Talk:Potassium dichromate/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
electrolysis
What reaction will occur at anode in the electrolysis of potassium dichromate? What product will be formed?Superdvd 10:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why?
Why is Potassium dichromate used as a preservative for artifacts when it is highly corrosive?
Glassware cleaning
Acidified potassium dichromate (with sulphuric acid) is used for cleaning glassware - and not just potassium dichromate
Someone's added poorly-spelled gibberish to the end. Anyone know what's useful there and what's not?
The above posts are unsigned.
- Acidified potassium dichromate was used for cleaning laboratory glassware but not any more, at least in the UK, because of health concerns. It has been replaced by detergents, such as "Decon 90". Biscuittin 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Length?
Erm, just wondering why this article is being tagged as too lengthy....If I don't get a response in a few days, I'll take off the tag, it looks horrendous. : ) Delta 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, those tags are ridiculous - they just appear on talk pages, perhaps with a tiny little icon hidden somewhere discrete in the article.
- I do, however, think that parts of this article are excessively verbose. The section on ethanol titration is unnecessarily detailed − the exact method is not required, since Wikipedia is not a how-to manual.
- I'm going to attempt a clean up.
- Ben 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've made it even more brief. It needs context - is it used industrially, etc? If not, we might as well do away with the section because it can be adapted to many contexts, and it is no longer significant. --Rifleman 82 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathic use
Why should homeopathic use be deleted? [1] Whig 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It is notable as an ingredient of HeadOn and this text was already present under the Hazards section before I moved it into its own section and fleshed it out. [2] According to the HeadOn article it is a headache remedy and not only for migraines. When used in homeopathic medicine, potassium dichromate is also called kalium bichromicum.[3]
Can this text be reinserted without objection? Whig 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- First off, is this actually used outside of HeadOn, as a homeopathic treatment, in any significant amount? Secondly, this is probably the least notable thing about this chemical that we'd be mentioning: if it goes in, it should go in at the end of the article, not before important chemical uses. Adam Cuerden talk 09:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Kali bich is most certainly a very important remedy in homeopathy and its use should be included. It is in very frequent use for sinusitis, catarrh and hayfever especially were there is much thick sticky mucus or sputum difficult to dislodge or hard, tightly adherent crusts in the nasal passages difficult and painful to remove. These are its strongest features. See:[4] cheers Peter morrell 12:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've put it back more or less as it was but below other uses. We could also add something along the lines of the uses Peter lists. As far as this being a "non-notable use" there are probably more people who come into awareness or contact with it as homeopathic medicine than the chemical in its raw state. Whig 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning glassware
I've removed this chunk, because this procedure uses chromic acid, not dichromate: --Rifleman 82 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
K2Cr2O7 is used as an oxidizing agent in many chemical applications, and is often used for cleaning laboratory glassware of organic contaminants, usually in a solution with concentrated sulfuric acid. This solution must not be used to clean the glass tubes used in NMR spectroscopy, as residual contamination of the glass by the paramagnetic Chromium disrupts the NMR procedure.
- Google books gives many hits for "potassium dichromate" cleaning glassware. I think either of them could be used, since the effective active ingredient is the same, Cr(VI). Do you know of any reason why potassium dichromate should not be used? I'm not an experimentalist, so I don't know firsthand. --Itub 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy section
This is surely wholly trivial. I completely fail to see the relevance. Only here to push the usual POV, IMO. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The only person POV pushing is you and cuerden. It is a major remedy in homeopathy period. If you knew anything about the subject you would know this. Peter morrell 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It may be a major remedy in homeopathy. Is that relevant? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely it is relevant; it is an actual use of potassium dichromate in the real world. A short paragraph on that does no harm whatever in this article EXCEPT to someone obsessed with deleting all mention of homeopathy in this WP, which he has all but admitted to in the past. Peter morrell 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I guess one sentence, perhaps two, wouldn't hurt. Curiously however, the paragraph as written and deleted made it look as though the homeopathic use of this chemical was responsible and wise - it was completely uncritical, except by very vague implication. My point is that the paragraph should have made the point that this is an actual misuse of potassium dichromate in the real world - not that you would agree, but scientific consensus does. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing it restored by you in an edited NPOV form, then. Peter morrell 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the use of very much potassium dichromate, though, is it? Adam Cuerden talk 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merged into the safety section with a rename and rewrite. Since the homeopathic use depends on the effects produced by large doses this seemed the best section. Tim Vickers 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's an inappropriate section. It's pretty clear that potassium dichromate remedies don't work because of any properties of potassium dichromate. It's contained in vanishingly small doses. It would be dishonest to imply that homeopathic sugar pills might give one cancer. Perhaps it's less dishonest than those who peddle these remedies, but it still doesn't belong in the safety section. Cool Hand Luke 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Safety and biological effects" is not a good section IMO. Whatever you may think of it, this is a use! Merging "biological effects" with "safety" and putting a use there does not fit the chemical style guidelines well IMO. Also, be careful with the overuse of words such as "claim", which tend to be POV-loaded, as discussed in WP:WTA. You don't need to repeat the criticism of homeopathy every time it is mentioned in passing on Wikipedia--there's a lot of room for that in the main article. --Itub 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, yes we do need to mention the criticism where we're talking about homeopathic uses - otherwise, it amounts to saying that this was a correct and scientifically-based use, like all the talk surrounding it. Adam Cuerden talk 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Safety and biological effects" is not a good section IMO. Whatever you may think of it, this is a use! Merging "biological effects" with "safety" and putting a use there does not fit the chemical style guidelines well IMO. Also, be careful with the overuse of words such as "claim", which tend to be POV-loaded, as discussed in WP:WTA. You don't need to repeat the criticism of homeopathy every time it is mentioned in passing on Wikipedia--there's a lot of room for that in the main article. --Itub 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can just say "potassium dichromate is used for homeopathy" and let the readers think for themselves. Inserting a discussion of the validity of homeopathy into this article is like inserting a discussion about the validity of prayer therapy into the article about candles. :-) Note: I don't think this article needs a section about the homeopathic use, just a sentence or two under uses. --Itub 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what can we say? In homeopathy, poassium dichromate is claimed (ref to lancet article here for claim) to be useful for headaches? Adam Cuerden talk 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can just say "potassium dichromate is used for homeopathy" and let the readers think for themselves. Inserting a discussion of the validity of homeopathy into this article is like inserting a discussion about the validity of prayer therapy into the article about candles. :-) Note: I don't think this article needs a section about the homeopathic use, just a sentence or two under uses. --Itub 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What are you POV quibbling about now? Tim has already edited this back in. It does not need a whole section, a sentence or two will suffice. In fact Kali bich has a broad spectrum of uses within homeopathy (check the link) primarily for glutinous mucus conditions of nose and respiratory passages but including headaches. The ref to headaches is merely a proprietory use of it in the US NOT a strictly homeopathic formulation per se. Peter morrell 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct to say this has been resolved? Why not remove the request on the admin board?--FR Soliloquy 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the following has been added. "(in many cases to the point where it is extremely unlikely that there is even one ion left in the final remedy)". Doesn't this belabor the point a bit? I had added a link to the appropriate section in homeopathy with makes the point adequately. This section should be informative and to the point. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted it a bit - the English was starting to get awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points that were now being made three sentences prior, and other such things. Adam Cuerden talk 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adam, you didn't revert my edits "a bit". You reverted all my changes. The reason I changed it is that the whole thing read like a typical anti-homeopathic editorial. Words like "purported" should not be in this article, just report the uses of sodium dichromate by homeopaths and the facts, there is no good reason to judge homeopathy. Here is the version I had written:
- "Homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to suppress symptoms of irritation and inflammation and is more familiar as kalium bichromicum.[1] Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute, or undetectable quantities, although meta-analysis of homeopathic treatments shows that these low concentrations are unlikely to do any better than a placebo treatment.[2] One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."
- You say it is ".....awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points.......". First, where are these "however's" you mention? Second, please improve the version above not just reverting to a flawed version. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adam, you didn't revert my edits "a bit". You reverted all my changes. The reason I changed it is that the whole thing read like a typical anti-homeopathic editorial. Words like "purported" should not be in this article, just report the uses of sodium dichromate by homeopaths and the facts, there is no good reason to judge homeopathy. Here is the version I had written:
- I've reverted it a bit - the English was starting to get awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points that were now being made three sentences prior, and other such things. Adam Cuerden talk 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Alleviate might be better wording than suppresses. It's potassium not sodium dichromate BTW. And BTW 1 ppm is NOT an 'undetectable amount'...thanks Peter morrell 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, these are good points, when I rewrote the section a lot of the baggage from the previous version got brought over. Basically the previous version was more of a critique of homeopathy rather than a description of the use of sodium dichromate. How about the following?
- "Due its irritant properties (ref for this?), homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to alleviate symptoms of irritation and inflammation, although it is more familiar as kalium bichromicum.[3] Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute quantities and one notable product is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."
- Here I have even removed the meta analysis quote. Why is it necessary to be critiquing homeopathy every time the word is mentioned? The link to the homeopathy section on dilutions contains those critiques and is the appropriate place for such information. This article is about sodium dichromate and its uses not homeopathy itself. It could do with a sentence on why it is used as a pain remedy. Previously there was a mention of its symptoms but a reference might be good too. David D. (Talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your revised para is now fine; please implement it; its irritant properties are listed in the next paragraph on safety, so no need to ref that unless you want an actual cite for that specific point. Peter morrell 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here [5] is a generic cite for its irritant properties. Peter morrell 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
COPD
| Old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Friends, yesterday I added a NPOV reference and link to a study that was published in CHEST (a highly respected medical journal) and that was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. This study tested homeopathic doses of potassium dichromate (THE subject of this article) vs. placebo. The clinical results were substantially significant. An anonymous editor took out this reference, and for unknown reasons, called it POV. Although this edit seems to be this person's "first" edit, it is more likely one of the many antagonists to homeopathy who is vandalizing this article anonymously. My NPOV reference should be kept, though if others have a better way to describe it (or improve grammar), I'm open. Dana Ullman Talk 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scientizzle & David D...just a couple of comments: Rather than saying "small study" (because that is relative in each disease), I'm changing it to "a study of 50 patients" (also, nowhere does it state that this was a "pilot study"). As for the control and treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Colquhoun's published critique of this paper didn't mention this as a problem. As for the results, they are not simply significant; they were substantial, and not just the tracheal secretions but also the rate of extubation and (importantly) the length of the hospital stay. Because this study was published in such a prestigious journal, this information is important. Let's avoid making the subject of homeopathy the issue in THIS article. Dana Ullman Talk 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Page 938 of the article shows the two groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. Please note that the journal in which this study was published is the leading journal in respiratory medicine. Dana Ullman Talk 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[Quote] Clinical trials are conducted in phases. The trials at each phase have a different purpose and help scientists answer different questions:
[End Quote] Source http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand So if these are phase III trials why would they only be using 56? Are you sure that is not how many they have enrolled to date? And if that is the final number why so small? Re: Pilot study (it was an IP that added that not me), what would you call phase I trials then? David D. (Talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are asking for trouble with such a comment. The anti-homeopathy editors are wanting the whole reference to homeopathy out of this article. For example. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
Notability of COPD
| Old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The study was returned and described with the edit summary of "This study is notable. See talk page.", but is it? Why is it notable, I see no discussion on this talk page about notability. David D. (Talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This study is notable for several reasons: 1) its source of publication (the most respected medical journal on respiratory medicine); 2) its place of study (University of Vienna Hospital); 3) its substantially signficiant results on three important and clinically relevant measures; 4) its worthiness as recognized by the fact that two other research groups are seeking to replicate it and are using a similar subject size; 5) this is not consider a small subject size for this specific ailment, as is noted by the planned replication trials. Let's have someone other than the typical anti-homeopathy people comment here, preferrably an admin. Dana Ullman Talk 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The COPD study was referenced by the New England Journal of Medicine[4] and JAMA[5] This should end our discussion on the notability of this study. It IS notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Friends...Antelan above said that the study in CHEST was not notable because there were no citations to this research, but I corrected him by noting the citations to the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA (I could have included many more citations). RDOLivaw said that this study is not notable because it was a "small" study and Adam C & Jefffire referred to it as a "pilot." And yet, Scientizzle's link to replications studies show that one of them is a smaller study of 40 patients and another is of 56 patients (a similar size as the original study of 50 patients). Clearly, many scientists consider 50 patients with COPD to be a reasonable number to evaluate efficacy of treatment. It is therefore inappropriate and inaccurate to refer to the original trial of 50 patients to be "small" and nowhere in the article does it reference that this original study was a "pilot." I will not revert the editing now myself, though I hope and expect that one of the editors (perhaps even one of the anti-homeopathic ones) will do so.Dana Ullman Talk 12:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
All that matters is that this is a single weak study, not a conclusive report, and not something which has any scientific or medical weight. Reporting on it is undue weight, and not encyclopedic. It goes, and it stays gone, unless it can be justified that this has any weighting in scientific and medical circles. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Removing homeopathy from mainstream science articles
| Old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
While the makers of head-on believe this compound to be of note for use in their product, it is my belief that mere mention of homeopathic pseudoscience is probably too much weight in this article. I propose removing the section entirely. I will leave this notice here for comment. Please argue why, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT homeopathy should be mentioned at this article. All other comments will be relegated to their own section. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got no problem with the HeadOn section as it is currently (very short) as it seems to be a major commercial/industrial use of this compound. If it turns out that it is really only a minor commercial/industrial use then drop it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As a general principle I agree that mentions of homeopathy should not be inserted into mainstream science articles. I believe this article on potassium dichromate, however, should mention the homeopathic uses since the homeopathic remedy made from this chemical compound is widely used. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Relevant quote from WP:FRINGE: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects." ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) I don't see any problem with a small section, esp since there is a cite from a major mainstream journal (Chest). It is INTERESTING. I do not think there should be mention of any particular brand or propriately formula. The phrase "because of irritant properties" should be removed since there is no mechanism of action that is known. Abridged talk 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a chemical compound that is also used medicinally in homeopathy. There is every logical reason to include such a section. Repeatedly referring to WP:FRINGE is irrelevant here, except for certain editors' personal POV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Perhaps you could outline the criteria you have left after we've eliminted some based on peer review and statistical power, along with the fact that every other paper ever published in a peer reviewed journal is not included in Wikipedia so why should this one be??? HOw is this particular cite from a Chest paper in Wikipedia not notable? THANKS. Abridged talk 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That is an absurd remark given the Chest cite. Abridged talk 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent). Yes, actually it is made from the chemical. Read any homeopathy textbook for materials and methods. I agree that flaky fringy stuff should not be cited in Wikipedia, and have never put anything in from a bad source (look at my contrib history if you want to look at the quality of my work; I stand behind it.) But, comeON, this is CHEST. This is as mainstream as you can get and the level of peer review on that journal is OUTSTANDING. YOur objections here are categorical rather than evidence-based. Abridged talk 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Where have you seen such riduculous "reports of homoeopathic provings"? It appears you do not even know what provings are. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "science article". It is just an article about a substance, which like any other substance can have scientific and non-scientific aspects to it. Perhaps the technical-sounding name of this substance makes it seem completely different, but just go and take a look at articles on better-known substances for comparison. Silver mentions the fabled use of silver against werewolves, diamond the politics of diamond mining and its use in engagement rings, and salt mentions its use in purification rituals. None of these aspects have anything to do with the chemistry or physics of the substances, but yet they are aspects of human interest that should be included in a comprehensive general encyclopedia. If potassium dichromate is used (or even allegedly used) in homeopathic products that are sold in the real world and used by real people, I see no reason not to mention the use. Briefly, however. Adding an entire section discussing the pros and cons of homeopathy and the recent primary literature could certainly become undue weight. --Itub (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
Category: Homeopathic remedies
| Old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
{{editprotected}} I think this cat should be removed, as this is a chemical not a homeopathic remedy. It may be used in homeopathic remedies (at least in the initial stages), but this chemical is not of itself a homeopathic remedy. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate article kalium bichromicum regarding the homeopathic remedy prepared from potassium dichromate. That should remove the confusion. —Whig (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I like that idea of listing dilutions, but most preparations are used at all sorts of dilutions. It would be hard to even find a reliable range. I was searching Google books to try to find a list of remedies, and An Introduction to Homeopathic Medicine in Primary Care shows that even a single homeopath picks nil concentrations off by a factor of more than one googol: Author recommends 15 substances be stocked for patient use, "(1) Arnica montana, 30C, 200C; (2) Arsenicum album, 30C..." Any ideas where we can find a large list? Cool Hand Luke 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur that a good solution would be to state: "one double-blind, placebo controlled trial found...and two replication trials are presently in process." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about creating a new list of homeopathic remedies should be centralized at Talk:Homeopathy#List of homeopathic remedies. Feel free to continue discussing potassium dicromate as a homeopathic remedy in another section. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Pilot Study?
| Old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Adam C. is one of the kings of editors who demands verifiability. Therefore, it is essential that he (or someone) verify how he (or anyone) can call the CHEST study a "pilot" trial. In fact, one of the replication trials is a "Phase III" study [6] Further, here's another citation to this important study...this one is from the journal, Critical Care.[7] Does it work for you if we add to the article here: According to the authors in the journal Critical Care, "Homeopathy, in the form of potassium dichromate, shows promise as a new treatment for excessive tracheal secretions" in COPD patients. Dana Ullman Talk 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden talk 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sound dumb here but the paper continually refers to the experiment as a study. So if the paper is not reporting data from a clinical trial how could it be anything but a pilot study for the subsequent clinical trials? I have no idea why anyone would take offense to such a description. As mentioned above pilot does not mean bad, it is a description of its place in the sequence leading to approval. As an aside, do German homeopathic remedies need to go through clinical trials before they go to the market? Or is this being done to prove the efficacy of the remedy? David D. (Talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Adam C has asserted that this was a "pilot" trial, even though he seems to have not read the trial (he thinks that it is in German), and his references above to "Last Observation" suggests that he is not reading the study in CHEST. Adam C is a smart guy, but I think that he is too busy on too many subjects that he is not doing justice to this one. For the record, the authors of THIS CHEST article do not refer to it as a "pilot" trial. While large trials are common for certain ailments, they are not common for others. As such, it is not always appropriate or accurate to refer to this COPD trial as a "small trial." Also, this drug, Kali bichromicum (its Latin name) is already a legal homeopathic drug in European, American, and virtually all international markets (I actually do not know a country that doesn't recognize it as a legal homeopathic drug). Yeah...this drug is notable, and the study is too. Dana Ullman Talk 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, here's another study on COPD Rennard et al. Extended Therapy With Ipratropium Is Associated With Improved Lung Function in Patients With COPD, A Retrospective Analysis of Data From Seven Clinical Trials Chest 110 (1): 62. (1996) "Data were obtained from seven clinical trials in which ipratropium was compared with a Beta-agonist over a 90-day treatment interval. This comprised all the available data from clinical trials performed for registration of ipratropium and included 1,445 evaluable patients. Results of pulmonary function tests were evaluated prior to and after short-term administration of bronchodilator both before and after the 90-day treatment period." So, seven trials here included 1445 patients. That's over 200 patients per trial. Funny, though, given you claim 50 is normal for COPD trials. Adam Cuerden talk 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
David D...my reference to the POV was to Adam C...re-read what I wrote. Now that you are asserting that we should include a summary of this study in CHEST, what do you suggest that we say? My comment to Infophile is simply: I do not think that homeopathy contradicts known chemistry or biology, just as quantum physics doesn't contradict Newtonian physics. Instead, quantum physics extends are understanding of Newtonian physics, especially in extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathic pharmacology helps us understand and benefit from specially prepared extremely small doses (it is not enough to make "small" doses; dilution and vigorous succussion are required...and in glass bottles). Dana Ullman Talk 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, consensus seems to be clearly against including mention of this study. Can we drop it now? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The results section (ie presentation of data) is a primary source, but when you have an introduction conclussions and discussion it becomes a seconary source because that includes ANALYSIS. I don't think there is any claim here that homeopathy in general works. We are just citing one study on a remdy made from this compound. it is interesting and encyclopedic. I don't have a problem with including it. Abridged talk 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is NO CONSENSUS to include this pilot study. Get over it. Reply to the points raised or go away. Don't just say "I think it should go in" and repeat the same flawed "reasons". Saying the same thing over and over isn't engaging in debate, it's just childish and annoying (3 edit conflicts) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC) |
Secondary source in FASEB J.
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
<added a break here for clarity>
I purposefully chose to not defend or respond to the FASEB editor's reference to me from a popular magazine because of the misinformation that this non-academic publication provided. My reference to my writings in FASEB on the TALK page is not COI...and in fact, my writing in FASEB provided evidence of a secondary source in a high-impact journal. Whether it went through the peer-review process or was simply worthy enough to be accepted by the editor, it is noteworthy. I am careful to not reference them in any article. It is interesting that my response provided reference to several clinical trials, while the editor's response to me was embarrassing for it ignored the research and instead only made reference to the "experience" of homeopaths. Dana Ullman Talk 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Frass/CHEST paper notability
| Old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Regarding the quality of this paper published in CHEST, I did a quick look on Web of Science and found that it currently shows no citations for this paper. This is actually strange since according to the discussion above at least three letters to the editor in various journals do cite this paper. I then looked at all the papers by M Frass in 2005 (a total of 15) and found that nine others of these had not been cited and the other five had twenty citations between them. The most cited has had nine citations to date:
However, of those nine citations, two were correspondence to Anesthesiology criticising the paper and one a reply from Frass. Below is a flavor of the letters that appeared in Anesthesiology to criticise the paper.
Not all papers published in notable journals are notable. Of those that are notable, it could be due to the break through science or more for its notoriety. Even Frass, who has a prolific publication record, does not appear to attract much attention from his peers. And the little he does get appears to be from critical letters to the editor. To have most of your papers with zero citations would suggest his research is not particularly notable in his own field. At present this potassium dichromate article in CHEST does not appear to be very notable. This may change when the results from an independent phase III clinical trial are finished. In summary, I think it is premature for wikipedia to be citing this paper as it is currently uncited and from an author who does not appear to be notable within his own field. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I would agree that the fact of being published in Chest does not immediately make an article notable. According to medline there are at least 27,000 other articles that Chest has published; should they all be quoted in Wikipedia articles that are relevant to them? The article in Chest clearly has some methodological deficiencies, including an imbalance between the control and treatment group at baseline. Whilst this was not statistically significant that is not the same as saying it could not have influenced the outcome. I think a rational argument to determine a papers "notability" would be if it has had an influence on clinical practice. No Intensive Care Unit I am aware of uses homoepathic potassium dichromate to manage secretions in intubated patients; there is no reference to it in any published ICU guidelines; I have never heard the paper mentioned in any discussion of the literature. It has had no discernible impact upon clinical practice and cannot therefore be considered "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.23.100 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Frass/CHEST paper notability (2)
| Consensus has clearly been reached that this study is not going to be included. The coverage of homeopathy for such a small article is currently the best we can hope for, per WP:UNDUE. This conversation is not helping the article. Per WP:Talk and WP:Bold it is being archived. Do not reopen. Start a new section iff there is something important to note. Baegis (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references on wikipedia to studies in peer-review journals that are a lot less respected that CHEST. The official publication of the American College of Chest Physicians. This study was conducted at the University of Vienna. This study is so notable that TWO separate groups of researchers are presently planning to replicate it...and despite some editors asserting that this study was "small," the two replication trials are planning to use a similar number of patients (obviously, using 50 COPD patients is a reasonable number) This study is further notable due to the substantially significant results that were observed in the treatment of a condition that is the #4 reason that people in the US die today. This study is notable and should be a part of this article. Dana Ullman Talk 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The arguments for including the Frass/CHEST study appear to be sound. I would appreciate anyone explaining the rationale for excluding this study. Anyone? Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Baegis, I have read the weak critiques of this study, and I do not consider them adequate. For instance, the critique that this study is not "notable" is a joke because two universities are presently planning to replicate it (how could it NOT be notable if THAT is happening?). Based on my summary of the RS and notability of this study (and its substantial results), I think that you are stonewalling...and you are giving the Arb Committee good evidence that you will not accept any positive evidence on homeopathy. I would think that you would want to show good faith now. Let's work towards consensus on what should be said about this important study. DanaUllmanTalk 05:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very interesting how the best response to the serious question I posed is reference to a known "skeptic" who enjoys skewering alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine. The level of his comments can be seen in his "Holy homeopathy, Batman! Does this study mean that homeopathy actually works for critically ill patients in the ICU? Not so fast there, Robin. Let's take a look." Very serious evaluation of the study, indeed!! Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did look at his so-called "criticisms" and disagree. Anyone can look at any research study on any subject in existence and use the argument: "If only there were more participants in the study, the results would be different." What a profound analysis! What can you expect from someone who starts their discussion with ""Holy homeopathy, Batman!" Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Your personal attack against another editor does not constitute constructive discussion to improve an article. How does this help improve the Potassium dichromate article? Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Scientizzle, "Chest" is the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians, and I'm glad that we both agree that it is at the very least one of the leading pulmonary medicine journals in the world. And thanx for telling that I am allowed to reference websites and non-RS sources on the Talk pages. Your comments are ironic in the light of the fact that some other editors assert that I am referencing unreliable sources, such as peer-review journals, when you recommend that I simply source websites of individuals. As for the NOTABILITY of this medicine, the chemical about which THIS article is focused, is also a homeopathic medicine (we all agree upon this point). As such, it is totally appropriate to mention that homeopathic physicians use this medicine as a treatment for COPD and that one study published in a major medical journal has shown efficacy of treatment using this medicine. I do not propose saying that this is a regular treatment used in conventional hospitals (thus, I agree with your statement about this "treatment is not a current medical reality"...though personally, this is not the best way to say what you mean...but I think we both know what you mean). I am simply recommending that we make reference to the fact that homeopathic physicians use this chemical for patients with COPD and there is at least one study that shows that it is effective in reducing tracheal secretions from the throat and reducing the length of stay in a hospital. Does THAT work? DanaUllmanTalk 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No one seems to have pointed out one rather important thing. The Frass paper was not really a trial in COPD. It is a very strange paper to have chosen if you want to show that homeopathy has been found to treat COPD. In the Frass paper, and yes Dana I have read it before we head off down another detour, studied patients in an ICU for reasons that are not specified in the paper. Let me illustrate this by asking you, Dana, one question- Tell me why Frass's were patients in the ICU and how were their main clinical problems distributed between the treatment groups? The presence of COPD in some of those patients was just a co-factor of unknowable importance. COPD is not even in the title of the paper, just a mention of a proxy end-point. The proxy end-points to their study are rather remotely connected to the actual clinical problem of COPD. If you want to discuss K Dichromate as a treatment for COPD, find us a well-designed study where COPD is the main clinical problem being addressed. Can we put away the execrable Frass paper once and for all? OffTheFence (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow...now I'm really confused. Did I miss something? Where was the consensus here on adding the Head-on product? By the way, Scientizzle, you and I previously developed consensus on the Chest paper here [20]. And more recently, you agreed to make reference to the fact that a study was conducted on patients with COPD.[21] Your position seems to ebbing and flowing and is getting confusing. You also previously asserting that the Chest study didn't verify "medical relevance." I'm not totally clear what you mean by that, though one would assume that a 45% reduction in the hospital stay of patients with this extremely common and extremely serious disease would be very medically relevant. Is there some wiki-policy about which I don't know that references "medical relevance" or is this primarily your own definition for a requirement here. I hope you realize that this dialogue is evidence for the Arb committee of the difficulties that homeopathic articles experience. DanaUllmanTalk 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for asking, Shoe. Are you ready for this? First, I will refer to the Lancet's editorial, December 10, 1994, p. 1585. The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either anser suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us toconclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) Isn't it interesting that I continually teach you new and important information from RS, and yet, you and your friends seemingly want to ban me from wikipedia. DanaUllmanTalk 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
Frass/Chest Paper was archived
| It's all over folks, per Scientizzle's suggestion, this is archive material. Baegis (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
I archived the recent discussion on the Chest paper because it was starting to go off-topic and frankly, it was past the point of helping the article. If anyone has a serious problem with this, please tell me in reply to this post. Otherwise, let's just all move on because we need to back away from the horse. Baegis (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
When i read the Frass paper (about three months ago) and looked at the response from the scientific community my comment was:
What has changed since three months ago? David D. (Talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Scientizzle, no, not at all. Did you see your words: "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. " [30] It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time. You clearly say that you're NOT against inclusion...this strongly suggests that the conversation is open. I hope that you will stop stonewalling. You did recommend providing reference to this study in at least a minimalistic way. Therefore, I continue to assert that the archiving of the active conversation is part of a bullying behavior conducted without consensus, in a WP:TE manner with the audacity to inaccurately blame me for TE. DanaUllmanTalk 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Given recent events, Dana has been topic banned. Hopefully we can now move on. I'd advise that this line of conversation just end--nobody seeking a "last word"--and would support an archive of this section. — Scientizzle 18:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Head On
I have no problem with Scientizzle adding that little bit about homeopathy into the article. I think it's a little much, per WP:UNDUE but if it will keep the piece, I am all aboard. Referencing Head On is a good idea because I am sure we are all familiar with the product and their commercials. Baegis (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's rather Americocentric to presume that everyone is familiar with an American product line's commercials. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- True, but the Zinc gluconate article mentions Cold-eeze, which is, from what I gather, an American product. Baegis (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Safety
Pls excuse this long comment if too verbose, inflamatory, whirly-twirly, etc. I am serious about the topic. No financial interest in potassium dichromate. All standard disclaimers apply.
Greetings, I want to send up a flare and propose to make changes to the Safety section, because I suspect the toxicology information therein is out of date. I also want to point out that the safety section is not accurate wrt the data on the cited source's current web page. I want to do the edits and will commit to doing them soon, but wanted to solicit comments, ferret out collaborators to design this section with, and perhaps even get someone to offer me a wise word about reducing or developing a broader scope for the Safety topic.
Right now, I think that correcting this potassium dichromate article is important, because sections of the main article report on intriguing potential for producing novel or technically-advanced results in woodworking and photography by using potassium dichromate (BTW, photography author: BRAVO, thank you).
I think the intrigue means it is likely that many hobbyists and professionals in those fields, some of whom are unsophisticated about chemicals and safety, are already using it (or contemplating doing so), and I'd like for this section to do a better job of presenting concise, crucial information to that audience while they're researching, while they're still looking into it, because I think it can be done safely, with the proper knowledge, which I think could be covered at 30,000 feet, or in cross-section, as a summary survey in a few paragraphs.
To the point I raised about accuracy of the current article, please make note of the following comparison, showing the Safety author's statement about lethality versus the actual tox data source cited in that footnote. I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of comprehension in the article than I am about getting the right Lethal Dose data into the article.
Wiki article: "It is also toxic, with doses of approximately 100 mg/kg being fatal in rabbits and rodents."
Cited source's data (decoded):
100 mg potassium dichromate per kilo of bodyweight is the lowest reported lethal dose when administered onto the skin of mouse test subjects.
28 mg per kilo ... intravenously in rabbit test subjects. 163 mg per kilo ... orally to guinea pig test subjects. 177 mg per kilo, administered orally, killed 50% of rat test subjects.
To the point about my suspicion that the Safety article is outdated:
I have found one recently-published MSDS on the web, published in 2008 by a major chemical company in the US, that specifically supercedes their MSDS dated 2005. The 2008 MSDS reports potassium dichromate toxicity as much higher than the current article's cited source does. The cited source's data was last updated on March 29, 2005.
Comments here, thanks.
Sign me,
Writealong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writealong (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Oxidising agent
19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD Some 40 years ago, an 'old boy's book on chemistry' gave the recipes for two flash powders, one)KMnO4 + Mg, the other) K2Cr2O7 + Al. The first, I have discussed in another section, the latter, I never did test. The Ammonium salt OF 'DICHROMATE' is a brilliant fuel/oxiser combined, especially if you wish to make mountains of green chromic acid. Another little gem, from the same book ( the title of which I no longer recall).It was however, generally an accurate text, though I have never come across this reaction since. I have no doubt it would indeed 'flash', though I can see some very real probable dangers, more extreme than the mag/permanganate mix. I leave it open for any who may wish to further 'enlighten' us on this topic. 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad (talk • contribs)
Preparation
This page seems a little thin. Where is the section on preparation? Vmelkon (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- ^ KALIUM BICHROMICUM hosted by http://homeoint.org
- ^ Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L; et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Kalium bichromicum hosted by http://homeoint.org
- ^ https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/335/25/1864
- ^ http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/20/2561
- ^ http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00473473?recr=open&intr=homeopathy&rank=1
- ^ http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15987408
- ^ Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M; et al. (2005). "Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients". Chest. 127 (3): 936–41. doi:10.1378/chest.127.3.936. PMID 15764779.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)