Talk:Bach flower remedies

On the origin and action/non-action of Bach Flower Remedies
moved Probrooks discussion from my (AaadaamS) talk page to here, where it belongs

Hi, I just want to comment on some of your revisions on my edits to the Bach flower remedy page.

Regarding Bach Remedies, you can only claim he imagined healing properties, this is a personal point of view which is not objective or neutral, as it also implying that Bach is a charlatan, that he is "making it up", again that would be a personal point of view or represent a point of view which is not neutral. WP:5P2

You should back up this claim that he used his imagination, as he himself would not state this in his own writings.

You state in your editing comments, "there is no known mechanism which explains how any such transferral works" or comments to this effect regarding Bach flower remedies. That there is no known mechanism by which bach remedies may work which is known may simply mean the mechanism is yet undiscovered by science. Science of 2015 has not discovered all mechanisms of possible action - surely?

Also, Bach remedies are not a dilution, they are not homeopathic preparations. The beginning of the article implies they are supposed to contain some physical substance, when that is not actually the case, unlike homeopathy when there is generally some amount of substances, the Bach remedies are considered to be only vibrational remedies.

It is worth noting that Bach remedies have not undergone extensive scientific research with decent sample sizes, so we cannot know for sure whether they work or not (from a truly neutral point of view)

By the way I should point out I make flower essences as a hobby, and last year made many in northern Norway. People commonly report amazingly clear dreams and a great feeling of clarity after taking them. I have been making flower essences for almost 20 years.

My experience of making flower essences, is that the flower actually talks to the individual who is making the essence and tells them of their qualities. You cannot tell me this process is one of imagination, except as your own personal belief.

This may seem curious to the western mind, but this is common sense to most indigenous people, who have been talking to plants for many thousands of years in many different cultures and it is common practice for those in many different cultures to do so.

Probrooks (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are indeed manufacturing these concoctions yourself and you earn an income (however small), you are required to list your conflict of interest on this talk page, see Conflict of interest in the "Declaring an interest" section. It is good that you are honest about this.
 * You are not a WP:RS reliable source in the Wikipedia sense when it comes to medical claims, see WP:MEDRS.
 * Bach himself is the primary source on this subject, we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources on the methods that he used.
 * The correct place for this discussion is the talk page of the article, so I moved it here.
 * And yes, these are dilutions, it would be factually incorrect to call them preparations because the word implies that the liquids have medical benefit when there is no reliable source stating that they do. Calling them preparations would mislead the readers of this article. As far as reliable sources say, these are liquids where something has been dissolved and that's a dilution. There's no such thing as a vibrational anything.
 * These dilutions have been examined scientifically and have been found to have no intrinsic medical agency. Claiming that they do is indeed at best imaginative.
 * I would not write that Edward Bach is a charlatan (that's your interpretation) because he was an educated physician and he may have contributed usefully in other areas. I would rather write that he was mistaken on the healing potency of his dilutions than he was a charlatan.
 * And in general it is up to the person making strong statements as to the mechanisms of these concoctions to come up with the references to support the claims. As editors, we are supposed to be discussing sources.
 * AadaamS (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagination is always a factor if the subject or clinician has knowledge of the intervention. That is the whole reason for double blinding of clinical trials. Still, no outside observer could know what he imagined or believed. No reliable source could exist to justify statements in the voice of the encyclopedia regarding his state of mind. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi LeadSongDog, thanks for your input. So then we write neither believed nor imagined? My preference would he he claimed this or that because that's an action and doesn't refer to the state of mind. AadaamS (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to read wp:WTW, particularly the wp:CLAIM section. "Claimed" is regarded as casting doubt on the veracity of the thing claimed. "Said", "declared", "asserted", "wrote" are neutral alternatives. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I was unaware of this guideline and thanks for pointing it out. AadaamS (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog,


 * There's no such thing as a vibrational anything.

That is a personal interpretation. Flower essences are in fact marketed as such. And so there is a certain measure of disrespect and disregard in dismissing the beliefs and practices of others - as a non-thing! Again, this is not WP:5P2. Shouldn't wikipedia accurately share and communicate the beliefs and ideas of others in a neutral manner when in fact communicating about the subject matter? And not attempt to tell others what is real or not real? It is up to the reader to make up their own mind, not for wikipedia to preach any particular ideological viewpoint if indeed this pillar of neutrality is abided to.


 * These dilutions have been examined scientifically and have been found to have no intrinsic medical agency. Claiming that they do is indeed at best imaginative.

This is not the issue, as Bach remedies are not designed to treat medical conditions, but typically emotional, mental or psychic states. People may use them as comforting agents, say the Bach rescue remedy, and that could be perceived as placebo by some. Others say it is because there is an actual action of the life force of the flower upon the individual.

Again, dilutions is the incorrect term. There is never supposed to any physical substance of the flower in the final product, unlike homeopathic products. People who make flower essences consider the vibration or essence of the flower is carried into the water, as water is considered a kind of conductor and carried of such information. These understandings are not accurately reflected in this page, and it just looks like uninformed editors trying to make flower essences look like homeopathic preparations.


 * * I would not write that Edward Bach is a charlatan (that's your interpretation) because he was an educated physician and he may have contributed usefully in other areas. I would rather write that he was mistaken on the healing potency of his dilutions than he was a charlatan.

You misinterpreted me. To say he imagined the effects of the flowers, rather than using a form of intuition or other form of understanding - is to imply charlatism.

As someone who knows about these essences, and makes my own, I understand how difficult it is for individuals to believe and understand how powerful they can be. It still amazes me to be honest. I don't doubt there is an effect, a mechanism of action, which science has hitherto not yet understood. If we truly want this article to be neutral, it should be open to the possibility of such a mechanism of action, which would also mean that millions of people are not deluding themselves regarding what they are experiencing or by giving placebo an excessive power.


 * And in general it is up to the person making strong statements as to the mechanisms of these concoctions to come up with the references to support the claims. As editors, we are supposed to be discussing sources.

The scientific data on flower essences and Bach remedies is clearly very slim! The present page does not go into detail ANY of the studies on flower essences as others have mentioned on this talk page, and instead leans toward considering them a form of charlatism as simply quoting Edzard Ernst which I think doesn't really inform the reader very much as to what scientific studies have been carried out and for what conditions.

This article gives a more thorough overview of the science carried out on Bach remedies in a more neutral manner.

http://sososcience.com/2013/05/29/bach-flower-remedies-do-they-work/

I think it is easy to see that thorough scientific testing of flower essences/Bach remedies has not yet occurred, as only a few issues have been tested.

The clinical trial using Bach Remedies for depression linked here suggests that flower essences are very effective as stated by others on this talk page.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75640.php

Probrooks (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our policies about medical (including psychologically active substances) really do force us to reflect the current scientific understanding of these products. Wikipedia should avoid giving any undue weight to small, unreliale studies and non-expert opinions which might misrepresent these fringe topics. This is especially true of remedies that pruport to cure serious diseases such as depression. Please refer to WP:MEDRS.


 * As far as mainstream science is concerned, there is no reliable study that suggests that these remedies are effective at treating anything. Also the notion that fluids can posess "vibrational energies" is a highly speculative notion with no grounding in actual science. As yet nobody has been able to detect a "vibrational energy" of the sort you appear to be proposing. These are claims which you may hold dear but have no place in Wikipedia unless you can provide suitable medically reliable sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

--Salimfadhley (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Salimfadhley,

Once again, Flower essences and Bach remedies are considered primarily for helping to facilitate a shift in perception and being within the self and personality. If you read the list of Bach remedies, and their qualities and what emotional issues they are designed to treat, you will see this. This is certainly a hole in this article, and when I have time, I may start work on such an addition to the article.

http://www.bachcentre.com/centre/remedies.htm

I am not saying there should be any claim that vibrational energy exists on the wikipedia page, only that it is through this mechanism of action that proponents say they Bach Remedies do work, rather than stressing they are ONLY a dilution, which quite frankly, looks completely foolish on this page. We can say, Bach believed and proponents believe they work through a certain mechanism, which I think should be clarified.

I don’t hold vibrational energy “dear” as you indeed claim. I only experience the effects of flower essences/Bach remedies as self evident and believe we should report the mechanism of action as proposed by Bach and others who utilise these remedies, rather than impose the present medical view as the truth, which again is not neutral.

The amount of scientific studies on Bach remedies is so slim and to used to treat particular conditions like stress and anxiety, I myself would not expect any positive result, and so I believe these studies are basically useless.

>As yet nobody has been able to detect a "vibrational energy" of the sort you appear to be proposing.

To say that nobody has been able to detect vibrational energy is incorrect. Vibrational energy has been detected by people of many cultures for thousands of years and the words Prana (from India) and Chi (from China) communicate a direct awareness of vibrational energy.

In terms of scientific studies and research on vibrational energy, there certainly is research, but this is not the place to discuss that.

I’d honestly like to see more scientific research on Bach Flower remedies and flower essences in general and I don’t think Bach Remedies are so fringe, as many pharmacies in the world today contain rescue remedy.

Skepticism and doubt have their place, but also personal viewpoints and ideologies of doubt which attempt to close the case betray neutrality.

Skeptically minded need to temper their viewpoint, practices and point of view with some respect toward the point of view and beliefs of others, which at the very least, should be clearly communicated if the subject is being discussed.

Probrooks (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey User:Probrooks this isn't a forum - and neither your or my opinion about this subject counts for much. What matters is the reliable secondary sources we can find for the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi mystic energy already has its own article, see Energy (esotericism). Also I would like to point out that editors who prevail in talk page discussions are ususally those that overwhelm their opponents with WP:RS and none of the sources you have given so far qualify as WP:MEDRS. In fact, one of the sources you posted (sososcience) are explicitly discouraged for use by Wikipedia editors, such as blogs WP:SPS. The dearth of scientific data should be an indication to the subject's lack of a scientific foundation. AadaamS (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

——

Thanks for the link! User:AadaamS I'll have to contribute to that Energy (esotericism) page, as there are actually a lot of studies that have been carried on such energy which are not mentioned and it is yet another biased page talking in absolutes.

No, this is not a forum, but I'm discussing this subject with people here who edit this page who clearly don't know much about bach remedies, in the hope they can become a bit more informed about them. I wonder how many people who are watching this page have actually taken bach flower remedies/flower essences? I will spend time gathering more sources for this article soon enough.

The dearth of scientific data only speaks of the lack of money in flower essences. Some of the studies that have been done, had issues with people not actually taking the remedies! I also question whether medical sources are required at all, Bach remedies largely treat states of mind and emotion, not physical diseases or psychological conditions. Although, I did post that study which strongly indicates bach remedies may be useful for treating depression. Bach Remedies are also technically considered "food stuffs" and not medicines.

http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/157-bach-flower-remedies-foods-not-medicines.html

Probrooks (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Probrooks, please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia before making any contributions. The rules might seem unintuative but I'd urge you to stick with us and try to understand things before you get into another deep discussion. This really isn't the forum to try to change the rules. In general appeals to personal expertise in a subject will not be well received on Wikipedia - what we actually require are reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * hi there are guidelines that have stood the test of time when it comes to editing medical and scientific topics and any edits you do that do not confirm to those are overwhelmingly likely to be reverted. All editors must follow the rules on sourcing or else Wikipedia will turn into a blog. If you find these guidelines too constricting, I can only encourage you to seek other outlets for your desire to write about your personal opinions such as Wikia or a blog of your own. A user's personal experience is largely irrelevant when writing in Wikipedia, what matters is good sourcing. The ground rule is very simple: do not add anything to Wikipedia that can't be WP:V verified (read the link) by reliable sources, those are described here: WP:RS (read this). Failure to adhere to guidelines will lead to your account being blocked, especially after having been made aware of those same guidelines. Finding reliable sources for medical subjects is outlined in this guideline: WP:MEDRS. AadaamS (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

--

Salimfadhley Simply put, there are many aspects which are not well written because the editors don't have first hand or even extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Obviously, many editors just see some "WOO" here, therefore the tone is writing which has been set, is often disrespectful to the subject matter - as well as being inaccurate.

Secondary sources are one thing, but the wording referencing such sources should be accurate and clear, and reflect an understanding of the subject matter so as to communicate about it to the general public in an purely factual and not emotive or biased manner.

As I stated above, I am going to spend some time finding reliable sources on this subject matter.

AadaamS As I have just stated, Bach flower remedies are now not considered medicines, but food stuffs in the UK. Therefore, they do not fall under being a medical subject. I do not understand what basis for your claim that Bach flower remedies are a medical or scientific topic? And therefore should require WP:MEDRS? Can you please explain this?

Probrooks (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Any claim within an article that BFR have any medical benefit ("better dreams/digestion") or scientific property (such as "energy") needs to be backed up by sources, even if the subject as a whole concerns food, building materials or whatnot. UK authorities cannot relieve the editors of this subject of their duty to back up scientific or medical claims. There is no guideline to stop you from writing about the taste, texture or nutritional value of BFRs as food as long as those statements are sourced. AadaamS (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog

You say Bach flower remedies cannot be called "preparations", however this is exactly how the Oxford dictionary defines them.

"Preparations of the flowers of various plants used in a system of complementary medicine intended to relieve ill health by influencing underlying emotional states."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bach-flower-remedies

Probrooks (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me, it was AadaamS. Please read more carefully. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Clicking preparation in the link you provided shows the word can be used for either food or medicine, perhaps the OED intended food. It's clearer for the reader to be unambiguous and use a word which doesn't imply medicine at all. AadaamS (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the point is moot - Bach Flower Remediesm whether categorized as food or something else purport to have some kind of medicinal or psychological effect beyond what we might expect from a solution of ethanol and water. For example, the US website claims that the produce is able to replace negaive emotions with positive emotions. It is precicely this claim that is unproven and must never be misrepresented on Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but also, we should be clear about the claim that is being made, and that claim should be represented clearly, without prematurely shooting it down because of the sketpical agendas of some editors.

Clearly communicating the nature of Bach remedies I think lets readers make up their own mind. A lot of the syntax here I find too persuasive in nature and one sided, just because a handful of studies were carried out on Bach remedies and materialists can see no way they can work, doesn't mean that many people don't take them seriously and in their practices see major changes, shifts and healing in people. Although, many people would like to think they can only be a placebo, that is still only a point of view, which is not a NPOV.

Probrooks (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These remedies are obvious quackery & nonsense - that's the reality, not just a "POV" and of course respectable sources say so. Wikipedia's purpose is not to indulge lunatic viewpoints. Unless there's some proposal for article improvement based on viable sources I suggest we close this section as pointless. Alexbrn (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn Of course it is a personal point of view the remedies are "quackery and nonsense". The use of flower essences and Bach remedies is quite prevalent in the wider world (beyond the borders of the UK), and they are not actually a lunatic subject matter. This is of course a personal value judgement, and represents an attack on people who work with bach remedies as lunatics! I'd like to think we are just discussing this subject as an overview as most editors here clearly do not believe that Bach remedies can be anything but placebo. I have plans to edit this article and am presently doing so to make it less biased, with many new reliable sources. Thanks! Probrooks (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reality is not a viewpoint, nor do we pretend it is. If you want to promote this kind of nonsense, you'll need to do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

-

Dear Alexbrn It is not a matter of promoting "nonsense", but ensuring this article is neutral and fair regarding the different points of view, scientific studies in the world about this subject and presenting them fairly and clearly.

I just found an article by Edzard Ernst and the first line communicates "Bach flower remedies (BFR) are amazingly popular." Which tends to highlight what I say about BFR's as not being lunatic or fringe as you would like to think.

http://edzardernst.com/2015/10/bach-flower-remedies-too-good-to-be-true/

Edzard communicates here about a recent randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial which shows that BFR cream can help treat carpal tunnel syndrome. He admits he doesn't know what to think about this study, as it appears "too good to be true" This is worth noting, as Edzard is perhaps the most prominent critic regarding the efficacy and science behind BFR's.

It is worth reading the comments too. Cheers!

Probrooks (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * dear Probooks. We do not "promote nonsense" here. You need to thoroughly read our WP:PAG before making further clumsy edits to articles. This will not be allowed to continue. Follow Policy and you'll be OK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As Edzard said:
 * I have to admit, I am not sure. It was published in one of the worst journals I know which has attracted our attention on this blog before. It was published by authors from Cuba who I know nothing about. More importantly, its findings sound far too good to be true.
 * If I had been the editor in charge, I would have asked for the original data and had them re-analysed by an independent statistician. As we cannot do that, our only option is to apply common sense and wait for an independent replication before conceding that BFR are effective.
 * So the source fails WP:MEDRS and the findings are implausible. And we're supposed to include that in order to "balance" the reality-based perspective? I think not. See WP:PARITY.
 * And no, the marketing claims of flower remedy vendors do not confer validity on the vague and nonsensical "vibrational" claims. Vibration is objectively measurable, you'd need to show measurement of frequencies and amplitudes, along with credible evidence that this has any therapeutic effect. Along the way you'll need to overcome the second law of thermodynamics. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

'He imagined that early-morning sunlight passing through dew-drops on flower petals transferred the healing power of the flower onto the water,' obviously expresses a point of view. Changing 'imagined' to 'believed' or something like 'asserted' would repair this. Edzard Ernst always concludes that it's 'only' the placebo effect. Snugglepuss (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Does strong alcohol have no effect?
I'm just wondering why this article and other systematic reviews do not reference the alcohol in the solutions. It's not an inconsiderable strength and the alcohol may have a very real affect - I've not found any reference to this in any of the peer reviewed literature - can anyone else find anything on this? It strikes me the method of saying it is a placebo effect is invalid as the placebo in this paper also contained alcohol - so perhaps the test should be for micro-dosing brandy! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088761850100069X Jack Nunn 03:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that source is related to another subject no? Were you just thinking out loud or have you see. Something specifically related to the effects of alcohol in BFR correction, I was opening the wrong thing. Edaham (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.bachcentre.com/en/remedies/ https://www.directlyfromnature.com/How_to_take_the_Bach_Flower_Remedies_p/fr-004.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  19:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)