the article and the relation to the all important 'memory' of water. Maybe someone could add information about these points to the article.

Reorganization

I don’t have any big problems with the content or NPOV of this article, but I think the organization is a mess. It's obvious that it grew by bits and pieces, with opposing viewpoints taking their shots wherever they had an opportunity. The worst are the sections dealing with the controversy between homeopathy and mainstream science. I propose to reorganize the current content in the following outline. First a section The appeal of homeopathy to answer the question why its followers believe in homeopathy, without discussion of whether that makes sense. Then a section The skeptical point of view, to answer the question of why skeptical scientists do not believe in it, that is, what is wrong with the reasoning of the proponents and what they haven't considered at all. It is probably necessary to then have a rebuttal section, where the response of the proponents to the new arguments of the skeptics is reported. To avoid pro and con ad infinitum, this third section would report the skeptics rebuttal of the rebuttal as well. There is probably a need for a final section on Some selected scientific studies to make some specific comments, particularly on the meta-studies and the "challenges". I will start doing this as time permits. If anyone has helpful suggestions or helpful criticisms of the general idea, please discuss it here before I make too many changes. (After that we can clean up the organization of the rest of the article.) Art Carlson 09:01, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Looks like a great start. Here are some comments. I would like to see the 'challenges' heading removed with the James Randi bit moved to the skeptics section as a secondary subhead. The 'zetectic' (or whatever it's called) challenge should be deleted. The original version of that bit was almost completely incoherent. I fixed it up a little but I still think it is too vague to be useful. The National Council Against Health Fraud section should be deleted or summarized. I don't think a long rant by an organization whose only purpose is to dump vitriol on anything outside of commercial mainstream medicine should be given that much space. --Lee Hunter 14:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. By the way, I notice that the French version has a clean structure with a completely different organization. Art Carlson 16:16, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

The recent edits seem definitely POV. There are different ways to organize the material, but just looking at the recent edits I note two points:

  • What is the basis for the assertion that homeopathy's popularity declined because of "assimulation [sic] of some of the ideas by orthodox medicine"? What ideas were assimilated?
I have this from Campbell:
There were two main reasons for the decline of homeopathy in America after about 1885. One was, paradoxically, the very success of the new system. Orthodox physicians were coming to realize the dangers of existing methods of treatment and were beginning partly to abandon the use of large doses of drugs and of bleeding. The example of homeopathy undoubtedly played a part in prompting this trend; nor was it only in the matter of dosage that orthodox medicine borrowed from homeopathy. Some of the homeopaths' drugs began to find their way into the orthodox pharmacopoeia while others had always been common to both schools, and this tended to blur the distinction between them still further.
I changed "assimulation" to "recognition of the dangers" but left out the part about the drugs because it raises more questions than it answers. Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • The deprecation of the National Council Against Health Fraud is unjustified. Yes, that organization has a POV about homeopathy. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be cited as the source for information that came from its report. The article cites sources that are obviously pro-homeopathy, too. Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mean refusing to cite or link to POV sources.
What the NCAHF had to say about Benveniste is available from many sources, and their formulation was POV. After rewriting the material, I saw no reason to cite NCAHF anymore. Their position paper is still listed in External links. Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
The council obtains their funding by frothing at the mouth at absolutely everything that is not mainstream drugs and surgery. Quoting them in an article about homeopathy gives them a credibility they really don't deserve. --Lee Hunter 12:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Getting funded by frothing at the mouth? Wow, I wish I could get money that easy. But anyway, the NCAHF simply insists that alternative medicin does what scientific medicin does (or rather is required to do, in contrast to the alternauts) - prove the safety and efficacy of their methods and products. That's all. Of course, once something is proven safe and effective, it will become mainstream. And that is exactly the reason why alternative medicin does not go mainstream, it's not proven safe and effective! With homeopathy, they can't even prove it after 200 years! [personal attack deleted]!


  • With the skeptical material being moved further down in the article, the presentation is tilted. I suggest that in the lead paragraph, after the statement that it was published in 1796, we add: "The scientific establishment rejects homeopathy as unproven."
I added "It has a wide popularity today but is rejected by the scientific establishment." Is that enough? The establishment considers it not only "unproven" but "proven false" and illogical anyway. Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look over this reorganization in detail, so there may be other problems that need to be addressed. JamesMLane 01:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and help. I was amazed I could make such far-reaching changes without a storm of protest from one side or the other. I'm generally satisfied now, but I'm sure to be blind to some problems. The biggest problem I see is the section on Some specific controlled studies and clinical trials, but I don't see an easy way to make it better. Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Thoroughly agreed on all points. --FOo 04:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet what to think about the article as it is now. Personally, I think it's pretty good. The article first says what homeopathy is, were it comes from, without getting POV. It then adresses criticism and support, which unavoidably have to be POV, but I feel it's pretty well balanced. It also adresses a number of things that are relevant and were missing previously (like the concept of vital force and the use of anamnesis only, great additions). However, it looks a lot more complicated then it was. It's of course a complex subject, but I feel a more casual reader might be put off halfway though the article. But all together, I say keep it like it this for a while and gather suggestions on this page first before making any major changes (again!). If nobody comes with decent suggestions for change, by all means, don't change it. One problem I see concerns indeed the 'some specific studies' part - the quote from the research by the Dutch professors is a good (or bad, depending on your personal taste) example of selective quoting. The full report shows they didn't find any evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy at all. They were indeed at first surprised by the positive results they found, but in the end these turned out to be from poorly controlled studies and due to reporting bias - researchers in general tend to not plubish negative results. On the other hand, this seems balanced by the other research mentioned. I'm sure both sides on the alternative medicine debate tend to use selective quoting for their purpose. And to change or to add to that particular quote might be a bit too POV.

A point of criticism I recently came across is that homeopathy is statistically impossible. Provings are done in groups from 1 (!) to 8 people. To infer from such a small sample that their reactions to any substance are valid for the entire worldpopulation is statistically complete nonsense and non sequitur. It would require further testing of millions of people to validate the enormous lists of symptoms ascribed to the tested substances, which isn't done. It's also in conflict with the assertion of homeopathy that each patient has to be delt with individually, because each patient will respond differently to treatment (and thus to the substance administered). Any thoughts on that?

Seems like whoever wrote that had only a slim understanding of homeopathy, whipped it up with something they knew about mainstream medicine (i.e. conflating remedies with drugs) and then set up a straw man. Provings are not intended to be clinical trials, the reactions to the remedies are not "symptoms" (at least not in the traditional medical sense) and I'm not aware that homeopathy says that the reactions to a proving are supposed to be consistent in every person (or even most people) who take a remedy. That's like saying baseball couldn't possibly work because it doesn't follow the rules of football. The provings are simply an enquiry into the nature of various substances. If one prover gets a headache on the right side of his forehead the information is noted but it's not considered significant. If five of the eight get a headache in the right side of their forehead it is interesting but it still doesn't mean that the substance is a cure for everyone who has headaches on the right side of the head, it's only considered a clue, which taken with all the other clues about the remedy and insights into the individual patient might match the substance as a good remedy. It's a completely different paradigm than mainstream medicine. --Lee Hunter 14:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come again please mr. Hunter? Who doesn't understand homeopathy? Correct me if I'm wrong please, but everything I've read and read about homeopathy, pro or con (and I've read Hahnemann, Boernicke and Kent, amongst others), says the central point is the like-cures-like principle: i.e. if substance X cause a headache on the right side of the head in a person who didn't have a headache there at first, then that substance can make that headache go away in a person who does have a headache there.

I'm not a homeopath, just someone who has been treated homeopathically (very successfully) and who knows a few homeopaths. And I've also done a little reading. Yes there is a 'like cures like' principle which is central to homeopathy but it's not quite as simple as you suggest. In the example of the headache, I don't think any homeopath worth his salt would say that remedy X that provoked a headache in a prover Y is automatically going to cure a headache in person Z. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of remedies that have 'headache' as part of the proving. When a homeopath searches the Materia Media they're not looking for a 'headache remedy' they're looking for a remedy that is tuned to the individual on a number of different levels. At least this is what I get from reading modern homeopaths like Sankaran (I have to confess that I haven't read much Hahneman or Kent). --Lee Hunter 22:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And how do they know substance X causes a headache? Because they did a homeopathic proving. If that is not the purpose of those provings then what is? An enquiry into the nature of the substances? What do you mean with 'nature'? Specific weight, atomic number, taste, color, chemical properties or what? And if they don't get their enormous lists of 'symptoms' (or effects if you like) from those provings, then how do they get them? Clairvoyance? Guessing? Flip a coin? Can't be clinical trials, since clinical trials didn't even exist in Hahnemanns time, and homeopathy worked just as well then as it does now. And I'm not aware either that homeopathy claims everyone gets the same reaction from the substances in provings, only that they apply the results they get from provings (done with just a few persons) to everyone.

But that's exactly what they do not do. Ok, I take that back. There are some companies making what they call 'homeopathic remedies' that supposedly are universal cures for headaches, the common cold etc but that's not what a classical homeopath does. --Lee Hunter 22:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But indeed, most homeopaths seem to use it only as a clue. That is why there are as many different kinds of homeopathy as there are homeopaths, which sort of brings us back to the statistical objection above. And I am familiar with the statistical objection above. I've read it in an article written by prof.dr. Willem Betz, of the University of Brussel, where he teaches family doctors their trade. And please note prof. Betz has gone through homeopathy school!! If you like, I can give you his e-mail address, so you can tell him he doesn't have clue what he's talking about (for some reason, I'm getting visions of the no true Scotsman fallacy coming). And what do you mean with "conflating remedies with drugs"? I see the words 'treatment' and 'substances', I don't see the words 'remedies' or 'drugs' anywhere in the text. And if it's 'whipped up' with anything, it's with statistics, which afaik are part of mathematics and not of mainstream medicine. Have you actually read the text?

I was responding to the suggestion that the purpose of provings is to find substances that have a universal, or near universal, effect on the population. You write "to infer from such a small sample that their reactions to any substance are valid for the entire worldpopulation is statistically complete nonsense". Well, yes, you're quite right. But who is doing this infering? The homeopaths I know would not say anything even remotely like that. It sounds to me like you're trying to suggest that the provers are looking for pharmaceutical substances like aspirin. My understanding is quite the opposite - that a remedy will usually have an effect when it is carefully chosen for a specific individual and often for the experience of an individual at a particular point in time. So where do statistics come in, unless you're trying to compare provings to drug trials, which is a bit like comparing apples to peacocks. Perhaps you could point me to some sources that say something different? --Lee Hunter 22:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree the central theme is 'like-cures-like'. That means you have to figure out first what substance(s) cause headaches in people to be able to use them to cure headaches. Otherwise you're just guessing that a substance will have that effect. The figuring out part is done with homeopathic provings: take a substance, any substance, and report whatever you feel till 6 weeks after taking it. If that is not the purpose of these provings, then ask yourself what is? We both seem to agree that these provings are useless for that purpose. But you can only match the remedy with the patient if you have testresults from the same sort (homeopathic type) of persons taking that substance, or again you're just guessing. Homeopaths haven't done those tests, only the very limited provings. And again, we seem to agree that applying these very limited provings to everybody is nonsense. But how then do homeopaths know how to choose a certain remedy if it isn't from their huge lists based on these provings? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they don't use their own tests for that, the only alternative seems they're just guessing. If this is a false dichotomy, I'd like to know where my thinking goes wrong.

What I read in books and magazines about homeopathy is pretty straightforward: patient comes in, homeopath interviews them (most of homeopathy is about how to take this anamnesis), makes a list of symptoms (not necessarily the same kind of things mainstream medicin considers symptoms), figures out what type of personality the patient is and then whips out their list to match these symptoms and personality with a substance which then becomes the remedy. And the list is based on the results of provings which lead to the statistical objection above. And statistics come in whenever any sort of test is done where testresults have to be evaluated. Statistics are a completely independent and objective instrument for evaluating test results and can be applied to both apples and peacocks, just as you can use a scale to weigh apples and peacocks, a thermometer to measure their temperature etc.

What you've written at the begining of your last paragraph sounds like a pretty good summary of how some, perhaps many homeopaths work (I don't feel qualified to generalize). Perhaps with these homeopaths you could come up with some kind of statistical models - although first you would have to devise standardized tests for the personality types discussed in homeopathy. There are other homeopaths, at least the ones that I know personally, who focus on understanding the person as a whole (much more than a type and a list of symptoms) and each remedy as a whole. So to get back to the subject of provings, I think you're still trying to force them into the drug trial model - person complains of x, y and z symptoms so we should give him a remedy with x, y and z in the proving. But for the homeopaths that I know it's not that simple. The x, y and z that the person presents are only a clue about who the complete person is and the x, y and z of the proving are only a clue about the real nature of the remedy. A homeopath could subscribe on this basis but they'd probably be wrong. I just don't see how statistics can be applied to something that requires profound and complete understanding of a human being. In conventional medicine it doesn't matter. Someone has a headache, the doctor says take this pill. If the headache goes away, the pill works and you can easily measure it with statistics. --Lee Hunter 21:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the poster above Lee Hunter is saying that you need to have a basis on which the remedy is chosen. Say you're a wonderfull homeopath and you have complete and profound insight into the whole of a patient's being (whatever that is). You then decide that they have to take remedy X for their headache. But how on earth do you know that remedy X works or even if it does anything at all if you haven't tested it in some way? Could you please ask the homeopaths you're in touch with how they do that? And why don't they throw the provings out all together if they don't use these? You say they work on the basis of insight into the patients being and insight into the remedies. You can interview patients to get insight, but you can't interview remedies. Where and how do they get that insight if not from tests? And with regard to statistics, if homeopaths don't use them, they won't be doing their patients any favours. If you have your statistics, you can find out that the remedy your inclined to prescribe works in only 10% of that particular type of patient, while you can also see there is another one that has shown to work in 90% of that type of patient. Which one would you choose? Might it be homeopaths don't have statistics about what works when because it doesn't work? And if we're all to different as complete human beings to make any lists with what works when then that means there is no system to homeopathy and we're back to the case where they're just guessing that remedy X will work. As to how homeopaths choose their remedy, I've noticed lots of it is magical thinking - this is a sulfur type personality, sulfur is associated with hot, chillipepper is hot so a remedy with chillipepper in it must work (I've read this exact line of reasoning in a case review in a homeopathic magazine, and more like it in that and other homeopathic magazines). By the way, insight into the workings of a remedy without any tests is not unheard of. Mr. Bach, from the Bach flower remedies, just 'knew' what a flower was good for by simply looking at it. To recap, the question for you (and/or the homeopaths you're in touch with) is: granted your skills as a homeopath give you complete and utter insight into the whole being of a patient, how do you get from there to choosing/ matching a remedy, if not based on any tests, i.e. provings? Tarotcards? Crystal ball? And if tests are used, any test at all, how can you use those results without using statistics (which can be as simple as a headcount, with people divided into groups based on some criterium)? Would you just take the chance that you prescribe a remedy of which your own tests tell you it works 0% of the time, while your own tests could reveal you have stuff that works 100% of the time if only you used statistics to analyze results? Oh, and as expected, the no true Scotsman has shown up - some homeopaths work 'that way', but of course not the one(s) you're in touch with. If they work completely different, it should be worked into the article on homeopathy, so I'm very curious how they do work and manage to call it homeopathy while they don't seem to follow it's rules.

I'm going to drop out of the debate at this point since the purpose of the talk page is to discuss what should go into the article and how to present it. Also I've tried answering this question a couple of times above, apparently without success. :) --Lee Hunter 15:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't even understand why people are arguing about whether/how Homeopathy is effective. This article is not about the effectiveness of Homeopathy, it's about the practice itself. There may be a place for some of the critiques of homeopathy within the article, but they should never be the primary subject matter. It would be ridiculous if the article on Catholicism were filled primarily with arguments expounding upon the unscientific nature of religion, so too for the article on homeopathy. --Xaliqen 10:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


that is not a correct comaprison. Ultimatel catholism calims to be basedon faith homeopathy does not.Geni 11:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The relevance of the discussion for the article is that mr. Hunter apparently knows some homeopaths who are practising homeopathy in a radically different way from the teachings of Hahnemann. If there have been developments in homeopathy these should be in the article, with a prior discussion if it still could be called homeopathy or requires a separate article. However, it seems mr.Hunter's homeopaths can not or will not tell him how they practise their form of homeopathy so we'll have to stick to Hahnemann and his teachings (and Kent, Boernicke et all). And I feel the subject of efficacy in anything about medicin is important information, since people may base decisions regarding their health on that information. In that respect, choosing one's religion and thus the fate of one's soul is very important as well, but usually not as urgent as decisions regarding health and with a much less immediate effect.

FAC

I would nominate this as a Featured Article but know that the references section would be shot down straight away. Any chance that the people that have worked so hard on this article could add some more references? violet/riga (t) 19:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Theory of Disease

I changed this sentence "Homeopaths ignore or reject the view of illness and disease that the study of conventional medicine has built up over the last two-hundred years." because it colors a straight factual statement with loaded language ("ignore or reject"). I know that many homeopaths are also practising MDs, so to make a blanket statement like that can't be anything more than an opinion and inherently non factual. I've changed this sentence to "Homeopaths' view of illness and disease is not the same as that found in conventional medicine." Another user reverted my edit and I've reverted it back again because I think my version is NPOV and factual. --Lee Hunter 21:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Going through the history I discovered that I'm not the first person to change this sentence only to have it reverted. Now it's back again. Perhaps Jooler would be kind enough to join the discussion page? --Lee Hunter 21:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No. Art Carlson modified my version. His "compromise" version was acceptable to me. I am reverting to Art Carlson's version, not mine. Jooler 22:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom a practising MD can be reprimanded for prescribing homeopathic remedies ([1]). Are we to assume that those MDs who prescribe homeopathic remedies do not adhere to the theory of homeopathy itself? If this is the case then those individuals can be discounted because they are just prescribing homeopathic remedies as placebos. There are probably also some homeopaths who are practising accupunturists which also has a different theory of illness. We need to talk about the theory of homeopathy as it is adhered to by those who actually believe in it. As such, it has to be said that theory of homeopathy itself, or rather those who adhere to the theory, are ignoring or rejecting the susbstantial body of research into how disease affects the human body. Jooler 21:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If anything my original wording "The homeopathic concept of disease ignores all of the insight into illness and disease that the study of conventional medicine has obtained over the last two-hundred years" was more explicit in saying that it was the theory rather than the practitioners that ignored the knowledge gained in the last 200 years. Art Carlson's version says "Homeopaths..." i.e. practitioners. Jooler 22:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the history of the edit. I still object to the wording of the sentence on the following grounds. a) The wording does not make sense. "Concepts" are not animate - they are not in themselves capable of ignoring or rejecting. b) "ignoring" and "rejecting" are loaded words. One could just as easily say "transcending", "bypassing", "expanding". Whether you choose one set of words or the other depends on where you stand on the issue, not on any provable information. c) it is hyperbole. The phrase "all of the insight" is an absurd exaggeration. d) It is an opinion that you personally are projecting on the concept based on your understanding. Many people who actually practise homeopathy have enormous respect and an intimate knowledge of conventional medicine. It is provably untrue to suggest otherwise. e) There is a section reserved for criticism, if it's going to be included in the article, it should go there. --Lee Hunter 01:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I reject all five strands of your argument.
  • a) You are suggesting that the word ignore can only be used when the subject is a sentient noun. Yes for certain inanimate nouns and in certain contexts ignore wouldn't make any sense - "the sea ignored the rock" (non-sensical) - but it is perfectly acceptable to use the word ignore when the subject is possessed of sentient control i.e. "the car ignored the roadblock" - "the ship ignored the rocks" - "the FBI ignored the forensic results" - "Marxism ignores tranditional personal aspirations". A quick google search finds 5540 hits for the phrase "theory ignores", 38 hits for the precise phrase "conventional medicine ignores". Jooler 09:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The web is chock full of bad writing so Google hits mean nothing. Even so I was surprised that you found so few examples. --Lee Hunter 10:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • b) Trancending is certainly a loaded word, implying that the wealth of study into conventional medicine has been a complete waste of time. Ignore or disregard or reject are certainly correct words to describe that fact that the homeopathic system has not evolved to take into account the understanding of the universe that the study of science has given us.
But again that's totally POV. One could say, still being POV but more verifiable, that medicine has ignored the insights of homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 10:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • c) It certainly isn't hyperbole. Two hundred years ago medicine basically consisted of bleeding and examining stools. Since then the modern study of medicine and disease has given us cures and treatments for many killer diseases, as well as an understanding of the mechanism of infection which has allowed invasive surgery with greatly reduced risk to the life of patient. This would all have seemed magical back then. This "medical enlightenment" is not utilised by those who adhere to the homeopathic theory, who prescribe minute to non-existant doses of coffee to cure someone of insomnia. Jooler
But this is simply false. The homeopaths that I'm aware of give full credit for many medical advances. They use them in their practise, recommend them to their patients and get treated by regular doctors themselves. They don't say that the mechanism of infection is wrong - only that there is 'more than can be explained by medicine. How do you get 'ignoring and rejecting' out of that? --Lee Hunter 10:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • d) If people choose to pick and mix remedies from homeopathic traditions and conventinal medicine then that is their own concern. The title of this particular section is "Basic principles/Theory of disease". What individual homeopaths believe is not relevant to this section, this section is specifically discussing the theory of homeopathy and its approach to the understanding of disease (and indeed chemistry and physics) and its incompatibility with the understanding of disease that medicine and physics and chemistry have given us over the last two hundred years.
I have no problem with the article saying that homeopathy is incompatible with "the understanding of disease that medicine and physics and chemistry have developed over the last two hundred years." That's a fairly objective statement - and I actually think it's made several times in the article. --Lee Hunter 10:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • e) You are suggesting all criticism should go into a small section reserved for that purpose and that the rest of the article should expound upon the "merits" of homeopathy, making blanket statements that are provably untrue and not clearly stating that fact? This I reject, and indeed I see "critical" statements countering apologetic statements throught the article as it currently stands, this is as it should be. Jooler 09:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all! The theory of homeopathy is what it is. Whether it's valid according to science and medicine is another question, and one which absolutely should be addressed in a way that respects the integrity of the article itself (i.e. not by snarky comments inserted wherever someone feels they'd like to insert a gibe) And if there any statements in the article that are provably untrue they should be fixed. Which is exactly where this conversation began. :) --Lee Hunter 10:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The reorganization of the article was my idea and was motivated primarily by editorial considerations (plus a bit of hoping to reduce edit wars). Basic principles is for presenting what homeopaths believe. The skeptical view of homeopathy is for presenting what scientists believe about what homeopathists believe. This section need not be and in fact is not small. The rest of the article should not and in fact does not make "blanket statements that are provably untrue". In most of the sections pro and con are presented next to each other. In a few it seemed better to present primarily one or the other, but always formulated as "proponents believe" and "critics believe". Provable facts should be and are stated as facts. So, is it OK to be satisfied with the simple and unquestionably objective "The homeopathic view of disease differs" in this section and present how it differs and why the homeopaths' version is nonsense in the later section? Art Carlson 09:32, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Lee Hunter, please don't interlace replies, it make things very hard to follow. I cannot accept that this article should present the theory of homeopathy (specifically in that section) unencumbered by any critical assesment of how it goes against (ignores, trandscends, use what word you will) the vast volume of verifiable knowledge that the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology have gained in the two centuries since homeopathy was "invented". To say that it differs cannot suffice. It would be wrong if I were to say (for example) that the belief in Breatharianism differs from the conventional view, and I didn't bother to say that all scientific evidence suggests that someone following a Breatharian regime would die of starvation. By the same token if this is to be a responsible article on Homeopathy then it must highlight the fact that almost the entire scientific community assert that homeopathic remedies contain nothing but water or (99.9999r% water) and do not have any medical value whatsoever beyond the placebo effect. This is not a mere point-of-view. It is not just the view of the establishment. It is borne out by the vast volume of scientific knowledge that is available for anyone to read and by the many studies that have been unable to find any value in homeopathy. Jooler 11:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lee Hunter, to address the points you raised - you keep saying things along the line of "the homeopaths I know do this or do that" - this is irrelevant to the nature of the theory of homeopathy. I would not be suprised if there are a number of homeopaths who prescribe these remedies and believe that they only have a placebo effect. It is not what individual homeopaths believe but about the theory of homeopathy itself and how it runs counter to modern rational thinking, knowledge and understanding of the nature of disease. The phrase "medicine has ignored the insights of homeopathy" could be used if there were any verifiable insights gained by homeopathy - to my knowledge that are none. Perhaps the word "incompatible" might serve as a compromise for ignore/reject? Jooler 11:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no problems with using the word 'incompatible' however I do need to simplify your sentence somewhat. I don't see any a need to go on about what we been given by the enlightment of the last two hundred years. That's just editorializing again. Can we not just say that homeopathy is incompatible with modern science and medicine? I've changed the order of ideas in the paragraph. It seems logical that we should say what it is first, before trying to compare it to other systems. --Lee Hunter 12:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No. I'm afraid I end up repeating myself, but here goes. Two hundred years ago medicine basically consisted of bleeding and examining stools. It is important to point out that medicine or perhaps you prefer the term conventional medicine has not just been updated, but revolutionised and totally transformed by the scientific discoveries of people like John Snow, Robert Koch Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Joseph Lister, Thomas Hunt Morgan Linus Pauling and a host of others. By contrast as far as I can tell homeopathy has not moved one jot since Samuel Hahnemann's day. There was not one iota of evidence to support the theory then and there still isn't. It is important to establish that the theory does not encompass and knowledge that has been gained (in any field!) in that two hundred years. Jooler 14:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"as far as I can tell homeopathy has not moved one jot since ..." Then please allow me to enlighten you. Homeopathy has changed substantially. There are far more provings, thousands of new remedies, new technologies, many new methodologies etc. Are these changes important or impressive? Well, that's strictly POV isn't it? It's a big deal to homeopaths but probably not to you. And even if homeopathy had not changed, you're still pushing a thoroughly specious argument. If homeopathy works the way homeopaths say it works, what does it matter whether doctors are using leeches or performing quadruple bypasses? Perhaps 200 years from now, people will look back in horror at the practise of medicine in the early part of the 21st century and wonder why doctors, for all their advances, hadn't caught on to the more evolved field of homeopathy. :) --Lee Hunter 16:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When I orginally wrote the above post, after " ..not one jot" I put ".. apart from more provings" and then I thought - what are provings? - they are merely guesses at a remedy for a particular malady, nothing more, so I decided not to bother with the second clause. If homeopathy works the way homeopaths say it does then we would likely have some clear evidence to support it, but there is none. There was no clear evidence to support the theory of the four humours 200 years ago. That was just superstition and guesswork. Since then we have learned to use the scientific method and modern medicine is based on scientific principles and systematic regulation and testing. Homeopathy remains in realm of the superstition and guesswork of 200 years ago. Jooler

On theory of disease: I've picked a medical history book out of my library and I suggest adding something like the following:

The theory of disease in Hahnemann's time was based on the four humours. Mainstream medicine in those days focused on restoring the balance in the humours and thus the vital energy by either removing an exces of a particular humour (through such things as bloodletting and purging, the use of laxatives, enema's and obnoxious substances that made patients vomit) or by suppressing symptoms associated with the humour(s) causing troubles, for instance giving patients substances associated with cold and dry if the patient was hot and wet (e.g. fever). Hahnemann's idea was that by suppressing or going against the humours, doctors were sabotaging the body's efforts to heal itself. He considered symptoms the way the body fought disease and doctors should encourage them instead of suppressing, which is another expression of the 'like-cures-like' principle. In homeopathy it is considered a good sign if the patient initially gets worse. This is called 'Erstverärgerung' (German: initial worsening) and is considered a sign the body is healing itself. When the theory of the four humours was developed by Hippocrates, he thought the origin of disease causing the imbalance was lack of clean air, clean water and lack of exercise. In Hahnemann's time, the idea of independent outside agents causing disease was gaining ground, leading Hahnemann to develop his theory of miasms. Scientific medicine has discarded the theory of the four humours and has discarded the theory of miasms (and similar ideas of it's time) in favour of the germ theory of disease, based on the work of scientists like Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Joseph Lister and Linus Pauling.
I think this describes the situation correctly and NPOV. It doesn't say 'homeopathy rejects' or uses the expression 'transcends', just that science did what it did - it investigated and developed another theory that fit the evidence better. And just so you know where I stand, my POV is that homeopathy is total hogwash, it never worked and it never will. Hahnemann however was not at all an idiot, it was just that he had to work with the limited knowledge of his time. He correctly identified that mainstream medicine in his days was doing more damage then good and I think he actually had a good idea to try going along with the humours instead of against, or rather, do the opposite of what other doctors where doing. He was totally wrong of course, but so was just about everybody in those days. His idea about miasms probably helped developing the germ theory (together with others), just as Bohr's wrong (but better then the previous) idea about the atom helped developing a correct picture. The problem is modern homeopaths hanging on to ideas that are proven as false as the notion the earth is flat. And I am convinced that in 200 years from now people will indeed look back in horror at today's medicine and be amazed how we could be so ignorant that we could not get a simple virus as HIV under control or had trouble curing cancer. I am also absolutely convinced that there is zero percent change that homeopathy will have replaced todays medicine in 200 years from now, just a science is not going back to believing the earth is flat. Homeopathy is not a new paradigm, it is a remnant of a time when people where even more ignorant about the science of medicine then we are today. It was a nice try 200 years ago, but alas, the evidence shows it doesn't work and our scientific knowledge of today clearly shows it can not work.
Your paragraph looks fine to me. --Lee Hunter 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I like the suggested para and I see that it has already been implemented, but I believe that the theory of the four humours, the miasma theory of disease (not the same as Hahnemann's miasms), the blood generation (or spontaneous generation) theory and Hahnemann theory cannot be put on the same level as germ theory (or indeed the understanding of the chronic effects of ionizing radiation and inherited genetic disorders on cell division. Germ theory now has a vast body of evidence to support it, with scientific analysis of the mechanisms involved. This is a tower of knowledge which I believe is unlikely to be knocked down. It may well be revised and updated as scientific anlysis of these mechanisms becomes extend our knowledge, but I doubt that there will be the kind of medical enlightenment that earlier revolutionised the practise of medicine and brought it out of the dark ages. To summarise - I don't think that the paragraph places anough emphasis on the fact that germ theory isn't just another theory that happens to be in vogue at the moment. However, I'm not prepared to get into an edit war over it. Jooler 09:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well Jooler, I agree that the miasm theory is not on par with the germ theory. I do think that however false it is, it was a step along the scientific path to the germ theory. A big improvement over demons as outside agents causing disease anyway. The road of science is littered with abandoned ideas, many of them necessary steps to moving on to a better understanding of things. That's how science works. A hypothesis is put forward, tested and kept or discarded. I mentioned Borh's picture of the atom as example, his idea was false, but helped a lot to move on. I choose that particular example, because it also demonstrates how wrong ideas tend to stick around - many of us still picture atoms as a nucleus of protons and neutrons with electrons circling around it like a miniature solar system. Science has abandoned that picture, just as it has abandoned the idea of miasms, indeed, as you say, based on scores of evidence in favour of the germ theory. That evidence simply was not around at Hahnemann's time, and we'll never know if Hahnemann would have changed his mind about things if he'd seen the evidence. And some people never learn or just like to hang on to familiar things, which is the difference between homeopathy (or alternative medicine in general) and scientific medicine.

According to [2] there were three candidates in the middle of the 19th century:
  1. miasma theory - external cause but not contagious
  2. blood generation theory - internal cause and therefore not contagious
  3. germ theory - external cause and contagious
Hahnemann's theory is most closely related to miasma theory with a touch of germ theory. On the other hand, his emphasis on spiritual causes seems to hark back to disease as a punishment for moral failings. As opposed to some of his other ideas, like the principle of minimum does and basing the search for medications on observations of their effects, I can't identify any progress over the beliefs of his time in his theory of disease. Art Carlson 12:07, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
We should be careful not to give the reader the idea that Hahnemann's 'miasm' is the same as the 'miasm' of modern homeopaths. For example Sankaran, if I understand him correctly, uses miasm more as way of classifying how different people experience, express and respond to illness. This is somewhat similar to the idea that a 'type A' personality has a predisposition to hypertension. In this sense 'miasm' can happily coexist with germs, viruses, genetics, environment etc. --Lee Hunter 15:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diversity of homeopathy

This sort of brings back the previous discussion where mr. Hunter was involved, where he apparently knows homeopaths who do not follow the system of homeopathy according to Hahnemann but still manage to call themselves homeopaths. The question then is, what is homeopathy, or how dogmatic is it. Looking at Sankaran and others, can it still be called homeopathy or has it become an independant offshoot? Where should we draw the line? When is a new article required like 'homeopathy according to X' or a whole bunch of them, homeopathy according to X and to Y and to Z. Homeopaths themselves are terribly divided, there are about as many forms of homeopathy as there are homeopaths. Many classic homeopaths following Hahnemann to the letter are horrified by folks using complex instead of single remedies calling themselves homeopaths. Some are warning that a particular remedy should be used only once or the vital energy will be damaged beyond repair, others see no problem at all. Producers of OTC remedies do not seem to care about the need of treating each patient individually etc. Maybe the best thing is to point out to readers that the teachings of Hahnemann form the basis of homeopathy but that today there are many different ideas among homeopaths about what can be called homeopathy, pointing out there are those that still follow Hahnemann to the letter while others have very different ideas. And should we mention that all these totally different forms all claim the same succes rate (for which all of them have the same amount of evidence - anecdotal: lots of it; scientific: none)?

First of all, I would be very surprised to learn of any modern homeopath who is "following Hahnemann to the letter". Some follow his approach more closely than others, but Hahnemann evolved his practise over time and that evolution continues to this day. Among modern homeopaths there are a few major differences in approaches which you mentioned and which could go in the article (if they're not already there). To say that there are as many forms as there are homeopaths is a bit of a stretch - I'm not sure how you jump from three or four differences to saying that every homeopath has a different approach. That's only true in the same way that every MD has a different approach (ie. considering personality, experience, intuition, training etc) You raise an interesting question, though, about whether homeopathy is dogmatic. I guess the simple answer is that it's dogmatic for the dogmatic homeopath and non-dogmatic for the non-dogmatic homeopaths. :) I'm sorry that I insist on presenting homeopathy as a moving target, but you can't describe homeopathy today by looking only at Hahnemann any more than you can describe microbiology today by only looking at Pasteur. --Lee Hunter 14:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Homeopathy is whatever people calling themselves homeopaths do. One of the things still missing in the article is a discussion of "schools of homeopathy" to point out the diversity. There are spilts over Hughesian/Kentian, low-dilution/high-dilution, single-remedy/complex-remedy, single-dose/multiple-dose, individual/OTC. I have not been able to make enough sense out of the landscape to propose general divisions or even spectra. Has anyone else? Art Carlson 10:03, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Do these characteristics correlate to a sufficient degree as to define a single spectrum of differences in homeopathic practice?Art Carlson 14:43, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Hughesian Kentian
low-dilution high-dilution
complex-remedy single-remedy
multiple-dose single-dose
OTC individual
scientific spiritual
pragmatic dogmatic
progressive classical
That looks like eight discrete spectrums to me, some of which probably overlap. Actually some are perhaps spectrums and others (multi vs single dose) are 'either/or' options. I'm not sure that it would help the article to put them all together since each needs to be discussed separately. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well Art, saying homeopathy is whatever is whatever homeopaths do may be right, but since they're all doing different things, it would make an unwieldy article if we had include all their interpretations. I have the feeling the division you mention is a good start for a paragraph on different schools of homeopathy and represents the main differences and developments and I vote for putting it in the article. I'm just not too keen on calling anything about homeopathy scientific, though it may be correct to say they would really like scientific acceptance and are trying hard to get both scientific proof homeopathy works and are trying to develop a scientifically acceptable mechanism - and failed so far. But am I right to think that with scientific you mean that those homeopaths accept the scientific theory of disease and claim that homeopathy is helping to activate the immune system, which is scientifically proven to exist, instead of activating the vital force, which is not scientifically proven to exist? And that these are the homeopaths that would say that the memory of water has to do with things like subatomic fields in stead of the vital energy of the remedy?

I propose to insert the following text in the section on "History and current status of homeopathy". I am trying to be descriptive rather than judgmental. As a matter of fact, I am not honestly sure whether I have more sympathy with the pseudoscientific pragmatists or with the equally wrong but more honest mystics. If you don’t like this, fix it. If it can’t be fixed, forget about it. Art Carlson 18:39, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

This is, and always has been, considerable diversity in the theory and practice of homeopathy. The major distinction may be between what can be called the pragmatic and the mystical approach. An early advocate of pragmatism was Richard Hughes, while the most influential mystic was James Tyler Kent. The pragmatists tend to be open to "whatever works", whereas the mystics tend to rely on the revelations of an authority. There is still considerable diversity in both camps because the pragmatists usually define "working" based on personal experience and the mystics do not agree on whom to accept as an authority. The pragmatists tend to see homeopathy as complementary medicine and are more willing to co-exist with conventional doctors. Many in fact are conventional doctors. The mystics see homeopathy as alternative medicine, rail against the "allopaths", and believe that homeopathy can be used effectively against all diseases. The pragmatists are more likely to be interested in proving homeopathy in the framework of mainstream science. They will talk about the “memory of water” and stimulation of the immune system. The mystics see no need to justify their methods with conventional criteria. For them, homeopathy works on a spiritual plane, acting on a vital force that is not accessible to science. The pragmatists are more likely to prescribe (relatively) low dilutions in multiple doses, and sometimes use more than one remedy at a time. The mystics often take dilution to dizzying heights, but insist on a single remedy and sometimes a single dose. In the extreme form, pragmatists will even accept over-the-counter homeopathic remedies, but the mystics will always insist on an individual prescription. The mystics may see themselves as "classical" homeopaths, although the historical accuracy of the term may be questionable. The pragmatists see themselves as "scientific", even though they are not accepted by the scientific establishment.
I've never seen homeopaths divided this way (mind you, as I've said before, I don't claim to have read especially widely about the field). Do you have any sources? As far as I know, all homeopaths use the case histories and guidance of other practitioners (i.e. authorities). Each person might find one source more useful than another, or perhaps one authority is better for certain kinds of remedy but this is hardly a notable distinction(e.g. MDs might have a favourite authority or reference book). The single remedy, single dose question doesn't seem to have any relationship to pragmatism or mysticism that I can see. I would suggest that all homeopaths are at least somewhat mystical (there is no accepted scientific proof, as a number of editors take great pains to point out) and are also somewhat pragmatic (you go with what appears to work for the patient). --Lee Hunter 19:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. It's a spectrum, not a division. I have much of it from [3], which I have found very helpful. The single remedy, single dose issue comes up because the authorities say that's the way to do it. But multiple remedy, multiple dose looks more like conventional medicine, and the pragmatists say it seems to work, so why not? I'm trying to give a flavor for the diversity of homeopathy without saying "anything goes". This spectrum seems to put some order into my disparate observations. It would be better if somebody on the inside who isn't stuck in one corner of the homeopathic universe could describe the situation.

I'm all for the text as suggested by Art Carlson. While homeopaths may not be exactly divided as it says, it's close enough for me. It contains enough caveats to indicate that what is said is not always the case and if people want to know more details about the many divisions among homeopaths they can follow the links in the article. I think we should keep it at this for the sake of readability. Also, the whole point of encyclopedias is to introduce people to a subject without repeating all the textbooks about it.

Vaccination

After the line that says that Hahnemann thought vaccination was a confirmation of homeopathy, I removed the following sentence because it is rhetorical nonsense. "In light of this, critics find it surprising and inconsistent that vaccination is almost universally rejected as unhealthy by the homeopathic community." (i.e. "if you follow Hahnemann and Hahnemann believed X then you must believe X too") This is especially meaningless since the rest of that section goes on to explain that modern homeopaths see vaccination as something different from homeopathy. In other words, following Hahnemann does not mean that you see the world exactly like he did. I'm all for including criticisms of homeopathy, but not when they are nonsensical.

Quotation:

The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. (Adolf Hitler)

Scientific establishment/POV

Geni keeps reverting without following his own principle of taking his revert to the talk section, but here goes:

Unless you are willing to identify who the scientific establishment is (making sure to exclude anyone who is a homeopathic practitioner, thereby biasing the sample at the outset), conduct a poll among them to ascertain precisely what constitutes "minimal requirements," and then polling a representative sample to prove that they overwhelmingly believe that homeopathy doesn't meet these standards, you can not phrase things the way you did without invoking a heavy and unacceptable POV. I don't even think the sentence belongs in the introduction like you've put it, but for now it can not stand the way it does. --Leifern 22:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm lazy I'll just check to see if homepathy passes the standards the NICE and the FDA use for other drugs . It doesn't that got the empirical out of the way pretty fast (and while we are about it in the UK at least it fails for vetinary treament as well[4]). So that just leaves the theorectical side. The only thoeries that I know of in this area are the ones involveing nuclear processes (wich we can ignore due to the slight lack of radition), the ones involveing memory of water (which lack both a mechanism and fail to explain how the memory is transfered to glucose tablets) and weak quantum thoery which is just embarsingly bad (the papers have a slight lack of equations).Geni 23:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
If the article had said "homeopathic remedies fail to meet the standards set by drug approval agencies and doesn't conform to biological and physical models taught in medical and veterinary schools," then it would be precise. But "scientific establishment" is too vague a term. It seems to me that you believe that a standard of truth actually exists for these things, and that a certain group of people are qualified to define what it is. Any earnest scientist, medical doctor, etc., will concede that a) the state of the art in medical science is still exceedingly primitive; b) clinical experience can not be dismissed (which is why physicians can legally make off-label prescriptions); c) a lot (but certainly not all) of the so-called "alternative" treatments will one day become part of "conventional" medicine when they are better understood; and d) any doctor who dismisses the experience of his/her patients is a lousy doctor. It is important to characterize precisely the limitations of homeopathy or any other approach to healing, with a particular emphasis on what is unknown; but it would be a grave error to dismiss its claims only because it doesn't comply with the precepts of another medical tradition. --Leifern 23:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
The kind of data-gathering you describe, with your suggested poll, would be original research. More to the point, for us to say that we can't appropriately characterize homeopathy unless we can find someone else who's done that kind of poll would be to screen out important information by imposing an unrealistic standard. Consider this information from Quackwatch:
In December 1996, a lengthy report was published by the Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group (HMRG), an expert panel convened by the Commission of the European Communities. The HMRG included homeopathic physician-researchers and experts in clinical research, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics, and clinical epidemiology. Its aim was to evaluate published and unpublished reports of controlled trials of homeopathic treatment. After examining 184 reports, the panelists concluded: (1) only 17 were designed and reported well enough to be worth considering; (2) in some of these trials, homeopathic approaches may have exerted a greater effect than a placebo or no treatment; and (3) the number of participants in these 17 trials was too small to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for any specific condition [5]. Simply put: Most homeopathic research is worthless, and no homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic purpose.
To the same effect is this summary from ACSH. (ACSH receives funding from industry and is not an unbiased source on subjects like food additives, but I don't think even ACSH would flat-out lie about the studies and meta-studies referred to in that paper.) A pro-CAM site reports on a Texas physician being disciplined for "use of homeopathic injectable".
I think these sources show fairly well that the conventional/orthodox scientific establishment doesn't think homeopathy has adequate empirical data. Our article already explains the orthodox viewpoint on homeopathic theory. Actually, it would probably be accurate to say that the scientific establisment considers homeopathy to be utter rubbish, or, in more encyclopedic terms, rejects homeopathy. The wording I inserted is more limited in that it merely says that the establishment doesn't accept homeopathy. This may be too cautious in implying that most scientists are undecided about it; they're not.
The lead section to the article should convey the key points that homeopathy is widely popular (i.e., among the general public, many members of whom buy homeopathic remedies) and that it's rejected, or at least not accepted, by the research establishment. The problem with your wording is that the "detractors" or "members of the scientific community" could be just a small band of dissidents. Therefore, that kind of language, while not false, is at best uninformative in that it doesn't give the reader a reasonable picture of contemporary assessments of homeopathy. I'm not saying we should assert definitively that homeopathy is quackery, i.e., that we should "dismiss its claims only because it doesn't comply with the precepts of another medical tradition." We should, however, report that it doesn't comply with those precepts, and do so in a way that makes clear the extent of those views.
You suggest that more precise would be "homeopathic remedies fail to meet the standards set by drug approval agencies and doesn't conform to biological and physical models taught in medical and veterinary schools". We could add that it's not accepted by the AMA. I think all these points are worth mentioning in the body of the article, but for the lead section, when we're trying to give a quick synopsis, all those points add up to saying that it's not accepted by the scientific (or medical) establishment. What if we just say that in the lead section, present the details later, and also make sure that the article fairly presents any criticism of that view, e.g. the charge that the establishment is deliberately rejecting a valid therapy for financial rather than scientific reasons? JamesMLane 23:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
an update to the 1996 stuff. a paper from 2003.Geni 23:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
a)so what?
b) wrong[5]
c) prove it
d) we'll start worrying about medical tradition when homeopathy is able to show it is vaguely consistent with the laws of physics (avogadro's constant and conservation of energy have been around for years and have some pretty strong evidence behind them) and about 50 years of experimental results in analytical chemistry (which would have been terminally messed up if water had a memory).Geni 23:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Apart from Geni's habit of deleting things he disagrees with, this article does not meet NPOV standards. Claims by the homeopathic community are presented as "allegations." or something along those lines, while criticism by the supposedly omniscient and infallible but otherwise vaguely defined "medical and scientific community" are presented as canon. It should be clearly stated who is asserting what, but this article needs a revision. --Leifern 11:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

again? Oh well of you go list your suggested changes
Can you rewrite that in English, please? --Leifern 15:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This article has been redone quite a few times. I just wanted to know what you were planning to change in advance. Still I see you added stuff straight off, no matter. First I'd like you to look up the defintion of Avogadro's Number, trace amounts, non existant, 30C, CM (you know I can't help wondering how you would make that one since it would take several solid months to make up but aparently it exists), MM, the homeopathic defintion of cloneing and positronium[6] (note the half life). After that lot are you still going to claim trace amounts? Next up we have your claim of chemical ingerdients. Now I know I haven't finished my degree but I'm pretty sure that the light of venus [7] is not a chemical. I'll deal with your second sentace latter.Geni 15:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
You are asking me to list changes ahead of time? What, so you can approve them, or something? That's pretty rich ... in any event, I am not asking you or anyone else to accept as true anything that some, many, or all homeopaths assert. I am only asking that their assertions be stated as such, without stating as an objective fact that their assertions are false. --Leifern 15:53, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
assmuming 0+1=1 and 1+1=2 and an objective shared reality your opening the sentace I have delt with above is false. I deal with the rest of your edits latter.Geni 15:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
When a subject is controversial, it's sometimes good to put proposed changes on a talk page first, before going ahead. It can save some nasty revert wars. Having said that, I don't think you've done anything too radical so far. Most of it I agree with except maybe the word "trace". Geni has a point. If a remedy doesn't contain a detectable amount and the dilution has passed the theoretical limit for leaving any molecules, I'm not sure that we can still say there are traces. --Lee Hunter 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The word "trace" is used to describe the premise for the theory behind homeopathy - we can use "small amount" if that works better. I think the Hughes vs. Kent controversy should be discussed in the article; clearly the objection is valid, but we should let the reader decide for himself/herself rather than simply excise those pieces we don't believe, as Geni is prone to do. --Leifern 16:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

According to all homeopaths I know of, the point is that there is not merely a trace amount of materials left behind in the final solution. According to their calculations there is none at all. Homeopathics solutions are commonly diltuted to the point where not even a single molecule can be expected to remain. (At least that it is the claim; in practice investigators have found that many so-called homeopathic solutions commercially available have large amounts of herbs and drugs.) Homeopaths hold that there is some sort of special energy, or change of structure to the water molecules themselves, that is perpetuated after this massive series of dilutions. "Small amount" of material left over would be misleading; in fact isn't that precisely the point of traditional medicine? Conventional science, through medicine, has produced thousands of drugs in which a small amount of a biochemically active substance has a biological effect on living beings. RK
Well, there is disagreement within the homeopathic community about whether such heavy dilutions have any potency, so let's not characterize all homeopathic medicine by the views of one branch within it. Also, if we want to be precise about it, you can't dilute anything to the point that you can confidently say there are no molecules left. For each dilution, you can say that the probability that one, two, or any number of molecules remain gets smaller and smaller. Also, I haven't done the math, but 6.023 * 10^23 is a lot molecules, atoms, or whatever. --Leifern 17:07, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I am not aware of this dispute. Could you amplify on this? The homepath advocates whose work I have read are pretty clear in describing their math. An important point to consider: We probably have two groups of homeopaths who are mathematically making the same claims, but one group may not realize the significance of their dilutions. People in some groups might not be aware that level of dilution that they are subjecting their drugs/herbs/whatever to are in fact reducing them to the level of only one molecule (or none) in a given vial of medication. They might go through ten levels of 20X dilution, without doing the math to see how much drug is left. But in the end, if you are left with medically measurable and useful quantities of a drug, then by definition you aren't doing homeopathy at all. At this point aren't we doing conventional medicine? I think you may be sticking up for a form of conventional medicine that simply is using the name "homepathy". RK 17:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
hanneman said that 30C was a legit potency. At that level if you had started with a 1M (not that this is posible in all cases) concentration you would end up with one item per 1.6* 1036 liters. That is so far below the level of tracce contaminats found in even the best analytical grade chemicals that describeing it as trace is exteamly missleading.Geni 12:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, part of what is in the article is correct - the whole idea of potency is that you can divide matter indefinitely, which doesn't quite turn out to be true. I will research more. Homeopaths, btw, have no problems pointing out that homeopathic remedies are catching on in conventional medicine - they see it as a vindication of the approach. --Leifern 18:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


While at the same time endlessly attacking thier strawman allopathy. And is it being accpeted? Funding being cut in germany that hospital in glasgow looks like it is likely to close a london brougher has decided it wasn't getting value for money sending people to homeopathic hospitals and of course cascade makes it illegal for vets to use homeopathy on animals.Geni 12:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Like cures like?

I've tried to modify or downplay the "like cures like" bit in the opening but it keeps getting changed. Isn't the whole idea that the substance used in a homeopathic remedy produces a similar effect at larger doses really outdated? Many remedies are prescribed for symptoms that don't have any connection with the toxic effects of the original substance. Many of the substances are not known to be toxic (the milks, for example) or haven't been tested for toxicity. Why is there the dogmatic insistence that there's a correlation between between toxicity of the substance and the symptoms? --Lee Hunter 19:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Every source I find on homeopathy makes this the central point of the whole system. If there is a school of thought that departs from that premise, I am hard pressed to find it. Google "FAQ homeopathy," or pick up any standard text and you'll see what I mean. This is a general problem with the article, btw; it assumes that homeopathy is a single, monolithic discipline in which everyone subscribes to the most controversial tenets. That in itself renders it hopelessly NPOV (to put it kindly), but I think we can work it out. --Leifern 19:59, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is your description of like cures like. If you had done but a little research into homeopathic provings you would have found that they are not done with bulk substances and homeopaths claim that different potencies can produce different remedy pictures. If you are wondering why this article contains mostly on classical homeopathy it is because most of its beliefs are written down and it is posible to explain what it is without making it look totally stupid. It is much harder to do this for practical homeopathy. You try explain how a remedy maker works without making it look stupid. And by explain I mean in a way that makes some sense.Geni 12:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I am merely trying to participate in an editing process that results in an article that is recognizable to all sides in this discussion. I have learned that to you, "makes sense" = "fits previous preconceptions." You write that anything expressed by other than classical homeopathy [sic] "looks stupid," and I think that statement pretty much makes it clear that you are incapable of doing this with a neutral point of view. --Leifern 19:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
no "makes sense" = doesn't break more than a couple of laws physics. I didn't write the article so my POV is not significant. Where you like it or not practical homeopathy involves more practices that do not fit with the most popular interpritations of reality.Geni 20:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what resources you are consulting to arrive at your conclusions about homeopathy. Whether or not you buy what homeopathy sells, it is not complicated or confusing to understand. For example, this is what the New England School of Homeopathy writes:
Homeopathy is a distinct medical art and science which employs tiny doses of natural medicines to stimulate the body's inborn healing capacity. The homeopath strives to perceive each patient's individual physical, mental and emotional nature, trying always to prescribe for the person, rather than the diagnosis.
This is not confusing and clear: tiny doses of natural medicines. I appreciate the issue of the effects of dilution, but we should separate that as an issue in itself, instead of characterizing the entire field based on on issue within it. --Leifern 19:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
My sources? Hahnemann's Organon of the Medical Art, A number of books, homeopaths themselves, various websites by homeopaths and a lot of scientific papers. Now lets deal with that New England School of Homeopathy's spun definition. Homeopathy is not a science it doesn't follow the scientific method. I don't know much about art so I suppose it could be an art. Tiny doses I have dealt with above. If you accept standard homeopathic techniques then you can't refer to tiny doses. Then we go onto the stimulating healing bit. No one has been able to show this under controlled conditions. Not by measuring antibody response or by any other method. If you want to article to read like that can I suggest you go over to wiki info?Geni 20:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent version

I don't have time to go re-edit again right now, and I'm not inclined to start a revert war; suffice to say that Geni's edits are so massively biased and full of errors that this article has been reduced to an ignorant invective against the field. It is unworthy of wikipedia and does our collective efforts and Geni in particular no honor. It is nothing short of shameful. Until we can find a version that fits better with reality, the tag will stay. --Leifern 12:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Err you do relise that I didn't write the article? Geni 19:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like this article is in a bit of trouble. First we have Rudiverspoor's edits which added a fair bit of useful information but also removed or changed large chunks without explanation (why remove Kent for example?). Apparently he believes that only his particular school of homeopathy should be represented. And then Geni reverts to the previous version, leaving a note that indicates he objects to one word. What's up with that? I was tempted to revert myself but thought it would be better to selectively edit Rudiverspoor's contribution, restoring some of the things he removed. --Lee Hunter 15:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The reson for removeing Kent? Ultra clasicalists (they normaly call themselves hahnemannians) don't accept him as legit. You claim there are factual errors in the article. Would you mind telling the rest of us what you think they are.Geni 19:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, you reverted all the edits I made, and I was just getting started. All those reversals created factual errors, and there are tons more. In addition to that, who said that "ultra clasicalists" (sic) are the only ones who deserve to be represented here? Do you think it would be acceptable to rewrite the entire article on medicine so that it perfectly agrees with the precepts proposed by, oh, Maimonides? Other than that, I don't know why I even try to reason with you. --Leifern 19:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't create strawmen. Remember I was reverting against that ultra claisicalist scree. The article, in as far as it concentrates on any one form of homeopathy, sticks to clasical. Since most forms of homeopathy accept the key clasical belifes (which are all we really cover in the article) thois is proably the best we can do short or writeing a book. Yes the hahnemannians do exist but they are a pretty small bunch. Practical homeopaths are more common but for the most part they accept clasical principles with sturff added on.Geni 20:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Now you claim there are factual erros. You claim I reintroduced them by reverting you. Prove it.Geni 20:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, prove what, and how? Your approach to this is to express your opinion as if it were fact, dismiss opposing facts and logic as wrong, refute sources as "spun," and then demand that others prove what they write with regression analyses. You have no credibility on any issues related to medical science. --Leifern 20:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
"What"? I don't know you are makeing the claim. "How"? the normal method of citeing sources and logical argument.Geni 11:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to the edition before the one Geni edited. I don't think it's perfect by a long shot, and this article needs a lot of work. But I think it's appropriate for all of us to work toward a version that presents a neutral and comprehensive perspective on this. Indiscriminate deletions of the kind we have seen lately will be reverted; constructive edits will be met by same. Prior to a fourth reversion of destructive edits, I will report the violator for vandalism, and we can take the argument in front of whoever we need to. --Leifern 20:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

For all the invective being thrown at Geni, what I see is:
  • This version (apparently the one reverted to in Leifern's edit described above) doesn't have the structure to be the basis for constructive editing. Most obviously, the lead section is completely inappropriate. The lead section is to present a brief summary of the subject, to help the reader decide if he or she wants to read the whole article. The reader coming to this article with no prior knowledge doesn't need this jargon-laden hymn to homeopathy. The bias is also clear from such language as "Hahnemann, unlike any medical practitioner before him, discovered . . . ." Wikipedia will report the different POVs but won't adopt any of them, and the assertion that Hahnemann "discovered" anything (other than how to extract cash from the gullible) is definitely a POV.
  • Making a bad situation much worse, Rudiverspoor then removed huge chunks of material that the homeopaths would like to suppress. If it's claimed that there are factual errors in those passages, they should be identified and discussed, but wholesale censorship is not acceptable. I'm not saying that this article should adopt the POV that homeopathy is quackery; my POV isn't entitled to preferred status anymore than the POV that Hahnemann was onto something. Both POVs (or all POVs if it comes to multiple schools of homeopathy) are to be reported, with the major points made for and against them.
I'm reverting to Geni's last version, as providing the best basis for further editing. I'll then begin the task of looking at the subsequent edits to find material that can usefully be incorporated in the article, in suitably NPOV fashion (opinions labeled and attributed, etc.), but I don't expect to get very far tonight. My preliminary impression is that there is considerable material there that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article. My revert doesn't mean that I'm rejecting all the other points. Unfortunately, I'm already up later than I'd intended to be! JamesMLane 04:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Organization

There's some repetition and confusion here between the "Basic principles" section and the "History" subsection. Each part has some material that could reasonably be moved to the other. The material that I removed from the lead section, such as the discussion of Hahnemann's various writings, certainly doesn't belong in the lead, but it doesn't readily fit into "Basic principles" or "History" as they're now set up.

I'm not sure how to handle this. One possibility that occurs to me is:

  • Basic principles - an extremely condensed summary of the ideas that distinguish homeopathy.
  • History
    • Background (state of medicine when Hahnemann came along)
    • Hahnemann's work (chronological presentation of the development of his various ideas, including changes in his thought over his lifetime)
    • Post-Hahnemann (work of other theorists)
  • Homeopathic thought - a more detailed presentation of the principles
  • The practice of homeopathy
    • Spread of homeopathic ideas (US, UK, etc.)
    • Current status
    • Diversity

This would involve some overlap between the initial "Basic principles" section and the later "Homeopathic thought" section. My idea is that the condensed summary would make the historical description more understandable to the reader; then, after that historical development, there would be the presentation of homeopathic thought today, without the clutter of trying to describe who had what insight when. JamesMLane 05:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, James - I think the organization makes sense. I'll give you some time to get started before I weigh in. --Leifern 10:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
you are going to have problems with the Hahnemann's work section becuse quite bit a bit of his stuff (eg the bit on magnets at the end of the organon) would not normaly be considered as part of the homeopathic practice. Secondaly trying to regligate the whole homeopathy vs well homeopaths would say allopathy conflict to current status is a mistake since even a quick skim of Hahnemann's and other homeopaths work reveals near constant attacks on "allopathy" and ultimately the question of does it wqork is pretty central.Geni 12:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem with Hahnemann's work. If there's something he did that's not related to homeopathy, it should go in the Hahnemann article. After all, this is an article about homeopathy not Hahnemann. His role as the creator of the system should be noted but that's it. An article about medicine wouldn't fixate on Hippocrates. --Lee Hunter 13:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Right, that's what I meant; "Hahnemann's work" in this article would be strictly his work on homeopathy. Geni, I'm not sure what your other comment means. My suggested re-organization was only for what's now in the first two top-level headings ("Basic principles" and "The practice of homeopathy"). There would still be the later sections with the skeptical view, empirical data, etc. If you mean that we shouldn't try to cram all that into the first few sections, I agree with you. JamesMLane 07:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Decideing which parts of Hahnemann's work count as homeopathy is going to be interestingGeni 12:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be done to this article

  • Use the structure proposed; cut down the lengthy introduction
  • Avoid redundant and biased verbiage - which, to be candid, means that Geni should imho avoid editing altogether
I'll edit what articles I like when I like. IF you don't want me to do this may I suggest you find a project that isn't a wiki?Geni 13:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
That comment makes no sense, but I want to state for the record that your edits are biased at best, and usually destructive. That's my opinion, and I don't expect you to agree with it. --Leifern 13:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Part of the nature of a wiki is that any one can edit. If you have a probl;em with this I suggest you find a project where this is not the caseGeni 13:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not write under the delusion that Hahnemann's strangest writing was the last and definitive word
I don't think anyone does (well Rudiverspoor might but if he really really does he would be the first I have encountered)Geni 13:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not assume that there is only one school of thought within homeopathy, namely the one that Geni thinks is the most kooky
As long as you can show whatever version of homeopathy does in fact exist fineGeni
There are at least three major schools of thought.
Oh quite easy (ok so I think that the number of forms of homeopathy is equal to the number of homeopathys but that isn't the point)Geni 13:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not dismiss articles written by other groups than the kooky ones as "spin"
In my experence the more kooky ones tend to be better at spin (I suspect mostly becuase they are trying to sell you something).Geni 13:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that you dismiss anything you disagree with as "spin" and present all the kooky stuff as if it were the "true" version. It all reminds me a little bit of fundamentalist religious people. --Leifern 13:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have dissmised part of an advertising blurb as spin. I have not concentrated on the kooky stuff. You don't want to know what this article would look like if I decided to concentrate on the kooky stuff (you know certian people should not where silk, animal magnetism, desease haveing nothing material that kind of thing)Geni 13:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Stop deleting and reverting, and start editing instead

--Leifern 13:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rudiverspoor's edits

Ok lets work through your version. First lets look at your claim that homeopathy is a complete system of medicine. This is patently false since at the most basic homeopathy has no equivalent of CPR. Next your claim that homeopathy was a radical system. It wasn’t. For the most part it is just a mixture of sympathetic magic and vitalism. Now your next paragraph uses the term “Living Principle” a lot. What do you mean by this? I’m pretty good on homeopathic terms but since the phrase doesn’t appear once in the organon I’m at a bit of a loss here. You then go onto state a load of hypotheses as if they were facts breaking NPOV.

You continue this into the next paragraph by talking about the energetic nature of disease as if it were a fact (btw what is this energies carrier particle? Where does it come from?) Since science is pretty sure that disease is caused by bacteria, viruses, mutations, mineral deficiencies, pions (probably), parasites, fungi and others this means that your version of the article clearly breaks NPOV. You then go onto use the term resonance. What is vibrating and at what speed?

Most of the rest of your stuff has the same problems with a couple of specific points. 1. Why do you want to delete so much of the criticism section? And 2. You can apply the uncertainty principle to the macro scale so please don’t try.Geni 13:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, more work needs to be done to clarify these points, but you are being obstructionist here. Homeopathy is a complete system in the sense that it works from a complete theory of health, illness, and healing. That does not preclude using CPR, surgery, or even conventional/allopathic medicine when the situation calls for it. To characterize it as "sympathetic magic and vitalism" reveals your bias, not your interest in making this an NPOV article. Homeopathy does not dispute the existence or the effects of illness as you describe them but asks the question, what is broken in the body's healing mechanism that makes people sick? They then go on to point out that a lot of allopathic medicine does not heal the body but rather creates a dependency on the medicine. Medical doctors, by the way, would agree with this, though they may disagree about the extent to which homeopathic remedies can fix the problem. --Leifern 13:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
If you read the organon you will find that it completey rejects "allopathy" (with the exception of vaccination). Since the organon (sixth version) states
"Since diseases in general are but dynamic attacks upon the life principle and nothing material -no materia peccans - as their basis (as the old school in its delusion has fabulated for a thousand years and treated the sick accordingly to their ruin) there is also in these cases nothing material to take away, nothing to smear away, to burn or tie or cut away, without making the patient endlessly sicker and more incurable (Chron. Dis. Part 1), than he was before local treatment of these three miasms was instituted."
Bolding mine I think we can safely say that Hahnemann's version of homeopathy did not allow for surgery. As for sympathetic magic and vitalism are you seriouisly trying to deny that homeopathy has a lot in common with these two. Finally you appear to be making an irrelivant attack on conventional medicine. Not sure why but that is but that isn.t my problem.Geni 14:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, we should clearly discuss what Hahnemann wrote, but neither should we - as I've said many times before - assume that his was the last and ultimate word on homeopathy. Doing so is a strawman fallacy, and I think you know that much. As for my opinion on "allopathy" or "homeopathy," you actually know nothing about it. I am simply trying to make sure this article is informative and unbiased. In the meantime, stop reverting back to your trashy version. Edit, dont' delete. --Leifern 14:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The context was dealing with a description of what Hahnemann created. Have you even read the version you just revertted to? I cleary says Hahnemann created a complete system of medicine. Not that homeoapthy is but that Hahnemann. As such I find your acusation of strawmen slightly ironic. For some reason you then feel the need to state I don't know your opinon. I don't know why I can't recall claiming that I do. Now onmto the issues of reverting. Rudiverspoor's version is a mess not just from the POV but in following the wikipedia manual of stylr. You know this. As such I think is far better to work from varations of the User:Art Carlson version.Geni 15:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's a mess, and I'm comfortable with the Totally Disputed tag you added. The article needs a lot of work, but let's all try to develop an article that isn't a caricature. But the right way to do that is to rewrite the article rather than deleting things. --Leifern 15:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
So what wrong with working from User:Art Carlson's setup? A version that at the very least followed the mos (and in my view was pretty close to NPOV). Or even the pre User:Art Carlson set up. Rudiverspoor's version is just an invitiation for the article to turn the article into a fight between sceptics and belivers since the only way I can edit it towards NPOV without deleteing his to go through puting the counteraruments to each of his points. I don't think you would like the reult of this however.Geni 16:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

See also Heilkunst which is in VFD. --Lee Hunter 16:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I also note that the word "Heilkunst" is rarely used in English language discussions of Homeopathy (searching English pages with Google produces only about 7 thousand hits) but it coincidentally is the name of an organization with which Mr. Verspoor is associated [8]. I suggest that the word not be given such prominence in this article. --Lee Hunter 17:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


an RFC against Rudiverspoor?

Despite repeated requests he ignores the talk page and continues pushing POV. I'm kinda running out of idea here.Geni 14:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, this has been dealt with - see comments below. Didn't figure that you would be the one to run out of ideas! --rudiverspoor


Geni, you are the worst POV pusher I've run into at Wikipedia, and that it includes some pretty outragous behavior related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, so if you request an RFC for him, I'll request one for you. --Leifern 17:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Is that ment to worry me?Geni 12:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that anything worries you - certainly not facts or logic. The likes of you - not the vandals or nutcases - are the biggest threat to this encyclopedia, because you believe you have arrived at some pristine version of the truth. --Leifern 12:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Not bad you forgot to state that my admin status shows how flawed the system is though.Geni 12:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. And I've experienced myself how prone you are to abuse it. --Leifern 12:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
If you think you can back up that acusation I suggest to take it to AN/I or RFC. I have always belived that abuses of admin powers should be investigated. However you name does not appear in my block log [9]No pages involved in any of my dissputes with you appear in my protection log[10]None appear in my deleteion log [11]. that just leaves the rollback button which I can't recall using. In short you have no case.Geni 13:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
well Leifern? anything to say?Geni 12:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)