Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 7

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 6

Archive 7

Archive 8 →

Article size

This article is quite large at the moment. Given the complexity of the discussion and the effort that has been put into this page, I don't think much should be removed - how about splitting a section off into a separate article? It looks to me like the easiest section to move out would be 'History', with or without 'Homeopathy around the world'. Any comments? SeventyThree^(Talk) 20:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the information present should be there. However, there has been a lot of drive towards adding a section on classical vs modern vs clinical etc. I feel that the section on miasms should really be removed to another article. the history of homeopathy is pretty integral to the way homeopathy is viewed and practised upon, so I wouldn't want to see that being moved. PhatRita 21:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with article length: any other article on homeopathy out there is too superficial to do it justice, whether pro or con. The miasms section was requested, is an important aspect of homeopathic thinking in long-term treatment, and is a difficult and inaccessible topic (as far as I know there is no specific textbook to refer to that addresses them in a compact fashion) and will make no sense to the average reader as a separate article (in case it does even in the present context!) - the term also has other meanings in other contexts so there would have to be a disambiguation page, etc. which just complicates things). I've seen longer articles, e.g. on complex political issues, and have read some of them: they are quite successful precisely for their thoroughness. There are other places to go to on the web for a quick overview of homeopathy, but they are either laudatory - reiterating standard, superficial textbook descriptions - or dismissive - starting and usually also ending with the infenitesimal dilution issue.
Davidnortman 05:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity Argument

Maybe instead of writing the article with homeopathy, science and the relationship between the two mixed all together, homeopathy should be described in full, then a new paragraph should be started, exlaining how peer-reviewed science clearly shows that homeopathy does not work. Pjanini1 16:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The format you suggest was actually objected to mostly by opponents of homeopathy for waiting too long before presenting the skeptical arguments, and the current one seems to be an agreed-upon format in outline if not in specifics. As for peer-reviewed science, it does not "clearly" show that homeopathy doesn't work: the empirical evidence is more ambigious and if anything points to something along a "probable weak effect" - this includes the even the latest "negative" Lancet study if one makes the effort to read its methods and discussion rather than a select one-line conclusion.
Davidnortman 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not know how you can say that peer reviewed medicine "clearly shows that homeopathy does not work". Nothing in alternative medicine is clear. If you say that the literature states such a clear message, then you are stating that ALL or almost all of the literautre prove homeopathy wrong. How would you then explain the literature which DOES advocate homeopathy? (and there is a lot) The argument is still controversial and the debate is still very much raging and what wikipedia writes should reflect that. Incidentally., there is a huge difference between, "is homeopathy above the placebo?" and "does homeopathy work?" PhatRita 10:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just been reading this article out of interest for homeopathy, and as a user it is intensely annoying to have two sentences about why homeopathy does not work for every one sentence about homeopathy. I think a reorganization of the objections (adding a separate section at the end and perhaps a note / paragraph about it at the begining) would drastically improve the readability of this article without compromising its objectivity (which there doesn't seem to be a lot of in this instance). paperflowergirl 20:30, 22 January 2006

lastest edits

the phrase "Historically, the principle of therapeutic activity being enhanced by dilution rapidly drifted into absurdity during the nineteenth century. For example, Hahnemann recommended the use of drugs at dilutions of 1:1060, equivalent to 1 molecule in a sphere the size of of the orbit of Neptune." is redundant because we all know here that the level of dilution is not in question, but whether ultramolecular potencies are indeed efficacious. PhatRita 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Business

Anyone know how to archive this page and, while at it, how to block Aegis? - I am unapologetically renewing my previous charge of vandalism.
Davidnortman 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

yes and yes. However while I could just feed thier name into the block log such an action would not be acceptable. The normal method would be to start an RFC.Geni 01:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would support your effort to block him, but I don't know if it would help your case to describe his actions as "vandalism". In WP admin circles that word is usually applied to people who do things like blank a page or swap in silly pictures. Aegeis is more of an obsessive nuisance than a vandal. --Lee Hunter 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a matter for admins. Personaly I wouldn't bother doing anything other than reverting him. He will give up sooner or latter.Geni 04:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Geni. He is driving away a lot of potential contributors with what he does though. PhatRita 13:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A different idea for a split

This article, besides being highly controversial, is, of course, long and dense. I propose a split into:

Theory of homeopathy
possibly History of homeopathy - for those who want a classic/modern split

Practice of homeopathy

Criticism of homeopathy
Advocacy of homeopathy

How about it? --Taejo | Talk 10:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think splitting out the criticism and advocacy of homeopathy would really work. I'm sure the critics and advocates would insist on loading up the other articles with the same stuff. --Lee Hunter 11:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

POV forks are against policy. --User:Geni

Agreed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-24 14:00

Scientific method

The use of the words theory and law are objectionable as they are not properly used in this context. A theory is a hypothesis that is a systematic and formal presentation of emperical observations within a hypothetical context that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified. From my understanding, there has not been a peer reviewed consensus that has elevated homeopathy to the level of a theory. I wanted to raise this objection here, instead of simply going in and changing the article. rmosler 13:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Theory" is one of those words that can properly be used in a number of ways. I don't see that its usage in this article can be confused with how it is used in a formal scientific setting. [1] --Lee Hunter 15:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Theory, in quotations is capable of being used in a number of ways, but for a field of study that claims medicinal use, the word theory should be used in accordance with its formal scientific meaning. Homeopathy claims to make a marked change in vivo and the use of the words theory and law (as in 'Law' of Similarities) is an attempt to misrepresent the field as on par with peer reviewed science. rmosler 22:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I made two changes to the body of the article. In an attempt to prevent a possible play on words with the multiple meanings of 'Theory' and 'Law' I substituted the word 'theory' in the first paragraph with 'model'. In addition, I changed the term 'law of similarities' to ' "Law of Similarities" ', Both providing proper capitization and quotations to once again prevent a play on words. rmosler 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

rmosler's characterization of "theory" is vague and partially incorrect. It is correct to only seriously consider the scientific meaning of "theory" in the context of medicine because we are concerned here with life and health. But that does not mean that scientific "theory" can not be explained in straight forward, clear language. So it is the scientific use of "theory" that I will describe in ordinary terms. A "theory" is something that only exists in someone's mind. It is a mental device, a story, for predicting the future. If the predictions come true, it is a useful theory and possibly can be used again to improve our lives. If the predictions do not come true, it is a not a useful theory and would be a waste of time to use again. But both kinds are still "theories". Theories are not true or false. Theories are only useful in a situation or not useful in that situation.

The theory of phlogiston is only useful in limited circumstances. The theory of gravity is useful in most ordinary situations, yet there are times when it is proven false. As technology advances, the typical, ordinary, everyday use of relativity and quantum mechanics becomes unavoidable in engineering. Given any theory, it is probably possible to find at least one situation where it fails to correctly predict the future. Certainly, all the scientific theories have their limits of useful predictions.

So is homeopathy a theory? Certainly. Is it a useful theory? What are the limits in which it is used? The best question is: In what circumstances is it more useful than allopathy? This is not an easy question to answer in either the positive or the negative. [Michael J. Daniel, 26 November, 2005]

Use of the term "allopathy" is improper in this context. This term is a derisory term coined by homeopaths to apply for the SCIENTIFIC medicine of today.

And while homeopathy is a theory, indeed, it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory and as such it is only useful in circumstances involving scaming credulous people.

I believe that an integral part of a theory is that it is falsifiable but has not been shown to be false. It is true that some concepts that are termed theorems do have problems. For example, Schrödinger pointed out an inconsistancy between the concept of superpositioning in quantum physics and the structured elements of the visable world commonly known as Schrödinger's cat. Theorems are progressive. They better synthesize empirical data than previous theories. The concept of potentization does not make sense in the context of Organic or Biochemistry. The orientation of the water molecules are determined by the polarity of any dissolved substances and the shape of the vessel in which it resides. The concept of potentization claims to increase the potency of the remedy with increasing dillutions even to the point in which the probability of a single "medicinal" molecule to continue to exist in the final dillution is absurdly small. We are supposed to believe that by some sort of imprinting on the FLUID water molecules there exists MORE POTENCY!

I will find the empirical evidence.

I will perform an experiment. I will dillute my own feces and potentize the toilet continuously until I have potentized with as many dillutions to effect all the water in the earth. Not only this, but all the water in the earth will be more noxious to you than simply my feces!

It ends in absurdity I do not discount the power of perception, but to attempt to confuse it with science takes advantage of people. rmosler 11:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the foundations of homeopathy is no good reason for being rude and derogatory, rmosler. While modern science today cannot account for how homeopathy works, this may very well reflect more about modern science than about homeopathy. There are many things less recent that science is still grappling to predict and fully understand, including the weather on this planet. So perhaps we should not be so eager to condemn those with whom we disagree. [User:Paperflowergirl|paperflowergirl]] 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment about the term "allopathy". Allopathy may have started as a "derisory" term but this is no longer the case. The term is widely used to mean western medicine, especially in countries where there are other scientific health care systems such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese medicine. It is now acceptable to use the word allopathy to refer to conventional western medicine. Language evolves as time goes by.(A similar example is the word "asiatic". This used to be racist term but it is now never used in that context. It can now sometimes be seen on asian convenience stores.) Glad to have cleared that up! ;) Guest, 8th December 2005.

No it is used in some cases but not all. It doesn't have much use outside the alt med community in the UK for example.Geni 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

POV introduction

I used to be more active on this article, but gave up thanks to Geni's wholesale reversions of anything he found disagreeable. But I have to register my complaint about the POV of the introductory paragraph:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, notable for its controversial practice of prescribing water-based solutions that in many cases do not contain chemically active ingredients. The model of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It is growing in popularity in some areas where it is practised today, but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards.

OK, here goes:

It is debatable whether homeopathy is "alternative medicine," since it has been around for as long as mainstream medicine. Clearly, it is out of the mainstream, but is "alternative" only from the point of view of the mainstream. This is not a biggie, but it must be noted.
Notable for its controversial of prescribing water-based solutions that in many cases do not contain chemically active ingredients. There are many things wrong with this sentence:
1. Just what is "notable" or not depends on your perspective. This is indeed Geni's main objection to homeopathy, but I suspect that most people would say that it's the law of similars that is most notable, or perhaps that the homeopathic practitioner takes into account a whole host of symptoms.
2. In any pharmaceutical preparation, most of the material is not the active ingredient. It would be strange to say that benadryl is "water-based." The fact that most remedies are prepared in water is incidental to how they're supposed to work.

- - This is a valid point. A vial of Benadryl (as used in a hospital for intravenous or intramuscular injection) is water-based and is indeed mostly water. But there is Benadryl in the solution. In the majority of homeopathic remedies there is no trace of the original "symptom-producing" substance. (See Leifern's next point.) Ifnord 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Do not contain chemically active ingredients. The point here is that the ingredient considered to be active in remedies is diluted to the point that it is very unlikely that a dose contains even a single molecule of the ingredient. Homeopaths accept this by way of empirical observation - they say that even when they have diluted the remedy to that point, it still works. At the risk of overstating the point, this is exactly equivalent to the fact that we observe gravity to work, even if we can't explain why it works the way it does. Now, people may dispute the method by which such observations are made, but it is simply false to say that the theory of homeopathy flows from the mystery of "empty doses." Homeopaths will readily admit they don't have a good explanation why such heavily diluted remedies work (and one could argue that there is honesty in that position).

- - Non-homeopths do not accept this. If it works at all it is dismissed as the placebo effect. Ifnord 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I realize that "non-homeopaths" believe it is a placebo effect. Millions of patients would beg to differ. Of course we should note the position of those who are skeptical to homeopathy, but we shouldn't accept their opinions as gospel. --Leifern 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards. This is simply falsehood. One could argue that empirical studies are unconvincing, or flawed, but one can not argue that homeopaths avoid falsifiability. Further, clinical experience is part of the medical standards. As for the hypothetical foundations, homeopaths will point you to several remedies that are now accepted in mainstream medicine (BCG, quinine, arguably several forms of vaccination). --Leifern 22:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1.Alturnative medicine has nothing to do with the age of the system (if you want to claim it is homeopathy still ends up as alturnative medicine becuase it isn't trepanning)
- Trepanning, bloodletting, etc., were all once considered unassailable practices of medical science. Try to criticize these in their time, and you'd be labelled a scientific heretic. --Leifern 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - False. Medical science doesn't really kick in until 1900
2.1 Can you show where the word most appears in the sentance?
- Huh? I'm not quoting anyone as saying "most" - I'm merely pointing out that the assertion that homeopathy is "notable" is a matter of opinion - it surely is your opinion, but last I checked, this is not Genipedia. --Leifern 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Only homeopathy and homeopathy derived systems use anything akin to the law of infitesimals. Like cures like (widened to like causes like) is pretty common. The whole vital force miasms thing is an idea found in a number of systems. The thing that makes homeopathy stand out is the law of infitesimals
    - So, we'll have to agree that "like cures like" (much ridiculed elsewhere, btw) is pretty well accepted. On the law of infintesimals, you'll also note that medical doctors generally seek the lowest possible dose for any medication they prescribe. It is not as if anyone assumes that more is better on any front; homeopathy claims - as a matter of observation - that smaller doses are more potent. They employ various hypotheses to explain this and have arrived at something they see as a general principle. --Leifern 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      - strawman. Although it is hard to deny that like cures like appears to accepted by certian forms of witchcraft (all the messing about with dolls) and certian forms of herbal medicine (if it looks like a foot it will cure problems with the feet that kind of thing). You appear to be confusing the homeopathic prinicples of law of infitesimals and law of minium dose.Geni 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Merely labeling an argument that you disagree with as a fallacy buys you nothing. Your comparison with other, more discredited forms of treatment is, in fact a strawman. It doesn't dignify a response. --Leifern 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        you made a stawman argument. Wether you want to admit to it or not isn't my problem. Describing herbal medicine and witchcraft as more disscredited than homeopathy is statement that would be dissputed by some but no matter it isn't relivant. Those systems had the law of simulars in them.Geni 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Note the use of the world chemically. It is there for a reason.
- That leaves it with even less sense. First of all, there is no such thing as "chemically inactive," so how can there be anything that's "chemically active." Second, the issue isn't whether something is chemically active, it's whether it has a biological effect. --Leifern 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - errr Heluim whithout a charge would appear to be chemicaly inactive. If we take nat mur 30C it clearly lists sodium chloride as an ingredint however it is not chemicaly active. I supose you could argue for the term physiologically inactive but that would mearly be a subset of the greater area of chemicaly inactive
    - Dear Geni: "chemically active" is a relative term - compounds and molecules are more or less chemically active if they exist at all. The level of chemical activeness is a function of the compound and its environment, and the environment consists of many factors. Mercury is a highly chemical active compound, helium isn't. The point is that medical science understands, and I'm being generous here, about .05% of the chemical reactions that occur in mammalian physiology. --Leifern 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

- - - - Don't try and teach me chemistry I think it is safe to say that I have at least some idea what I'm talking about in that area. There are no reported uncharged compound that include helium. chemical activeness for elements can be worked out through electronegitivty and the like. For compounds it is more complex but there are still ways to do it. If something is not present it is safe to say it is not chemicaly active. If you had a reasonable knowlage of chemistry you would not call Mercury is a highly chemical active becuase that leaves you without a description for sodium let alone caesium.Geni 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Please read what I wrote before; I don't know whether you need further education in chemistry, but I can only deal with what you write here, and you're misusing the term "chemically active."
        
        argument by assertion. The problem is that it is the only description that most homeopaths will accept.Geni 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        It is absolutely astonishing me how you accuse me of one fallacy by commiting it. Chemically active is a term that is used (albeit rarely) with precision and specific meaning by people who deal in chemistry for a living. I checked the usage in several sources to make sure, and you are free to do the same thing. I explained what it means, and I explained why it was an inappropriate term. Then you simply dismiss it by saying that the term is the "only one" homeopaths will accept, without any substantiation. --Leifern 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        name your sources.15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        No, you name yours. You are making sweeping generalizations on what homeopaths believe or don't believe and dismiss sources that disagree with you. --Leifern 16:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        your failer to provide sources is noted. What exactly what claims would you liked sourced? Every claim I have placed in the article is sourced (not hard that ammounts to about 3 lines).Geni 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        You asked me to provide evidence that "chemically active" is a relative term, not an absolute one. Look up any use of the term "chemically active" and you'll see that it agrees with my interpretation. It is not a failure to provide sources, but you wrote, for example, that I proposed a conspiracy theory; that homeopaths will only accept the term "chemically active," and a number of others in previous versions. --Leifern 17:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        No it doesn't uncharged helium is chemicaly inactive. Fluorine is the most electronegative and francium is the most electro posertive and thus they are the most reactive elements. As for homeopaths only accepting that phrase dig through the previous archives. Still I supose we could replace it with "notable for diluting remedies until there is less than one item of the original ingredient left per dose".Geni 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. With things like agrivations, herring's law of cure, antidoteing and simular homeopaths do a pretty good job of being unfalsifable. If you really thing that homeopathy is simular to homeopathy I susgest you do some reseach and quinine was never a homeopathic remedy. Use of cinchona bark predates homeopathy somewhat.Geni 17:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

- Again, Herring's law is based on observations, not on a theoretical model; what are "simular homeopaths?"; and antidoting simply states that there are interaction effects also among homeopathic remedies. Aggrevations are adverse, but necessary side effects to a remedy. All these have their counterparts in conventional medicine. So you're not making any sense at all. This is not the place to resolve the controversy about homeopathy vs other forms of medicine. The article should be recognizable to all principals in the controversy, not just those Geni accepts as authority figures. --Leifern 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - simular homeopaths means there is a full stop missing between the words. Adverse reactions is a pretty good defintion of side effects but that can wait for another time. Homeopathy doesn't meet minimum scientific standards because no one has managed to objevtivly show that it has anyeffect beyond the placebo effect.Geni 21:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's be precise here: a number of studies do in fact show that homeopathy is efficacious and safe. What has happened is that the majority of the medical community (who, it must be said, have a vested interest in this) remain unconvinced by these studies. By any reasonable standard, the vast majority of conventional medicine have doubtful safety and efficacy. In fact, I can make a pretty compelling case that but for a few exceptions, conventional medicine is an abject failure at curing illnesses. --Leifern 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)--Leifern 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your conspirocy theories.Geni 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy theory implied or expressed. Talk about a strawman argument. --Leifern 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

people with vested interests acting against something in secret is by defintion a conspirocy.Geni 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not implied or expressed that anyone is doing anything in secret. A conspiracy also requires that there's willful collaboration, which I never implied or expressed. To suggest that individuals deliberately or inadvertently act in accordance to their biases and interests is a non sequiteur. You are putting words in my mouth, and I can only interpret this to mean that you have nothing else to argue with. --Leifern 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

well if everything is out in the open you will be able to prove it wont you.Geni 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want to be clear here: unlike Geni and his cohorts, I am not trying to bury a particular point of view by dismissing it out of hand and only allowing for one interpretation. The current introduction reads like a polemic, not an unbiased explanation. By all means, the arguments for and against homeopathy should be presented fully in this article, and the reader should be able to make up his/her own point of view by weighing the evidence, taking into account their sources. --Leifern 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ok lets see what your alturnative is.Geni 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't made a single coherent argument against what I've written so far. But I expect that whatever I'll write you'll simply revert. --Leifern 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop playing games and show your alturnative.Geni 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am under no circumstances playing games - I can only point out that you make arguments and accusations and then fail to substantiate them. I can also observe that every attempt that has been made to make this a neutral article has been met by your reverts to your polemical version. This is not a game. --Leifern 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You think the opening is POV. Ok lets see what wording you want.Geni 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made two requests for you produce an improved wording. Since the second request you have made two edits to this page. Until you produce something you think is an improved wording I don't see any point in carrying on this conversation.Geni 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Leifern's intro

At last we seen what Leifern wants

looking for a pattern of symptoms across multiple organic systems, including personality traits, etc.

Two errors here:

1.only applies to classical homeopathy and related. Practical homeopaths use many other methods.
2. Conventional medicine dose this as well

Treating "like with like," i.e., seeking to trigger healing responses in a body by introducing remedies that in large quantities produce similar symptoms to those that need treatment

Again two errors:

1.it’s got nothing to do with quantities. Provings are commonly done at 30C. It is to do with whether the person is healthy or not.
2.Homeopaths have never been able to show that the results of proveings are correct (indeed the two objective tests that have been done came out with the results that would be expected by chance)

Seeking to increase the potency by reducing the dosage, sometimes to the point in which the active ingredient is unlikely to exist in a dosage

Doesn’t make sense. Since the processes of potentization is apparently they key concept the use of does here is incorrect (ie the dose is kept the same the remedy is made more potent by repeated dilutions and potentizations)

Although homeopathy is reported to be the fastest-growing medical discipline in the world, and is second only in popularity to conventional Western medicine

The although is POV. You don’t say who it is reported by. The last survey I saw put prayer as the most used[2] and I suspect that TCM out ranks homeopathy by a reasonable margin

though supporters of the field point to early support for it by Greek physicians and Paracelsus.

That should be claim rather than point to.Geni 21:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, as I expected Geni reverted to his completely false and fraudulent version. What a fucking farse. Geni essentially did a wholesale reversion, which is vandalism. Unless it is reverted and edited in a good-faith manner, I will report him for vandalism. Other than that, I wash my hands at this attempt at perpetuating bias and ignorance. This article is a disgrace. The totally disputed tag will remain until and unless a decent, informed version appears. --Leifern 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't vandalism. At least not as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have given plently of reasons why I object to your version. It is up to you to decide whether or not to disspute them.Geni 02:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Homeopathic proving

I think it makes sense to keep a separate article for homeopathic provings, although the present content of that article should be expanded. There is plenty of interesting but specialized information on that topic that should be available but that would overburden the main article. --Art Carlson 11:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the merge proposal as no valid reason was offered for the merge. --Lee Hunter 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I raised a number of objections to the introduction to this article. None of the objections were addressed, and after a few days I rewrote the introduction to something that at least attempted a neutral point of view. These were promptly reversed by Geni without any substantiation except for querulous objections. The rest of the article reads like a highly biased and uninformed polemic, with lots of misleading and tendentious assertions. As long as Geni and others continue to impose their opinion on this article, it must remain totally disputed. I have reported Geni three times for vandalism for wholesale reversions. I will continue to report him every time he reverts a good faith effort to recast the article as a neutral contribution, and I will continue to tag the article as totally disputed until there is an earnest effort to make it neutral. --Leifern 03:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what? You decided to vandalize the article a little bit yourself by doing a massive nonsense replacement of the word " ?" I also have two points regarding the disputed paragraph. First, it's useless to say that something is "notable." Of course it's notable. Why else would we bother to write it? Secondly, that whole qualification shouldn't be there. Homeopathy is a type of alternative medicine. Homeopathy was started by Samuel Hannehman. That's all that needs to be said in the introduction. Anything else is pushing an agenda one way or the other. T.J.C. 08:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how the word " " got replaced. If it was a result of any editing I did, I apologize. (It appears to be a problem related to an old version of Firefox, believe it or not). And I would agree to an introduction that terse, though I do think it should state that there are controversies surrounding it. I think it would be better to briefly explain the principles of homopathy. --Leifern 13:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll expand a bit on my edit. A visitor to the page should read the first paragraph and learn what homeopathy is. If they want to learn more, they can read the rest of the page. It is completely uneccessary to continue hitting them in the face with the equivalent of, "Homeopathy does this... but scientists don't agree! Homeopathy does this... but scientists don't agree!" Frankly, as a reader, it's insulting. I happen to dislike homeopathy intensely - I study biochemistry for crying out loud - but I don't see how being constantly confrontational to the reader helps. T.J.C. 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I outlined all the problems with the factual elements before, and none of them were addressed. The introduction and indeed 90% of the article is full of polemic allegations that have no basis in fact. Any casual reader who comes across this article will find only coincidental consistency with what he/she would read in any number of texts on homeopathy. --Leifern 12:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

that would be the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Texts on homeopathy tend to be writen by homeopaths.Geni 13:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And who writes most of the texts on other medicine? As it is, the article is a product of yours and a few others' fanciful theories on it. --Leifern 13:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Leifern, you wrote I will continue to tag the article as totally disputed until there is an earnest effort to make it neutral. This is improper (regardless of how much more improper other people are). The totally disputed tag is for when the neutrality and factual accuracy of an article are disputed. If only the neutrality is disputed, the NPOV tag is appropriate. --Art Carlson 09:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am disputing the factual accuracy of the article, because it only explains what a few people believe homeopathy is, twists facts, misuses words, etc. The article is a travesty both in terms of factual accuracy and bias. --Leifern 12:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

then suggest improvements. The term chemicaly active no longer appears in the opening paragraph.Geni 13:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have suggested numerous improvements but your practice is to ignore them then revert any edits anyone else makes to the article, unless you agree with them. Why bother, when everything anyone does that you disagree with is subject to vandalism?--Leifern 13:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Would these be the ones that I showed to be in error above? The term chemicaly active no longer appears. Do you have any other factual objections? Idealy ones that I haven't already shown to be flawed.Geni 13:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I created a version that has a couple of examples of false allegations, --Leifern 13:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

ok then

notable^{dubious assertion} for its controversial practice of diluting diluting remedies...

we've been through this. It is notable becuase this idea is limted to homeopathy and homeopathy derived systems only

but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards^{dubious assertion}.

It doesn't meet the standards set out by the FDA and nice.

I have explained this many times before, Geni, but you seem to be unwilling to understand it. Homeopathists indeed claim that they have lots of empirical evidence that it works, pointing to lots of provings, trials, etc. Of course, there are those (including Lancet) that claim that this research is inconclusive, but a) homeopaths claim in turn that the criticism is flawed, and b) clinical experience is considered a valid form of research. Meanwhile, the FDA actually regulates the use of homeopathic remedies, so they can't think it's totally bogus. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The FDA has no choice with regard to homeopathy. It was grandfathered in. In fact I there are cases where I suspect this is being used as a loophole (and I will remian suspicious untill the relivant lawsuit is settled). Homeopathy does not meet the FDA's ore NICE's standards. Both of these groupss are in a pretty good position to know what minium scientific standards are.Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Beginning with his early work, Hahnemann rejected the prevailing physical model, in favour of a view of disease as more dynamic or spirit-like^{dubious assertion}.

All that vital force stuff is pretty spirit like. Dito miasms.

You have to understand that the terminology used at the time was a) limited by mental models commonly held, especially related to theology, and b) less informed by scientific thinking than today. Hahnemann's perspective - which has been the basis for further evolution within homeopathy - is that disease has to be considered a result of a limited number of underlying disorders (miasms) that have a large number of effects, including those on the patient's "spirit" (i.e., mental state) --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

They were post enlightenment. The physical model had for the most part established itself by that time which made hahenemanns movement towards the vital force and the like a bit of a contrast. Of course there was all his stuff about magnets but I don't think that has really been addopted by latter homeopaths (other than just posibly by some pratical homeopaths in the form of remedy machines).Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Most^{dubious assertion} later homeopaths, in particular James Tyler Kent, have tended to put even more emphasis on spiritual factors.

Correct that should be some

The problem is with the term "spiritual." Some homeopathic practitioners undoubtedly have metaphysical interests - I don't care for them myself - but most believe that underlying illnesses have manifestations in how people not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Call that "spiritual," but that's not the word they would use. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the best description you can get in common english. I suspose we could use the term metaphysical though. Kent is clearly an important figure though.Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Others have to some extent adapted to the views of modern medicine by referring to disturbances in, and stimulation of, the immune system, rather than the vital force^{dubious assertion}.

Common practice in practical homeopathy

Again, the problem is with "vital force" - what they mean is that the body has an underlying capability and "force" to heal itself. I think this is pretty indisputable. And that the job of the physician is to remove obstacles to the self-healing process. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That is an interpritation I haven't run into before. There are others.Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific^{dubious assertion} medicine has discarded vitalism

However you define scientific medicine (conventional or evidence based) vitalism is rejected

You are begging the question by contrasting "scientific medicine" with "homeopathy." Homeopathy also claims to be scientific. Further, what modern homeopaths mean by "vitalism" is in fact consistent with conventional medicine, in that any MD worth his/her salt will tell you that the best thing is always to allow the body to heal itself. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what homeopathy claims it isn't scientific. Don't try an speak for all homeopaths you can't (this is the reason why I tend to view homeoapthy as a number of different systems rather than a single system). Trying to redifine vitalism isn't going to work.Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

spiritual^{dubious assertion} symptoms

Remove the word if you want

As it cannot be disproved scientifically^{dubious assertion}

Like is an objective term. Have you any idea how difficult that is to pin down?

There are any number of principles like this in conventional medicine that are equally difficult to disprove. Homeopaths claim that this is a matter of empirical observation. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah sugery is a pain but we've figured out how to do some pretty well blinded tests on that. Like cures like is pretty meaningless unless you come up with a solid defintion of like. Isopathy does so to a degree homeopathy does not.

Homeopathic practitioners believe^{dubious assertion} the vigorous agitation following....

This is fundimental to homeopathy. Asside from remedy machines every method of preparing remedies involves this process

They don't believe it - they claim to observe it. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

True. How about they assert that they observe it?Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is in contrast^{dubious assertion} to pharmacology and biochemistry

Err it is in contrast. If you think otherwise please explain

Again, you are begging the question. Biochemistry and pharmacology are also empirical sciences - they make a lot of observations and postulate hypotheses on that basis. If they studied this matter, they may or may not agree with the homeopathic findings, but if they did, they wouldn't say that their model was turned upside down. Besides, you can not have it both ways - homeopaths would assert that of course "alopathic" medicine would require increasing doses, because it is based on the principle of suppression.

I don't care what strawmen homeopaths wish to use. Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Critics point^{dubious assertion} out that the notion of suppression is deeply flawed

Trust me they do.Geni 14:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

They don't point out - they claim, or assert. --Leifern 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

True that should read assert.Geni 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction wars

I noticed that some people didn't think a reduced introduction was appropriate, but I stand by my assertion that using the phrase "notable" is bad writing in any context and indicates POV. Case in point: the person who did the edit posted this in my talk page (and not here, not sure why)

For a lot of people Homeopathy is notable precisely because it uses treatments that are just water. It's important to have that stated up front in the introduction, in an appropriately neutral way, because not to do so doesn't properly present the balance of views.

For what people? Why is it important to state any of that in the introduction? Ultradilution is discussed ad nauseum in the rest of the article, including scientific criticism. How does an introduction that states, "Homeopathy is alternative medicine. Homeopathy was founded by.." an imbalance of views? Adding anything more is pushing an agenda, and we're going to continue having these stupid revert wars as long as people continue assuming the reader is a moron and can't wait 2 paragraphs to read the scientific criticism section. (Oh, and there was something weird going on with the "Totally disputed" section(s) so I got rid of the topmost one, looks like it was duplicated accidentally.) T.J.C. 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Would I regret it if...

...I dived in here with an outside opinion?

I am indeed an outside observer, with no vested interest in homeopathy or in debunking homeopathy. I haven't participated in very many contentious Wikipedia debates so far, and my comments here may be shockingly naive, but on the other hand, given that I'm utterly new to this particular debate, my uninitiated perspective might be useful as a counterbalance to those who have been immersed in it forever.

I have to say, at the risk of being flamed to a crisp by the debunkers, that this article reads badly. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article on homeopathy, it reads like an attempted encyclopedia article on homeopathy that has been ridden roughshod over by some people with a certain agenda, namely to ensure that no one can read it without being hit over the head repeatedly with the fact that homeopathy is a controversial alternative system that is not generally supported by modern, mainstream science and medicine.

Guess what? Just about everybody already knows that homeopathy is a controversial alternative system that is not generally supported by modern, mainstream science and medicine; that's no secret at all. In fact, I doubt there's very much debate even among its staunchest defenders that homeopathy is a controversial alternative system that is not generally supported by modern, mainstream science and medicine. So it's really not necessary to repeat that point in multiple different ways in every section and subsection throughout the article.

It seems to me that it would suffice to (a) use the words "controversial" and "alternative" in the introduction, (b) retain a full-blown "Controversy" section later in the article where the full brunt of the lack of "scientific" evidence can be presented, and then (c) just leave it at that, i.e. not continually carp at every turn that one or another of homeopathy's tenets is "naive" or "unproven" or "erroneous".

Now, I know that there are editors out there who are extremely worried that the information here is Wrong and Bad and that it cannot be allowed to be read by innocent eyes who might, without enough disclaimers and warnings, take it seriously. But let's think about that for a moment.

Most people reading the article probably already have their own idea about whether homeopathy is valid or bogus. The ones who think it's valid are probably going to try to ignore most of the carping criticism, and the ones who think it's bogus don't need the carping criticism. Of the remaining readers, who aren't already convinced, some will see and immediately grasp the significance of the two key words in the introduction or the discussion in the "Controversy" section, while others, who merely want to "feel good" and do not want to think about a lot of hard-edged sciencey stuff, will ignore those and any scientific disclaimers in between. So, again, I'm not sure the aggressively-infiltrated warnings and negations are necessary.

And, to be sure, they have a cost: they cause this article to remain controversial, taking up the time of both the adherents and the detractors, for arbitrarily ever. If the detractors could let the adherents quietly describe their beliefs, for several paragraphs on end or even a full section, uninterrupted by naysayers, would that really be the end of the world?

We don't pepper every paragraph of the Christianity article with "the Creation accounts in Genesis are not compatible with modern evolutionary theory" or "the story of the Flood finds no support in the geological record", so it seems to me the homeopaths could be extended the same courtesy.

If someone is concerned that a naive reader with a serious illness might take the homeopathy article so seriously that they wouldl deprive themselves of the modern, mainstream medical care that they might otherwise require, it seems to me that the appropriate way to address that concern is the same way it's addressed in the Wikipedia articles that deal with modern, mainstream medical issues: with a disclaimer at the top of the page that states that Wikipedia is not competent to dispense medical advice, and that if you have a health concern, you should seek treatment from a qualified and trusted professional.

Would that satisfy everybody?

Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve, I don't think the comparison with Christianity is particularly apt, since homeopathy does claim to be a system of medicine. Other than that, I agree with you. The problem is that there are 1-2 people who patrol this article and revert any attempt at building an NPOV, factually sound article; because they believe their interpretation of homeopathy reads like the gospel (to invoke the same metaphor). I am active on several articles on the Arab-Israeli Conflict and actually religious disputes, and this is by far the worst behavior I have ever seen on Wikipedia. This habit of wholesale reversions has actually led to the establishment of an entirely new category of vandalism in Wikipedia. --Leifern 12:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article is a pain to read. Splitting it into sections for agreement and disagreement would be much better, and allow a balanced treatment that is at the same time informative (as opposed to disruptive). Continuously repeating that homeopathy does not work gets a bit repetitive for those interested in looking it up. paperflowergirl 20:50, 22 January 2006

"critics.." POV let's stick to facts

"Critics claim that the empirical and theoretical bases of homeopathy do not meet minimum scientific standards." - Duh.. either is does or it does not, and I'm afraid to say that for the Homeopathy fans - it does not. It has nothing to do with "critics claim". Critics can claim what they will and be wrong, but this is a simple statemnt of fact. Jooler 00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We've gone over this many times before, so let me be clear here:

Homeopaths claim that homeopathy works because they observe that it works. This is just like gravity - we can't explain why it works, but it is a matter of simple post-Newtonian observation to ascertain that it does. You can argue that homeopaths are kidding themselves, or each other, or their patients, but their claim to validity is the same as any physical science - you start with an empirical observation then try to build a theoretical model that complies with the model.
The criticism against homeopathy is based entirely on the assertion that what homeopaths claim to observe actually isn't occuring. In other words, they argue that homeopathy's claims are unproven, which is very different from saying that it the hypothesis or empirical bases do not meet minimum scientific standards. At this point, it's an argument between what millions of patients and thousands of practitioners say they experience vs. what critics say is really going on.

This is not complicated logic, and nobody of the so-called "homeopathy fans" are trying to obfuscate the controversy. They are simply asking for a presentation that doesn't assume one side of the issue is correct. I've said it once, and I'm saying it again - you are ruining this article by pushing your own opinions. --Leifern 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Gravity can be measured by scientists (in fact by everyone) and there are workable theories as to its mechanism which are underpinned by basic phyisics. No such measurements have ever been observed for Homeopathy, and in fact all of the theories intended to explain it, contradict firmly established and scientifically measurable phenomena. Scientist don't claim, they measure. Jooler

And yet why, as Steve asks above, it is necessary to remind the reader of this every five seconds? It makes for a lousy article. I'm asking you because you were the one to revert the introduction that neither Leifern nor Geni had a problem with. T.J.C. 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, this is ludicrous. Research, since Louis Pasteur, must be reproducible. Homeopathy is not. It is not founded on sound scientific theory and its results are confirmed by no other than homeopathy supporters (who are going to sell their snake oil). No serious researcher supports homeopathy, there has to be a reason. Homeopathy is not much more than well-advertised quackery unless you resort to some conspiracy theory. --Orzetto 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reported Leifern (talk · contribs) for violating 3RR. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Typically

".. are typically prescribed after an exhaustive analysis of an individual's symptoms" - typically they are not prescribed at all; the vast bulk of homeopathic remedies are sold over the counter in drug stores where there is no "exhaustive analysis of an individual's symptoms" - asserting that there is in the very first paragraph is a complete falsehood of the first order. - anon

Introduction, again

I've attempted to reword the introduction for two reasons. First, as Steve, and myself, have stated above, there is no reason (and nobody has given one, anyway) for including such confrontational language in the first two paragraphs. It is sufficient to call it controversial.

Secondly, and I'm surprised I didn't spot this sooner, I cannot condone the claim in the second paragraph that homeopathy induces an "immune response," as that implies homeopathy utilizes a well known and well studied biochemical mechanism (it's not a matter of 'does it work,' but it certainly doesn't directly utilize well studied immune response or cell signalling mechanisms). To that end, I have replaced it with the term, "allows the patient's body to heal itself," which IMO keeps the spirit of homeopathic remedies without violating existing immunological models. Please share your thoughts. T.J.C. 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, homeopaths: is attenuation an appropriate word to use in the second paragraph? I actually had to look attenutation up, and it means, 'weakening.' I suppose it makes sense considering ultradilution, but would it make sense to a new reader? T.J.C. 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion, again

That's fine, Geni, I won't waste my time again. But:

"Notable" is bad writing and POV in any context.
Rubbing the reader's face in the "low concentrations/ultradilutions" twice in the two opening paragraphs is bad writing.
Lee's change to say that homeopathy has "..not been verified by the scientific method" is better than the previous sentence, but is still too vague to be meaningful. I've read several positive journal articles of double-blind homeopathic trials that obviously used the scientific method. (For those interested, IMO, the articles do not hold up to careful scrutiny.) In that case, "verified by the scientific method" becomes a point of contention and not a statement of fact. How many positive trials should be done to 'verify' something? How many negative to counter it? Better to say nothing at all.
I'm not going to bother changing it, since obviously there's people here i.e. (Jooler, Geni) who have such low opinions of scientific thought that they need to beat a casual reader to death with it. T.J.C. 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

- I object to that characterization. I am merely trying to restore the article to the state that it has been in for about the last year, where controversy is mentioned right up front and not left until later and later in the article, by which the the reader has become bored and already ill-informed. If you read the archives, you will see that Leifern has been trying to delete this important factual information for a year. It is important to state clearly and firmly in the lead that homeopathy cannot work because the theory runs counter to the most basic of scientific concepts, and that it has been shown empirically time and time again that it does not work. Jooler 07:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But then you have the strange and uncomfortable fact that countless thousands, probably millions, of people have been treated with homeopathy and have been entirely satisfied with the results. I personally know people who have had no improvement from conventional medicine (or have been seriously harmed by invasive techniques) but somehow achieved a complete and lasting cure from homeopathy. For some reason the "placebo effect" didn't work when they were treated by conventional doctors but did work with homeopathy. I don't know why this can't be proved to the satisfaction of modern science, but after you've been cured of an "incurable" condition, science takes a back seat to what works. I've seen homeopathy work in my life and in the lives of those around me. Maybe it's delusion, a statistical fluke, placebo effect, or whatever you want to call it, but I've seen what can be done by a good homeopath (unfortunately homeopathy is more art than science and good homeopaths are rare) and I'll go with what I know works and works without harm. --Lee Hunter 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is neither strange, uncomfortable. There are countelss thousands of people satisfied by their experience of astrology, palmistry, phrenology, caligraphy, the reading of the tea-leaves, tarot and countless other semi-fraudulant activies, and all can be adequatly explained by psychology rather than magical-mysticisim or pseudo-science. Jooler 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good article addressing the issue of the relative placebo effects of conventional and alternative medicine here. --Ryano 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article, but the author conjures up a fanciful version of what happens in a homeopath's office, one that suits his theory but doesn't fit with reality. Or at least it's very different from the homeopath I have seen. My homeopath listens intently to what I say, studies his computer carefully and writes out a prescription with the usual instruction to take it once or to take it daily until there's a change of any kind. He hardly says a word, doesn't explain or interpret anything and tries his best not to insert himself into the consultation - letting the patient say whatever's on their minds. If he's providing "clues" to the patient they are extraordinarily subtle and far less than I would get from a typical alternative or allopathic practicioner. I suppose one could always argue that this "non influence" is a kind of influence that suits my cultural disposition, but it seems unlikely. --Lee Hunter 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, your problem is a low opinion of the reader, who in your estimation, can't read five paragraphs without getting "bored." Save the criticism for one section instead of being confrontational. Real scientists with a strong argument (and what is stronger than a case against ultradilution????) don't need to bludgeon people with their point. A single well-phrased argument is enough. T.J.C. 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You think we should have five paragraphs of propaganda before saying "by the way all of this pseudo-science has consistently failed any kind of reliable test.. oh it's just water anyway."? Jooler 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not propoganda to explain what homeopathy is, how homeopathic remedies are prepared, and the basics of the theory of homeopathy _before_ carefully explaining how the tenets of homeopathy conflict with modern scientific understanding. A well-written article is neutral on the topic of efficacy, because efficacy is POV. That's the only way this article will be successfully NPOV. It is not POV, however, to say that homeopathic remedies are biologically inert by all measure of current molecular theory. We could also mention the placebo effect, but not get into depth with it, because that invites dueling studies. "Homeopathy journal published this double-blind test," "Yes, but that test was flawed because blah blah blah" and it will never frigging end. T.J.C. 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is this article aimed at? People who understand what phrases like "biologically inert by all measure of current molecular theory" actually mean in reality? My mum certainly wouldn't understand what that phrase means in reality. "current molecular theory" - suggests that this is what is currently in vouge, likely to be replaced by something else. I'm sorry but it is inevitable that this article will be a duel on every line because otherwise there are so many oportunities for homeopathic adherants to write unsupported statements (propaganda) without challenge. Let's look at what is currently written in the second paragraph.

Homeopathy calls for treating "like with like", a doctrine referred to as the "Law of Similars". The practitioner considers the totality of symptoms of a given case, then chooses as a remedy a substance that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce a similar set of symptoms in healthy subjects. The remedial substance is usually given in extremely low — sometimes vanishingly small — concentrations. Dilutions are performed according to a procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power.

doctrine referred to as the "Law of Similars". - implies a physical law like the law of gravity of the laws of motion, whaears in fact tthe so-call law is just an ill-informed guess.

The practitioner considers the totality of symptoms of a given case - I'm sure many astrologers "consider the totality of .. a given case" this does not necessarily mean they chart that they produce at the end has any merit - the implication in this sentence is that this examination process gives the homeopathic remedy that is eventually prescribed some credance. Also, most homeopathic remedies are sold over-the-counter without any such consultation.

chooses as a remedy a substance that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce a similar set of symptoms in healthy subjects - provings are themselves questionable and subject to controversy, in this sentence the implication is that the process has some merit.

Jooler 07:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Jooler, I am a little at a loss how to explain to you why your assertions are not "cold, undeniable facts" when you seem to ignore the points I and others make here. I don't doubt that your convictions are sincere, but in order to come up with a "cold, undeniable fact" you have to start with unassailable premises, tie them together with watertight logic, and arrive at a conclusion that is unescapable given the premises and the logic. This, you and Geni aren't even close to doing, and any scientist or medical doctor would agree with me, even if a lot of them would share your opinion. It is not, for example, a hard, unescapable fact, that a consensus in the medical community amounts to something that is true. Nor is it a hard, unescapable fact that just because one (albeit prestiguous) peer-reviewed journal arrived at a conclusion, that conclusion is true. And it is not true that just because something remains unproven, it is a fraud, or speculation, or a guess. It is not true that what you and others find the most absurd part of homeopathy is what is most notable about it by any absolute standard. I think you have to decide whether you want this article to be neutral or comply with your point of view - you clearly can't have it both ways. --Leifern 11:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, in adding the comment above you also appear to have blanked instances of the words "mystic" and "pagan" in previous comments. I've put them back in, so that "propaganda" no longer reads "pro da" :) Do you have some sort of filter? --Ryano 12:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that one of my computers - probably the one in the kids' room - does this. I thought it was something to do with an older version of Firefox, but maybe it's cybersitter. Either people have to stop using terms like "pagan" or "mystic" (or any substring) on Wikipedia, or I have to stop using that computer for these purposes. I guess it's just gonna have to be the latter (sigh). --Leifern 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{another response to Jooler}

It is intellectually dishonest to call anything science does the absolute truth. "Current molecular theory" is the only way a scientist can describe it and be honest to the scientific method. If you want to dumb science down in order to appease your own misgivings or because you're worried that dumb people might not trust science anymore, you are being as abhorrent to the priniciples of scientific thought as homeopaths, clinging to existing theory because complexity is uncomfortable.

Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to explain why homeopathic remedies are considered biologically inert without resorting to jargon. If you can't do it so that your mum understands it, then you don't really understand it either.

Finally, you are reading too much into the article. Whenever you say "imply" in the above analysis, you are applying your own take, your own agenda, and your own reading to the text, which makes you see conspiracy that simply isn't there. Stop being so ridiculous. Explaining what homeopaths do does not imply it is effective anymore than explaining the rules of tarot card reading.

The point about over-the-counter homeopathic remedies is a valid point and should be addressed, preferably by someone who understands homeopathy enough to be able to explain why it is not inconsistent with the major tenets of homeopathic theory, and if not, it should be mentioned as a fringe element capitalizing off the homeopathic label. (TJC) 216.209.18.183 05:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

- - I want to go on the record to say that I have for several months objected to the wording in the introduction (not to mention the article itself), but have experienced exactly what Lee Hunter describes, namely that my attempts at editing this to something approaching NPOV simply gets reverted without any comment or explanation. I think it is plainly obvious that Jooler's view of "facts" has no basis in logic or fact but is simply his opinion. This is why the article has become a polemic against homeopathy. Neither I nor others who have argued for changes have ever tried to obfuscate or hide the controversy around homeopathy. All MDs that I know are skeptical to homeopathy, but none of them would say what Jooler and Geni are saying. --Leifern 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    - My opinion is expressed in the talk page, what goes on the article are the cold hard undeniable facts. Jooler 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Negative point of view

When I first encountered this article, I was amazed at how it presents only one perspective of homeopathy, that of the conventional, AMA point of view.

For starters, the sentence in the introduction that states "Moreover, following Avogadro's discovery it has firmly rejected the possibility of most homeopathic preparations having any medicinal action" would give the casual reader the impression that homeopathic remedies are absolutely worthless, and as previous discussion has shown, this may not be the case for several reasons. This is the kind of bias you guys need to avoid to give a clear, neutral presentation of the subject material.

Because it's a subject that has been contested for nearly 200 years, perhaps the editors of this fine document could find some way to present the facts without the judgements as to whether it works or not and why, and leave the controversy to another page or section here.

Someone who wants to make an informed decision about homeopathy, at present, will not find Wikipedia very helpful; and because of the biased presentation of the history and principles of homeopathy in this article, it could color many people's attitude towards Wikipedia in general. Thanks, Jeff

I think we should do what the astrology article does - have an article on homeopathy, and then an article on the validity of homeopathy with "the case for" and "the case against" sections. Last time it was brought up, though, the reaction was unfavourable. T.J.C. 22:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

>The article needs HEAVY neutralising of the arguments. Many say its justified; but i feel this exaggerated example of a definition of God would show my PoV: "God= A heavenly supernatural entity who is the Supreme Being and ruler of the universe; and many follow he created all mankind. However many athiests argue that god does not exist; and if he did we will not have made bad people" From the very beginning; the article criticises existence of God. Same goes with this article. Instead of spilling all the crits all around the document; just keep em in "criticism" section.Leafy 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another Introduction

Here is my attempt at rewriting the Introduction. This is still not perfect. but it's a start. I hold that it says everything the current introduction does (plus a little bit more), but is significantly more NPOV in its presentation, as it needs to be. If anyone has objections, please state them.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine. The model of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796.

Homeopathy calls for treating "like with like", a doctrine referred to as the "Law of Similars". The practitioner considers the totality of symptoms of a given case, then chooses as a remedy a substance that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce a similar set of symptoms in healthy subjects. The remedial substance is usually given in extremely low -- sometimes vanishingly small -- concentrations. Dilutions are performed according to a procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power.

Homeopathy is controversial because many of its hypotheses and claims have not been verified to, or are at odds with, the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method. For example, an extreme homeopathic dilution may result in less than one molecule of the original ingredient per dose.

Steve Summit (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Lee Hunter 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it very much. T.J.C. 01:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to it other than the slight error that molecule is not always the corect term (for example there is a homeopathic remedy made up from helium) however I understand that the term items is confusing.Geni 02:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's getting better, but the "notable" clause is still hopelessly POV and poor English. And Geni, when you take introduction to Chemistry, you'll learn that a molecule can consist of only one atom. --Leifern 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not in the common term. No matter I can also point to things like the light of venus and positronium. The problem of neither of these being in solution long enough for potentisation to be caried out is left as an excersise to the reader.Geni 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in biochemistry. Leifern, you are incorrect. A molecule can consist of many covalently bonded atoms. T.J.C. 03:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Molecule is fine. A molecule can be one or more atoms. T.J.C. 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me join the discussion. The idea of molucule is not relevant in homeopathy, only to those who are trying to disprove the validity or non validity of the remedies. Any homeopath will tell you that the remedies are not about molecules or even "stuff", as we usually think of it. There seems to be something going on, but no one knows what it is. Whatever is going on has little or nothing to do with molecules or matter as we have learned to conceive of it. I've noticed in reading the history of this discussion the people who object to the concept of homeopathy do so on purely intellectual, conceptual grounds assuming that the knowledge of conventional science is the last word, and they have had no personal experience with homeopathy. This strikes me as kind of sophistry that I learned in college philosophy 101 to be the enemy of intelligent process, and the attitudes that put people like Copernicus in prison (he did go to prison, didn't he?). Those who have given it an honest try seem to think there's something there, and this Wiki article should reflect that; and I would invite the critics of homeopathy who are present in this discussion to try something as simple as doing a proving of a remedy. I'd suggest Rhus Tox (poison ivy), and try proving it in the 30c potency. This would be a "dilution" of 10 to the minus 60, well below Avagadro's concept, and while everyone may not get a proving from a dozen or so doses, many will, and then I'd like them to come back here and try to explain that molecules are an integral part of a homeopathic remedy, or that homeopathy is based on superstition and ignorance.

In the interest of having a decent article for Wiki, I totally agree with T.J.C. when he says,

"I think we should do what the astrology article does - have an article on homeopathy, and then an article on the validity of homeopathy with "the case for" and "the case against" sections."

Could this possibility be seriously considered? Call upon a homeopath to write the main article. Who else would know what it's really about anyway, and before it's published, invite discussion from the skeptics to weed out any outrageous claims. Then have the cases for and against for those who want to become involved in the controversy. The purpose of Wiki is to serve those who look here for knowledge, not to promote our personal biases, and so much of scientific knowledge is simply the personal bias of whomever is in power at the time. It would be nice to try to rise above that particular human fraility. Look at how intelligent design (creationism) is being forced upon school kids in bible belt states, because of the politics involved. (Anyone who sews, knows that having anything less than 4 hands is not an intelligent design).

Thanks, Jeff

Wikinfo is that way. What you propose is not consistant with NPOV.Geni 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the measure of an NPOV article is that supporters of both side of an issue can read the article and find that the article is scrupulous about distinguishing between facts and opinions. I agree with Geni that we certainly couldn't expect a homeopathic practitioner - no matter how well-meaning - to write a completely unbiased article about his/her profession. But neither can we simply assume that MDs have the final word on it. And to be fair to homeopaths, it is not as if they treat their remedies as trade secrets - they are entirely upfront about what they do, how they expect it to work, and how to measure it. It is entirely possible to present what homeopathy is all about, why people are skeptical about it, and leave it to the reader to decide what and whom to

believe. --Leifern 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

what amazes me is how badly the homeopathy article is written both from a conventional scientific perspective and an objective homeopathic perspective. I can only conclude that there is some other buried agenda at work here. Could it be that if homeopathy was acorded any credibility what so ever that it would be a serious threat to reductionist modern science which is increasingly finding itself so up against the wall defending 19 th century science that it has failed to integrate that of the 20th century? -- Jerome Whitney

Question about content

I must say, I was quite surprised when I read this article. I grew up in a house that practiced "homeopathy" though for us this meant taking Echinacea and Arnica Montana and Oscillococcinum and drinking herbal tea. It also meant seeking out slightly alternative forms of treatment such as from a Chiropractor. Finally, it meant taking prescription drugs and antibiotics as an absolute last resort. When I read this article, it seemed to be filled more with what I'm going to dub "vestigial alchemy". I'm not saying you guys are wrong, on the contrary I have full faith in this article. My question is, should we possible include the fact that homeopathy is followed to varying degrees, and embracing homeopathy doesn't mean rejecting traditional medicine? Webster100 04:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leifern's papers

A papaer needs more than just a name as a reference. At least a year is also required (so I can find the thing) and for prefernce the full title.Geni 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Which will be supplied. In the meantime, I note that you simply reverted (as usual) to a version that contains dozens of unsupported claims. --Leifern 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

thats nice. List then And I will see if I can support them. In the new year. I'm not going to be around untill then.Geni 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The scientific validity of homeopathy again

I see that Geni is back to his old tricks of simply reverting anything that goes against his opinion. --Leifern 12:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I rather doubt than considering what my opinion really is.Geni 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathic medicine derives its claim to legitimacy by way of observation and empirical evidence. The first double-blind, placebo, cross-over trial was conducted to test the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy Belladona in 1906 and reported by The American Homeopathic Ophthalmological, Otological, and Laryngological Society, 1906.

Can you confirm that that would be "Howard P. Bellows. The Test Drug Proving of the O.O. and L. Society: A Reproving of Belladonna". what evidence do you have that that test was a)double blinded and b the first.

I provided the full reference. Please reinstate the sentence. --Leifern 12:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your source for it being the first would be?Geni 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Efforts to discredit homeopathy generally fall into two categories: one is to question the validity of the various trials and tests homeopaths undertake to prove their remedies; the other is to question those theoretical models homeopaths propose might explain their observations.

Intersting (unture of course the big conspirosy to supppresss homeopathy doesn't fall into either catigory. It knocked out vetinary homeopathy in sweden and looks like the dutch are going to follow. Of course thanks to cascade it is also illegal in the uk but it isn't polite to bring that up) but this section is not titled discrediting homeopathy.

Geni, I am not talking about any conspiracy, but there is no question that you and others are trying to discredit homeopathy. I can't decipher the rest of what you write. --Leifern 12:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore the stuff in brackets it's an in joke. Are you going to address the next or not?

From the point of view of conventional medice, the

Strangely no. Conventional medician doesn't have much to do with the value of various bits of alt med reasearch. That tends to be more the task of specialist reseachers.

You are making a bogus distinction. "Specialist researchers" (as if there are any other types of researchers) work on testing hypotheses that relate to mainstream medical practice.--Leifern 12:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst doesn't appear to.Geni 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

most scientists doctors

Scientist is someone who uses the scientific method. I can't agree it's a weasel word. Using "most doctors" implies a significant minority who support H. This has not been demonstrated. I think we are on the same wavelength and hope you agree with my edit. Pls discuss before re-editing Mccready 18:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that homeopaths claim that they do use the scientific method. And though we can certainly agree that scientists - by virtue of their profession - would oppose anything that wasn't scientific, we are begging the question if we simply assume that homeopathy isn't scientific because scientists oppose it, and scientists oppose it because it isn't scientific. I don't know what minority of medical doctors support homeopathy, but we have to be clear that there is a middle ground between supporting and opposing. They may, for example, be indifferent or wish to suspend judgment. --Leifern 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... not really. Anyone can *claim* they are using the scientific method, whether truthfully or otherwise. For example, creation "scientists" and intelligent design advocates routinely claim that their theories are scientific. For scientists, the final arbiter of a scientific statement is falsifiability: Does the theory make predictions that can be empirically proven or disproven? I find it helpful to categorize pseudoscience into two non-exclusive categories. One makes unfalsifiable statements, e.g. "God created the universe". The other ignores evidence of falsification, e.g. "That study disproving my theory cannot be right, because my viewpoint is the correct one".

In terms of falsifiability, then, there is no middle ground. Either an idea is falsifiable or it is not. Either an empirical observation supports a theory, or it does not. Homepathy fails the scientific test on both counts. It makes unfalsifiable statements, such as the law of similars: "Something that causes a disease will also cure a disease". There is always a viable exit from this law: that the disease must have been caused by some other agent than what was tested, therefore the test fails, but the law of similars somehow prevails. This is also an abuse of the logical impossibility of proving a negative, for what it's worth.

Homeopathic practictioners fail the second test: they ignore that empirical observation does not support their claims. No homepathic remedy has been found yet that is more effective than a placebo.

My point is, then, that we are not making a straw man argument or invoking "weasel" terms by referring to scientists. We are speaking in terms of falsifiability, which is at the root of modern science, so it is not inappropriate in this instance. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning trial

I propose deleting "Homeopathy" link from the Crank page...

In book "Schicksal als chance" ("Destiny as a chance" - the book is otherwise on a different topic, the homeopathy is just noted on the side...) by Thorwald Dethlefsen, there is written a reasonable explanation of how it works (shortened in my own words):

While creating homeopathic preparate, They put a chemical (mostly poisonous) into a water solution, and dilute it iterativelly, until there does not stay even one molecule of the original substance. But by the process of diluting, the substance structure is transcribed into hydrogen bonding structure of water. Then it works the same way as a well-known vaccination by delivering molecule-shape information into white-corpuscle database...

The caveat of this explanation is in the fact, that contemporary science cannot read the structure of hydrogen bonding in the water with enough precission to prove this or disprove. But they already know the fact, that hydrogen bridges can remember an inverse shape of other substance, and that white blood corpuscles can remember substances (which is used in a vaccination)... (In wiki article about hydrogen bonding in advanced section is: "remains a fairly mysterious object"... Which on other hand means "fully unexplored")

And if there is some statistical evidence that H. may work to solve some health problems, then I would wait to mark it a crank, at least until scientists get into enough microscopic precission to really disprove it...

Until you mark it crank, noone reasonable (or trustworthy by scientists) will start investigating it really, leaving the field to empirical research and cumulate nonsenses both by renomous practitioners and real cranks. (which is also the case of astrology, which also has got a "real" core hidden below lots of non-scientific balast...)

You scientists - don`t leave this field to so-called "cranks" and go really investigate, what the limits of this technique are - how much can (healthy) auto-immune system self-cure some disease in the body, while being propperly provocated (even by the mere shape of chemicals without those chemicals, and/or by other ways including placebo effect) ... Forget the "opposite cures opposite" non-scientific (?) therm at first, and try to discover, what is really behind...

A sentence from homeopathy article:

However, this claim is contrary to knowledge of pharmacology and biochemistry, which show that the effects of a substance are due to its physical or biochemical activity in the patient's body, and therefore that the more of an active ingredient is present in a drug, the more effect (whether positive, negative, or both) it will have.

This does not say, that the homeopathy method (to cure by information) is imposible. It just shows, that it is a different method, and still both may be correct under some circumstances...

Yet another sentence from homeopathy article:

To those familiar with the modern practices of homeopathy and immunology, the two practices are fundamentally different. A vaccine is usually a bacterium or virus whose capability to produce symptoms has deliberately been weakened, while still providing enough information to the immune system to afford protection. By preparing the immune system of a healthy organism to meet a future attack by the pathogen...

So there may be an informational therapy... And if so, there may be more use of it, than a relatively young vaccination. The facts, that during vacination the characteristical molecule shapes are delivered by weakened virus and during homeopathy they are delivered just by their shape in hydrogen bonding structure of water, still do not show, that one is possible while the other is not... What the white corpuscles can recognize and what is beyond their measure?

Reasoning, that just any water brings information and does not cure yet, may mean, that there must be plenty of the same information present to initiate reaction, and that minor deviations are just ignored by the immune system ? (And yes, any water brings information and it is not insignificant, which information is beared by the water you drink! H2O is only the "ingredients" formula, but there is more to water than the ingredients... But not just any information provocates auto-immune system...)

Don`t take this as my advocacy of the homeopathy - I am not a doctor. Take it as a criticism of a non-scientific method (performed by some mainstream scientists) of insulting instead of investigating and really (dis)proving.

Showing, that some method is bad because another method works is insufficient. Both methods may work under some circumstances, and both may yield different but also same results - in some cases...

And if the homeopathic method is not scientific enough(?), than it is a good chance for real scientists to improve that...

(And sorry, if this is not a place for such dispute...) Semi Psi 22:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling lazy so I'll use the easy method to debunk that lot. Most remedies are not given in the liquid form. They are given in the form of sugar pills.Geni 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To: Mcready

An MD that supports homeopathy: http://www.billgrayhomeopathy.com/ . Leifern is correct. You cannot claim all MDs reject it. T.J.C. 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was, and I repeat, to use the word "general" you'd have to show a significant number believe in it.Mccready 04:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no difference between "most/generally doctors/scientists do not support homeopathy" and "only a few doctors/scientists support homeopathy," but hey, go for it if it helps you sleep better at night. Frankly, (and I've said this before,) that entire paragraph doesn't even need to be in the introduction. Spending so much time in the article making sure that "OH NO PEOPLE CAN'T THINK THAT SCIENCE ENDORSES IT" weakens the overall argument against it, IMO. Too many words makes an argument seem weak and inflated - a single paragraph at the end of the article would suffice. It's not like astrology has people tagging on, "...but science doesn't support this!" after every tenet. However, a significant number of contributors disagree with me. T.J.C. 05:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives