Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 30

popularity
I support Jossi's edits, though I have some problem with the last statement about scientific basis. First, I don't agree we should link the statement about popularity with the statement about its lack of scientific basis, in the same sentence, with "despite". This is not a huge point, but this construction does have a tendency to evoke something of a social commentary (ie, it's not scientific but they like it anyway), which I'm sure is not the intent here. I would make two sentences: "...and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. However, it lacks scientific basis."

Second, there are some studies that seem to show it is effective (whether or not they are flawed is another question), and that can be considered "scientific basis" in some sense. So to clarify:

(remove bolding in final version, of course).(Note of admission: the "clear evidence" part I got from Citizendium's draft article [here]. I also added elucidation to Samuel Hahnemann. Friarslantern (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is good, but the use of "however" is a bit editorializing. Rather that using "however", you can start the sentence without characterization: .. and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. Homeopathy lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond that of the placebo effect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "however" is a very comonly used word. Smith Jones (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest a variation on the above. It's an attempt to shorten sentences and make the paragraph a bit more readable.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Friarslantern's version as edited by Wanderer57 is the best yet. Very nice, that bit of context "one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine" is very necessary. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I googled for evidence, but could not find any that homeopathy was in the top 5 or so. I did find:
 * There are more than 100 systems of alternative medicines, still in practice all over the world. Every country, region or area has its own traditional system of health and medical care such as for the Chinese it is acupuncture, for the French, magnetic healing; for the Germans, Heilpraxis;for the Sfitish - Herbatism, for India - Ayurveda; for the Muslim countries - Unani; for the southern part of the country - Siddha; for Japan - shiatsu etc.


 * The most popular forms of alternative medicine are Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, Siddha, Naturopathy,Yoga therapy, Acupuncture, Acupressure, Magneto therapy, Shiatsu, Medical herbalism, Meditation, Aroma therapy, Bach flower remedies, Gem therapy, Chromolherapy, Hydropathy, Diet Therapy etc. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really like Wanderer57's version but I am concerned that by simplifying it may let the reader think that simple dilution is all that is required. The method of repeated dilutions and succussions is regarded as essential by homeopaths. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahnemann would reject the word 'invented' and claim that he discovered homeopathy. A slight difference. Invented also implies a subtle suspicion that it has just been knocked together and made rather than found. Peter morrell 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, tough luck, that's the reality. We are under no "protecting Samuel Hahnemann's feelings" policy here.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please change "premise" to "idea" at least? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Idea" is better than "premise", I think, as the latter takes the mind in the direction of deductive logic.


 * The article on Sir James Simpson says: "Simpson discovered the anaesthetic properties of chloroform and— against medical and religious opposition— successfully introduced it for general medical use." Note "discovered" rather than "invented".


 * Here is my revised version, based on these notes. I also made two other changes, to reduce the wordiness slightly.


 * I hope this moves the paragraph in a useful direction. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that this version is very much neutral in tone and any important omitted details are surely to be provided directly in the article, I would endorse this language. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the word "discovered". I prefer the term "first described". It also says homeopathy is an alternative medicine twice --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't Hippocrates describe it too? &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? If so, that can be worked into the statement, and "discovered" can become "re-discovered".  Jehochman  Talk 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"First described" or "first defined" (which I prefer now) is a common term in history of science etc. --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First described is fine by me! Peter morrell 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hippocrates, over 2000 years ago wrote that there were two approaches to healing: (i) the use of contraries (Antipathic medicine) or (ii) similars (Homeopathic medicine)." from "An introduction to homeopathy" by Mary Aspinwall


 * Hmm... Did he really use the word homeopathy (No)? Did he use dilution and shaking with banging (No)? I think that might be worth a mention in the article, but it's a bit tenuous. Also seems odd to use "anti" but then not "iso". Does this meet RS? --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a further revised version, to remove the repetition of "form of alternative medicine" (good catch) and provide another option to "invented" and "discovered".


 * ??? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In an almost inconceivably belated and probably fruitless attempt to further my classical education, DrEightyEight, please tell me how you know that Hippocrates did not use the word "homeopathy"? I gather, based on the first sentence of our draft opening, that the word comes from Greek.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It hasn't ever been reported that he did (that I'm aware), but I did mean the word homeopathy as we understand it here (dilution and shaking) --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly he didn't speak the same language as we do, and his words are at best translated, but if he did use cure by similar then that is the essence of homeopathy, according to Hahnemann. As for dilution and shaking, that's absolutely a crucial distinction, though so often unmentioned and not mentioned in this paragraph at all. &mdash;Whig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't speak ancient Greek? :) --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So much for my classical ed. Back to small appliance repair. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people seem upset about shaking not being being mentioned, so how about:


 * I've put "potentialized" in italics as it isn't yet defined. The same would be true of "succussed". I avoided shaking as I thought some might think it trivialises things --DrEightyEight (talk)


 * edited &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The popularity of homeopathy is irrelevant -- it's not quite as popular as astrology, but more popular than phrenology.
 * BTW, homeopathy may be derived from Greek, but that has no bearing on it's modern roots. Look up "coprotic" -- my neologism based on "copros" but not found in Greek.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence of use
The article currently says that "usage varies from only two percent of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year,[18][19] to 15 percent in India". Yet the article by Ernst says that "across Europe approximately a quarter of the population uses homeopathy". How can this be reconciled? Unfortunately Ernst refers to an article in J. Australian Traditional-Medicine Society that I haven't been able to find. Perhaps the two papers used different definitions of the frequency of use necessary to count as a "user". Or perhaps the UK is very different from the rest of Europe (I've heard that homeopathy is very popular in Germany and France). Does anyone have access to the Australian journal, or know of other studies of use in other European countries? --Itub (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of conflicting data 'out there' about prevalaence of use and when the rewrite was being done in August we found that very little is from RS, so User:Wikidudeman decided to limit the phrases to what could be stated with confidence. It is true that homeopathy is very popular throughout Europe and as you say in France and Germany especially, but it is in India and Pakistan where it is in very common use indeed. It is not very common in the USA. It is also common in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Cuba and with only a limited presence in Russia, Eastern Europe, Greece, Middle East and Africa. Problem is getting data from RS to show all this. The phrase you refer to is a compromise based on RS sources. Hope that explains. Peter morrell 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article improvements and incentives
I will give a barnstar to the editor, or editors, who implement the non-controversial (I hope) improvements listed at Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2. I refer to the style issues reported by the automated script. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While the prospect of incentives doesn't sit well with me, making a non-controversial improvement to the article should be fine. I'll get to work on applying these, time permitting. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a bottle of Scotch? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bah! Twas made by a little old lady in Leningrad. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Chekov. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with the latest version of the opening sentences
I have some concerns with the latest version of suggestions for the opening sentences of the lead, 2 of which have been pointed out by Whig and Peter morrell:
 * (1) Simply saying "highly diluted" is incorrect, since it implies that this is all that is done. Wrong! If you just dilute something repeatedly, you will weaken it and eventually have nothing left but the diluent. This misunderstanding is one reason many dismiss homeopathy as ridiculous, and it would be and it would be - if that were all that was done. It is the "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serially diluted and shaken between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) conveys the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent.
 * (2) Hahnemann did not believe he "invented" homeopathy. He believed he re-discovered it, having researched healing texts from earlier centuries.
 * (3) The "keep it simple" principle that jossi advocated above is helpful in this. To immediately launch into questioning whether homeopathy even works (beyond placebo) is inappropriate. Here is my suggestion:


 * Quotes from those asserting opinions can be included in the body of this article. Remember, we're simply writing an encyclopedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Simply saying "highly diluted" is incorrect, - explain 30C. Por favor.  Bitte. S'il vous plais.  Per favore.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above reads like an advertisement. "One of the most popular" is a red flag. Says who? I suggest that the homeopathy promoters and detractors stop trying to spin the article in their preferred direction. I hope that editors who do not have strong feelings can draft a lead with neutral tone, and that everyone else will support this effort. Jehochman Talk 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm warming to the version being worked out in the "popular" section above --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman asked: "One of the most popular" is a red flag. Says who?"

The popularity is discussed at length in: Peter Fisher, "Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe" BMJ 1994;309:107-111 (9 July)  We can reference this article in the lead. (I've just added it into the suggestion above.) Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a better version than the one Wanderer57 most recently offered, for the reasons you stated, it does include a more clear description of what homeopathic medicines are and how they are made. If we omit the succussion step in describing homeopathic medicine, we present a straw man that everyone agrees has no effects and should not be characterized as homeopathic medicine. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to address these issues in Wanderer57s version --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Three quick points, then I'm off to try to earn that bottle of Scotch.


 * 1) We are discussing the same paragraph in about three sections now. Chaos city.


 * 2) The wording "one of the most popular" has appeared in 6 or so versions above.  It's not something I threw in.  The change I made was simply from "continues to be one of the most popular"  TO "is one of the most popular".  I think that practically speaking, "continues to be" is just a long-winded way of saying "is".


 * 3) The editors are very concerned, and rightly so, about the wording being accurate, neutral, and so on. However, I don't think enough attention is being paid to trying to make something that is readable.  Editors who have been poring over a subject in detail greatly overestimate what level of complexity can be readily understood by an "average" reader.  "Keep it short and simple."  Wanderer57 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that one has to have the first sentence be short, readable and an accurate summary. I still think that the word "controversial" is needed, or something comparable. To parse things very carefully to claim there is no controversy within homeopathy, and no controversy within allopathy, and that the controversy only exists between the two groups etc is not helpful for the average reader. The average reader should know it is controversial. Why not?

I do not think it should be assumed or demanded that the readers will read several paragraphs down from the top to get more of the mainstream view. If I had to say one word that described homeopathy, I would say "controversial".--Filll (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then we can add to "despite its lack of scientific confirmation" to change it to "despite controversy and the lack of scientific confirmation".


 * Is it agreeable to everyone for me to go ahead and change the beginning of the lead to this suggested wording? Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What happens if we put important things first?
Let's take:
 * Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases. These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent. Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific confirmation.

Identify things by importance, one listing which might look like this (to get the above):


 * 1) Homeopathy
 * 2) (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease")
 * 3) is a form of alternative medicine
 * 4) that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases.
 * 5) These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent.
 * 6) Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine,
 * 7) despite its lack of scientific confirmation

Or reordered like the below to get the below:


 * 1) Homeopathy
 * 2) popular
 * 3) alternative medicine
 * 4) controversial, lack of scientific confirmation
 * 5) that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases.
 * 6) These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent.
 * 7) (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease")
 * 8) Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most

According to this importance first listing we get something like (with some added explanation):


 * Homeopathy is a popular alternative medicine that is controversial because of its lack of scientific plausibility and confirmation. It is based on the hypothesis that remedies for diseases can be created by taking substances which cause symptoms similar to that disease and repeatedly diluting and shaking them between each dilution. According to homeopathic theory therapeutic characteristics of the substance are transfered to the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol) but other qualities are not. The end product is so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but still has an effect on consumers. Standard science labels this a placebo; while standard medicine accepts the therapeutic value of placebos. It is also spelled "homœopathy" or "homoeopathy". The word is from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease". - WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Either the version by WAS 4.250 or my version (with "controversy" added) is acceptable to me. However, I would recommend keepting the 2 reference citations that I added. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because this version explains what controversial means, it is not weaselly. I think the information contained in the last sentence should be moved immediately after Homeopathy and placed in parentheses, because that is the normal way encyclopedia articles are written.  Otherwise, this formulation appears to comply with NPOV. Which version is chosen doesn't matter to me, as long as it complies with NPOV and other core policies. Jehochman  Talk 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not weaselly???!!! "...but still has an effect on consumers. Standard science labels this a placebo; while standard medicine accepts the therapeutic value of placebos." What the hell does that mean? This looks like it was written by a ten year old kid.200.104.207.53 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow sources
If compared to what it should be, we are writing a rather lousy article. Look at this source, and here are a few quotes:

Homeopathy has been the cause of much debate in the scientific literature with respect to the plausibility and efficacy of homeopathic preparations and practice.

Nonetheless, many consumers, pharmacists, physicians and other health care providers continue to use and practice homeopathic medicine and advocate its safety and efficacy. Regulated under federal Food and Drug Acts in Canada and the United States, homeopathic preparations are recognized as drugs in both countries,

Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.28-30,80-82 A similar situation exists with respect to in vivo studies of homoeopathic products used to treat plants and animals.83,84 Pharmacists should also be aware that there is currently no plausible mechanism of action postulated for homeopathy; even homeopathic doctors do not claim to know how it works.11

That is a good article, but is being used here, I think, merely to debunk, rather than to write a balanced treatment.

We need stuff like that. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to follow sources (and I'm talking mainly about the lead). Just a small sample seem to clear up debates above. For example, is Homeopathy controversial? Yes:

9. Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy?

Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). 

Further, we need to sound more like the sources:

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

Is Homeopathy rejected?

The American Medical Association does not accept homeopathy, but it doesn't reject it either. "The AMA encourages doctors to become aware of alternative therapies and use them when and where appropriate," says AMA spokesman Jim Fox.

Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has no specific policy on homeopathy. If an adult asked the academy's Sanders about homeopathy, he would tell that person to "do your own investigation. I don't personally prescribe homeopathic remedies, but I would be open-minded." 

Note that source:

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is the Federal Government's lead agency for scientific research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). We are 1 of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Mainstream sources here. The lead of this article doesn't sound like that. I'll look at the rest of it more tomorrow. This is just as I'm seeing it now, but it seems at the moment that the sources would solve our problems. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A government agency is a political creature. Many of these findings are influenced by the politics of those in power.  I do not think government agencies are particularly reliable, especially when they go against the weight of academic publications. Jehochman  Talk 12:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Generalisations are generally bogus &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Organizations that use the scientific method to evaluate claims all reject homeopathy because it has no rationale that would lead experts in physics and chemistry to believe it is even possible and also all experiments in physics and chemistry that demonstrate scientific results can repeated when followed exactly with the same outcome. On the other hand, organizations that are all about selling health care are willing to sell the customer what he is willing to pay for - especially since a placebo effect is in fact an actual effect that can help a believer - so why not sell whatever placebo they believe in. Convincing them it does not work destroys the placebo effect. Doctors lie to their patients everyday knowing a belief in a positive outcome is very important to getting a good outcome. It is important not to mix up the academic/scientific criteria with the medical/pharmacy/business criteria for what to tell people about homeopathy. Their methods and goals are different. As a NPOV encyclopedia we should tell the reader both, but be clear who is saying what and what reasons are given for what they say. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing against using NIH and the AMA as sources. This is not valid for Wikipedia. Your arguments are completely your POV, and have nothing to do with WP policy. Thus, they are not valid here. In fact, with the exception of Jehochman, the responses above seem not to be responding to the sources used- I don't even see the connection. These sources are the best kind for a WP article, and present the scientific consensus as best we have it. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion for a LEAD
How about something like --Filll (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Filll's version. I agree with Friarslantern that it is best to maintain the Wikipedia format of utilizing the word first, etymology second, and then definition. However, the following should be changed'':


 * "solvent" should be "soluent"
 * "dissolved" does not work as a descriptor for those remedies made from minerals - where "trituration" is utilized (a form of dilution, but not initially in liquid)
 * "has retained a certain popularity" creates the impression that there is a static number of users, when in fact the popularity is growing (see the reference I provided in my version).
 * One of the previous versions used: "According to homeopathic theory therapeutic characteristics . . " - which is not correct. The qualities and characteristics of the substance are believed to be transferred. These are not automatically considered "therapeutic". Unless there is the correct individualized matching of the remedy - and the correct potency level of the remedy - for that particular person, then there can be no "therapeutic" response by the person's physiology (according to the homeopathic theory).
 * PLEASE NOTE - I believe this belongs in the "Criticisms" section of this article - not in the lead: "It lacks, however, any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect." This gets into opinionated argumentation against the legitimacy of homeopathy. I believe that a more neutral way of stating that there is a controversy, without arguing that it is merely a "placebo" (which is a particular POV), would be: "''Homeopathy was discovered and defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, and it continues to be one of the more popular forms of alternative medicine, despite controversy and the lack of scientific confirmation.


 * Therefore, taking all this into consideration, this is my latest suggestion:


 * I await your comments. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before any comments were posted, someone went ahead and changed the lead to a version that I had pointed out had inaccuracies and problems. This individual ignored an entire day of discussions working toward a consensus regarding the wording of the lead sentences, and just changed it on his own. Is this the way things are to be done? All the discussion winds up being a waste of everyone's time, and someone just comes along and does what they please? Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Discuss your concerns with them, and work towards further edits to correct any inaccuracies. WAS 4.250 has a solid reputation.  Assume good faith. Jehochman  Talk 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussions here had not yet reached a consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit technical. Use "Homeopathy was originated and defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * Which seems to address most concerns, while still being short and to the point. --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * it sems that for the pruposes of clarity it would be best if we could list all the proposed leads in the same locaiton at the bottom of the page to allwo for easier reviewing and for us to be able to come a closer decisiosn about which one is closest to achieving consensus. Smith Jones (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the lead simple and short is a good goal, but accuracy is also.


 * (1) "highly diluted and potentized by succussion" is incorrect - (a) some remedies are not highly diluted, and are only 1x, 2x, etc. (b) "potentized" is the process of serial dilution and shaking; I believe my wording more accurately describes what the homeopathic concept is: "These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent."


 * (2) there had been comments on the need to mention "controversy" in the first lead sentences, and my wording does that: "continues to be one of the more popular forms of alternative medicine, despite controversy and the lack of scientific confirmation." - and I include 3 references supporting everything that is stated.


 * (3) Since Hippocrates, Paracelsus, and others centuries earlier described treating with "similars", it would be inaccurate to say Hahnemann "first defined" this or originated or invented it. My wording would be more accurate: "Homeopathy was discovered and defined by Samuel Hahnemann" Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that one needs to have one sentence that says what it is and why it is notable. Mine says what it is, very succinctly; a controversial form of alternative medicine. That is it. Why is it famous and/or noteworthy? Not for the law of similars. It is famous because some (not all) of the treatments involve preparations which some say are just water (note that of course not everyone says this). So I use "arguably", and state this. I do talk in very simple terms about the law of similars, but not until sentence 3 because frankly, that is not what makes homeopathy particularly interesting or unique. I do put that it is popular in sentence 2, but of course it is only popular in some places, and in some communities. Other communities think is complete nonsense or do not use it at all. Hahnemann of course was not the originator of this method, but he did investigate it quite extensively and compiled the different techniques into a single medical philosophy. Hahnemann is called the father of homeopathy, even if most if not all of the components of homeopathy were first devised by others. So it is better to be vague in the LEAD since there is not room to go into all the details. Similarly, discussing succussion and serial dilution in the first 4 or 5 sentences is just too detailed and technical. Also, if you say controversial and why it is controversial in the first sentence, very succinctly, you do not need to belabor the scientific support or medical disagreements with allopathy etc in the first few sentences. That can wait for the 3rd paragraph or 4th of the LEAD summarizing the material in the body.

What matters most is that in one sentence, you get all you need to know. Also, the first few sentences are accessible so someone can quickly look at it, and know what it is without forcing them to read a bunch of stuff.--Filll (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about (2):


 * Which seems to address most concerns, while still being short and to the point. First defined is accurate, as the dilution and "succussion" of "similars" was first defined as Homeopathy by Hahnemann. I'm also not averse to "controversial" going in the first line, per 3x3, giving:


 * using the neutral "however" rather than "despite". --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a strong objection, I will replace SVs version and the previous one with the second suggestion above. We can then continue working on this and the rest of the lead --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support your first version above, RDOlivaw-- though with the the technical changes mentioned below regarding "potentization" ironed out. Seems like you managed to digest and articulate all we've been talking about !
 * Strongly Oppose your second version, for reasons I've discussed -- if the topic deserves an entry, it deserves to be defined in its simplest terms first, with criticism, and social effects (controversy, popularity) following  Friarslantern (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I copy edited the lead a little, reduced it to four paragraphs per WP:LEAD, introduced the article by explaining the idea homeopathy is based on, and I introduced the Scottish study and the fact that the NHS (notoriously tight with its money) runs several homeopathy hospitals, which is obviously important to mention up front.

I suggest that the criticism be toned down a little, and attributed to whoever is making it. It's incongruous that the British NHS, which prides itself on financing evidence-based medicine, appears to take homeopathy seriously (at least to some degree), while we label it "quackery" without attributing that opinion. Also, the aggressive -- almost contemptuous -- language in the lead isn't neutral. These criticisms need to be written up in a disinterested tone. Apart from being more encyclopedic that way, the criticism would be taken more seriously if written differently, so opponents of homeopathy who have written this lead may be shooting themselves in the foot somewhat. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, my preference would have been a more thorough copy edit for flow, but the citation templates made that impossible. I did the best I could without removing them.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello SV. It was pretty difficult to see what your change were. What I do when I want to make edits and rearrangements is that I do it in at least two passes. i.e. I try to keep my edits separate from paragraph moves, so that it is easy for others to read the diffs. Then when I move paragraphs, I provide the edit summary "paragraph moves only". Need to check the diff before saving. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense SV, but the UK NHS is a pretty minor body in the world. Plus we have plenty of evidence that inside the NHS and the British Health establishment, funding homeopathy is highly controversial and might very well disappear in the near future. So I would not put much stock in that.

I am not positive one needs to use the word quackery, at least in the first couple of paragraphs, although it might be appropriate to state that some call it that with references in a single sentence of negative opinions in the paragraph discussing the controversy more fully in the LEAD. --Filll (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, is the most succinct word to describe homeopathy "popular"? Good heavens that is a stretch. In the US, which is considerably larger than the UK, it is a very minor treatment option. The homeopathic remedies which are sold in stores are never identified as homeopathic remedies, probably because of the stigma associated with it. Even where homeopathy is very common, in India, it does not begin to approach allopathy in popularity. And frankly, it is not unique in stating that "like cures like". That is not the distinguishing characteristic of homeopathy, although it is part of the philosophy of homeopathy. What it is best known for is its unique preparation of some remedies.--Filll (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a very minor treatment option in the UK too. 5 tiny homeopathic hospitals, some of which will be closing down soon. I've removed SV's edits as they introduced a bias in the other direction, and although it was long winded and slow we are moving towards a consensus here --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SlimVirgin is correct in her assessment about the sentences that were placed there yesterday: "aggressive -- almost contemptuous -- language in the lead isn't neutral". However, I still do not understand why 2 days of extensive discussions on this page - attempting to reach a harmonious consensus for the language in the lead - were just ignored and completely different language was placed there. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about my new suggestion above? The second one addresses your concerns, and is a good one I think --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it lasted nine minutes. Look, apart from anything else, the writing in the lead I changed was poor in parts. For example: "... is a popular alternative medicine that is controversial because of its lack of scientific plausibility and confirmation." That doesn't really mean anything. What is "scientific plausibility"? What is "scientific confirmation"? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at the time stamp, I just saw that the lead had been changed against consensus. I have suggested a new version above, and this discussion has been ongoing. Feel free to join in --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SV I agree with you about the language. That is really awkward wording. --Filll (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SV there is a 1RR in operation here, and we discuss things on the talk page first. Please revert back to the last version, and place your preferred version here for discussion. Note that I don't like the current lead, and have suggested improvements above --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think my version incorporates in a concise way all that needs to be said in the lead section. I also have concerns with the version by RDOlivaw:
 * "diluted and potentized" is incorrect language, since "potentized" means serial dilution and shaking (succussion)
 * "controversial" should not be in the very first sentence
 * SlimVirgin has some good ideas - but ignored the last 48 hours of discussions here on the wording for the lead sentences and the need to shorten the lead section Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You said above you wanted "controversy" in the first sentence of the lead. Would you like potentialized replaced with "shaken" or "succussed" --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * potentized means the combined process of dilution AND shaking ("succussion" means forceful shaking of the substance and diluent) Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * RDOlivaw, I like the word "common" in your version, although maybe not used in that identical way. I do think that your first sentence is too long, and I think that treating like with like is not the most unique thing about homeopathy for the first sentence. Look, many standard medical procedures treat "like with like" effectively. What about the use of stimulants for hyperactivity? What about the physical therapy for arthritis? However, they do not use the philosophy of similars; regular medicine just goes on what works, whether it is "similars" or "contraries" or whatever. And there were many precursors of homeopathy based on the law of similars going back well over a 1000 years before Hahnemann. So this business of identifiying homeopathy with "like with like" really is not that helpful.


 * What makes homeopathy stand out from other treatments? The idea of "water memory" or whatever. That is unique. The business about miasmas is not unique either. Many other ideas in homeopathy are shared, at least roughly, with allopathy or osteopathy or other forms of alternative medicine. The only unique identifying feature is that some remedies are highly diluted in this special way. And I do not think that one should describe the special way (succussion, serial dilution, etc) in detail in the first few sentences; too technical.--Filll (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made the change to one of the two versions, and obviously we can move forward now. I've shortened the first sentence, but with the alternate spellings and greek there's not much you can do. I've tried not to be technical, but many complain if you leave out dilution and shaking. I think I generally agree with you and hope we can move forward with this much shorter lead which has been developed over the last two days --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well looks like we're stuck with SVs awful, long, version for now --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If homeopathy is not a controversial form of alternative medicine SV, what is? My gosh it is incredibly controversial and has been for over 100 years, with almost open warfare, which the homeopaths have been slowly losing. School after school has closed. Hospital after hospital has closed. Study after study has come out condemning it. Just 100 miles from me, the largest and most famous homeopathy school in the US, the Hahnemann school in Philadelphia, started an allopathy division, closed down its homeopathy division, changed its name, and so on. If you look at the record of the last 100 years or so, it has gone from a major medical technique, to almost completely disappearing. And why? Because it is controversial. And why is it controversial? Because there has been minimal if any evidence for its efficacy.--Filll (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would remind [User:Filll|Filll]] that attacks upon homeopathy do not assist us in improving this article, or even getting consensus on such a simple thing as the LEAD section to an encyclopedia article. It is not factually accurate to state: "Study after study has come out condemning it" - and it is not factually accurate to state "homeopaths have been slowly losing". The use of homeopathy is steadily increasing among the health professions and the general public world-wide. Just read: Peter Fisher, "Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe" BMJ 1994;309:107-111 (9 July)  Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not attacking homeopathy. I am stating what I regard as the current condition of homeopathy. I am making observations of what condition homeopathy was in 30 years ago, and 50, and 100 from my personal observations and research, at least in the US. Is it shrinking drastically in the US while growing in Europe? I am not sure, but if we can demonstrate this, it would be an interesting fact to include.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading that article, it seems that this person in 1994 claimed that was of growing interest and even used by way more than 50% of the public in Europe. This is not commensurate with my experience and observations in the US. Every major homeopathic medical school has closed down in the US, including the massive Hahnemann Medical School. There are a couple of marginal schools currently, but the situation of homeopathy in the US is a tiny shadow of its former self.

I just looked in my local phone books, which cover the commercial enterprises of a metropolitan area of more than 8.5 million people. There are 4 homeopaths listed, two of which are conventional MDs who practice homeopathy on the side. Another is a hypnotist and massage therapist who does homeopathy on the side. The last, who advertises that he is a "classical" homeopath is a certified nutritionist who practices homeopathy on the side. The closest is about 30 miles from me. There is only one store that advertises the sale of homeopathic remedies, although of course there are others but they do not advertise this since there is so little interest. Does not sound like this is a huge area of interest or excitement or growth here, frankly.

The common products that are homeopathic in the US, like "Head-on", Zicam and oscillinium (or however you spell it) are not advertised as homeopathic, and if you look at the packaging you can find no mention of homeopathy or potency or dilution or anything. If there is some discussion of homeopathic potency on the packaging of a product in the US, it will be downplayed and in very small print that one might need a magnifying glass to read, on the package or possibly in a package insert.

Homeopathy is a very minor practice here. The average person that you ask on the street about homeopathy will never have heard of it, and if they have heard of it, will have no idea what is involved. So, I am afraid I see the world very differently than you do, and the evidence around me is contrary to what you claim.--Filll (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

sanction
85.25.152.185 has now broken the ONE REVERT rule...sanction please! Peter morrell 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To revert an undiscussed major change. Folks can't waltz in to an article under probation, make major undiscussed changes, and not expect a big revert war. Anyone who reverted to the undiscussed major change should be sanctioned as well.  They know the article is under probation and that such changes aren't welcome.  If you support what was in the major change, then come to the talk page and discuss them.  Reverting to keep undiscussed changes is as tendentious as making the initial change. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I won't even do 1 revert. I am on self-imposed 0RR. I will not even edit the mainspace here at all.--Filll (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a bit odd. For all that I think RDOs first paragraph was a good one (the rest needs rewriting too) --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's odd about it? if you didn't know it, there was a blatant edit war going on and repeated rvts of the lead when this article is supposedly under probation with a 1RR rule applying. We had been proceeding via talk and consensus, and it is unedifying at best to then just start 'doing your own thing.' Please. Peter morrell 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the edit war was a bit odd, not your complaint. Has SV been sanctioned too? --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SV was not previously informed of the probation on this article, so I don't think a sanction on her would be appropriate in any case. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Concepts to help bridge understanding

 * 1) Science is about making models that predict the results of controlled experiments. There is no homeopathy theory that makes predictions superior to standard science models; hence homeopathy's therapeutic successes are best predicted using the placebo effect model of standard science.
 * 2) Medicine is about maximizing the health of patients, which includes use of placebos; hence doctors prescribe alternative medicine (including prayer and homeopathy) to those who believe since a positive attitude and belief in one's therapy plays an important part in the success of the therapy.
 * 3) Management of science involves many careful double blind tests to identify conditions and outcomes. Experiments that can not be repeated are useless in creating models that can be used to accurately predict.
 * 4) Management of medical care includes management of both the physical aspects and the mental aspects. So doctors are in the position of needing to encourage standard medical care; needing to not discourage whatever harmless superstition, religion, or alternative medicine belief they may have that helps provide a positive attitude in the patient; while at the same time making sure they don't replace the "real" medical therapy with the placebo that in essence provides support for the brain's abilities to help the body to heal itself (which usually is not effective in replacing the standard medical therapy; e.g the mind can not fix a lack of a structural substance like say iron, but has been known to reverse the effect of chemicals that are used as information signals in the body like hormones). WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If what you are trying to argue for is that homeopathy is a mere "placebo" effect, this is not the place to argue that opinion. Placebos are necessary in double-blind studies. However, the way the concept of placebos keeps being used to explain away homopathic clinical success occuring every day in our clinic and world-wide is simply not credible. Any physician such as myself who deals with severe illness and pain everyday knows the fallacy of claiming that placebos will work in place of "real" medicines (such as chemical drugs or homeopathic medicines). Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to argue that it isn't the placebo effect, this is also not the place to do that. Placebos also do work in a clinical setting, and any good doctor knows that mental attitude towards recovery and the treatment is a vital part of its success --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had just noted that this was not the place to argue the pros & cons of placebo effects. I suspect that you are not a physician treating patients on a one to one basis, otherwise you would not be making the erroneous claim that "Placebos also do work in a clinical setting". On many occasions I have personally tried giving other remedies than were properly indicated for patients (when we were out of the particular remedy and potency) and these had NO effect - until on a subsequent office visit the proper remedy was given. So much for "placebo effects". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't raise original research in praise or favor of your POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * The policy on Original Research says: -- "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences."


 * I take "publish" to refer to the mainspace. Opinion and personal experience often seems to be brought into discussions on talk pages.  Are you saying this should not be done?  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, the only reason for this talk page is to discuss the material in the mainspace. That is it. No arguing for our own POV or telling everyone else what someone has observed in their medical practice, or the results of a personal experiment etc. So the OR is not particularly useful here either, since otherwise we are treating this page like a WP:SOAPbox. And we should not really care what happens in a given medical practice or what someone's personal opinion is of homeopathy if it is unbacked by published evidence or what someone were taught in homeopathy classes etc. For the purposes of a WP article, we ALL have to avoid meaningless drivel and spam that just clogs the page with nonsense and irritates others and acts as obfuscation. Please, lets not engage in this activity. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to your characterization of my reponse to WAS 4.250's lengthly presentation on placebos as "meaningless drivel and spam". Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to WAS 4.250's lengthy presentations on placebos as "meaningless drivel and spam". I was cautioning ALL of us, pro and contra homeopathy, to try to stay focused on the article. Long discussions of our personal beliefs or personal experiences without connecting them to reliable sources etc are not helpful. And both sides have engaged in it, over the last several months, leading to the horrible current situation. I have witnessed people grandstanding, posting the same long diatribes 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 times, even after the points were soundly refuted. Even after it was pointed out that it was irrelevant for the article. So if we do too much of this, we will get nowhere, as we have for months on end now. What is our purpose here? To write an article according to WP principles? To argue ad infinitum? To try to convert the other side? I think we are here to write an article, not to grandstand. Sorry if that offends you, but that is our purpose and we have to stay focused on that.--Filll (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you were not "referring to WAS 4.250's lengthy presentations on placebos as 'meaningless drivel and spam'" - you were referring to my response to him. I am offended by your lack of respect and uncivility towards me (and other editors in the past). Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * De cruce descende! Nam lignum desideramus. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I usually find myself disagreeing with Filll, but in this case I must say that his statement: "For the purposes of a WP article, we ALL have to avoid meaningless drivel and spam" reads to me as a reasonable general statement. I didn't get the impression it was directed specifically.  (There, I've said it.  Filll may faint on reading this.  ;o)  Wanderer57 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed: Filll's statement is quite reasonably interpreted as not an attack but a request to stay on target. Arion's over-reaction has resulted in a 24hr topic ban. Let's move on now to the topic at hand...this talk page would benefit from less distraction (either in off-topic posts or needless drama). &mdash; Scientizzle 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people seem to talk past each other. Sometimes this occurs when there are key understandings, key elements not understood. In earlier discussions some people tried to refute SCIENCE with MEDICINE. See my "lengthy" points above for why the two are different with regard to ANY placebo. IF homeopathy is a placebo, then one would expect science to diss it and medicine to as fully embrace it as it does prayer. All hospitals encourage prayer and clergy visits for believers. This is not an endorsement of one's religion. It is a recognition of the value of placebos. Get it? WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Placebos are good of course. We really have no idea how they work unfortunately. However, I am not sure that we need to describe the placebo effect etc in the first paragraph. I have a sort of minimalist approach to the first sentence, the first paragraph, and the LEAD. Less is more. I am not sure why medicine embraces prayer but not homeopathy, but it might have to do with the ugly history between allopathy and homeopathy.--Filll (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This goes to the heart of what it is and what our evidence is. Our reliable science sources all say it is a placebo. MANY medical sources refuse to dismiss it. This is why. In this article we need to explain what believers say it is (similars diluted and shook), what science says about scientific results about it (placebo), and how the medical community relates to it (acceptance as an alternative medicine - which is what docs say when they can't tell the truth because it would destroy the placebo effect). Which is not to say that all alternative medicines are placebos, just that things that only work when people believe in them are also placed in that group. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that says homeopathy only works when people believe in it? &mdash;Whig (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence that convinces me of that will not convince you of that, so let's let that rest there. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Flower remedies

 * "However, although many of the same plants are used as in homeopathy, flower remedies are used undiluted.[88]"

The abstract of the included reference doesn't say flower remedies are undiluted. I can't find the entire referenced paper to see if it is information buried within it. I am, right now, looking at a tin of Bach's Rescue Remedy Pastilles which specifically state "homeopathic remedy" on the front, and "5x dilution of ..." on the back. I propose to remove that sentence and reference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * From Bach flower remedies: "Bach flower remedies are not dependent on the theory of successive dilutions, and are not based on the Law of Similars of Homeopathy. The Bach remedies, unlike homeopathic remedies, are all derived from non-toxic substances, with the idea that a "positive energy" can redirect or neutralize 'negative energy'". They're usually not diluted as much as homeopathic dilutions, and not shaken (they may be stirred). Even though it's made by Bach, it might not be a Bach flower remedy. Undiluted is clearly incorrect. --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the flower remedies, such as Clematis and Impatiens, are sometimes made into homeopathic remedies if there is a "potentization" process employed (ie. serial dilution and succussion). Otherwise they are not homeopathic and are not used according to the homeopathic practice of "case-taking" and matching with the homeopathic Materia Medica. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was able to get at the source - my university subscribes to a lot of journal services, and we get some weird stuff in there as a package deal. The source is actually pretty terrible, in my opinion - it's vague in ways that make it very hard to distil its points, and spends much of its time off-topic - a good chunk is spent talking about psora and its link to bowel nosodes (also invented by Bach, it seems, but still...) and other such things. It's also one of those wishy-washy articles - Main points are something like: it's different from homeopathy, but also similar (but without really defining the similarities and differences all that well), Bach thought he was extending Hahnemann's work (said about 10 times), and Maybe homeopaths should use it - but then again, maybe not (also very vaguely explained why) - find out about them and decide yourself! though. Is there no better source we could use?  Adam Cuerden talk 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arion, are flower remedy practices then pseudo-homeopathy?
 * Adam, I'm inclined to just delete that one sentence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * So am I, but evuidently that article is the source for that whole paragraph. Adam Cuerden talk 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Flower remedies" are not homeopathy. They are sometimes made into homeopathic remedies if there is a "potentization" process employed (ie. serial dilution and succussion). However this discussion is not furthering getting a consensus on the lead section. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will admit I was somewhat puzzled when the Bach Flower Remedies were folded into the article by Wikidudeman. I think they were a separate article before that, and he incorporated them. It does seem like they should have their own article again since they are just some of thousands of substances used to create remedies. However, Arion 3x3 is correct, this is just distracting us from contemplating the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not like we can't have multiple conversations. And, they say right on the packaging "homeopathic remedy" so I don't know that we're in a position to say they aren't.  Maybe the inherent sarcasm between pseudo-homeopathy and pseudo-science didn't get through. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Flower remedies (BFR) have an ambiguous status as remedies and are regarded only by some as homeopathic. They are not used neat but the sunlit-flowers-in-spring-water is diluted about 1:250 in diluted brandy to preserve it. I think the stock solution is then diluted again BUT there is no succussion. Nor are there any provings of the remedies. Whether they operate on similars is an open question. They are similar to homeopathic preparations but not identical. There are websites that describe all this. If you are to include BFR then maybe the other flower essences should also be included such as the Bailey Essences and the Australian Bush essences. Peter morrell 07:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement
I've rearranged some sentences in the lead, because Paragraph 4 seemed to lack a clear subject, but the sentences that made it up fit in well with discussion in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adam Cuerden talk 22:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is going from bad to worse. What happened to the neutral formulation that was being worked out a couple of days ago? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why there is so much activity today of changing and rearranging in the lead section, when we are supposedly working out the wording here on this page. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of us saw what seemed to be a chance to improve in a consensus like manner (relying on days worth of talk to gain an idea of what that was). Until we take a !vote, we won't know if we succeeded in that or not. I think today's efforts have produced an improvement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should present our suggestions for the LEAD here and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. It is sort of silly to edit the mainspace article, since clearly no matter what anyone does, it will be quickly reverted. We need to have them all laid out clearly someplace, like this talk page, where we can compare them and discuss them. We cannot do that in the mainspace, unfortunately. --Filll (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Quickly reverted" is demonstratably false. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As Filll says, it is silly to have ongoing editing of the article, while discussion goes on here about how to word the article. It's also silly to have the discussion of the lead going on in at least four sections of the talk page.  It's impossible to follow without a flow chart.


 * Is it possible in this Wikiverse to a) put a temporary freeze on the article and b) create a reasonable process for discussion and decision about the article lead? (I could suggest a process; I'm sure other editors or admins could also.  The real question is whether we can agree to abide by a process.)  Wanderer57 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle's suggestion
I think I prefer the (slightly older) 4-paragraph format, but I could go either way... Below is my editied version (in four paragraphs):

"Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is an alternative medicine that is controversial because it lacks scientific plausibility and confirmation. Homeopaths contend that remedies for diseases can be created by taking substances that cause symptoms similar to those of the disease. According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the 'therapeutic powers' of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is usually so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have an effect on consumers.

Homeopathy was originated and defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century. Therapeutic applications of remedies are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, and practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state of the patient.

The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". Claims for its efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies. The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,    or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".

In general, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies. Current usage varies from two percent of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year, to 15 percent in India, where homeopathy is now considered part of its Indian traditional medicine. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions; however, homeopaths have been criticised for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medical treatments, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics."

Note: &mdash; Scientizzle 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though we can source "popular" it needn't be a descriptor in the first sentence. It's an inherently subjective thing anyways, so it's hardly worth including, especially since there's a whole section on prevalence.


 * Sorry folks, I had to sign off there for a while...here are a few quick responses to some of the constructive comments below:
 * I'm on board with the first sentence change: there is no need to criticize the topic before a full explanation is provided
 * I also dislike the weird footnote thing, too--it isn't in my version
 * Swapping the theory vs experimental results sentences is no big deal to me
 * FOo makes a great case for keeping the regulation clause.
 * "is a form of alternative medicine" is clearer
 * to better cover the range of dilutions (from "quite dilute" to "just plain water"), I'll reword slightly...
 * So, here's an updated version immediately below... &mdash; Scientizzle 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine originated and defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century. Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created by taking substances that cause symptoms similar to those of the disease. According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the 'therapeutic powers' of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have an effect on consumers. Therapeutic applications of remedies are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, and practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state of the patient.

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies. The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,    or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".

In general, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies. Current usage varies from two percent of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year, to 15 percent in India, where homeopathy is now considered part of its Indian traditional medicine. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions; however, homeopaths have been criticised for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medical treatments, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics."

Comments on Scientizzle's suggestion by Addhoc

 * I prefer introductions that are initially factual, so in my humble opinion, the opening sentence should be along the lines of:
 * Homeopathy is an alternative therapy, based on the idea of prescribing small quantities of substances that, at higher doses, could be expected to produce symptoms of the disease being treated.


 * Also I prefer not to use footnotes in this manner:


 * I think most readers will be more interested in whether it works in practice, than whether it works in theory. I would prefer to start with a discussion of its efficacy, and then mention that it's diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.
 * Claims for its efficacy beyond placebo are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies.  The lack of convincing scientific evidence, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as  pseudoscience,    or, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Addhoc (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the "In general, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies" is somewhat obvious given this is alternative medicine.


 * On the introduction -- I agree. It is silly to state an objection to homeopathy ("lacks scientific plausibility and confirmation") before stating what homeopathy is. We do not air objections before airing the subject to which they object.


 * On the footnotes -- again, I agree. Wikipedia conventionally does not use explanatory footnotes of the sort referred to; we use footnotes for sources.


 * On practice vs. theory -- I'm not sure. It seems to me that people have a certain degree of trust in (e.g.) the "laws" of physics, and would be interested to know early on that homeopathic remedies commonly contain no molecules of active ingredient, and that there is no pharmacologically known mechanism by which they could work.


 * Finally, on laws -- this is not so obvious as you might think. Laws about medical practice have been frequently extended to cover "alternative medicine", for instance in cases where alternative practitioners have been prosecuted for medical fraud or practicing without a license. (See, e.g. Wilhelm Reich for one famous case.) Some alternative practices, such as chiropractic, are licensed and regulated in some jurisdictions -- I don't know how common this is worldwide, but it's the case in the U.S. state where I live. --FOo (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Filll on Scientizzle and Addhoc
Ok how about --Filll (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is "consertive"? --FOo (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A speling of conservative used to reduce waste of leters.


 * Can we please get an administrator over here for a ruling on whether humour is beneficial or disruptive?  ;o)   Wanderer57 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha. Ha. Ha. Yes.  It is funny.  Ha. Ha. Ha. Jehochman  Talk 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank goodnes there are some people here with a sense of humor.


 * Or is it just a mater of humoring the febleminded? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Adam Cuerden

 * "is an alternative medicine" should be "is a form of alternative medicine". Adam Cuerden talk 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Arthur Rubin
"Small quantities" is incorrect, in that none of the substance is present in the most potentialized versions. I don't have a suggestion for improvement, but this is not right. Scientizzle's suggestion seems the best of the recent batch. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, some of the remedies have measurable amounts of the active ingredient present, like Zicam. Others are diluted to the point where none of the material is present. And as I have argued above, THAT characteristic is what distinguishes homeopathy from other forms of conventional and alternative medicine. And I believe this should be mentioned before anything else, including the method of similars, which is not unique to homeopathy.--Filll (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note re edit to article
I just removed from the lead this sentence: "In general, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies."

As I noted briefly in edit summary, I did this because IMO:


 * the sentence is vague and thus open to scary misinterpretation - eg, is it about testing for safety or efficacy?


 * unsourced


 * sweeping (ie, potentially applies in all countries)


 * and followed by a jump to another topic. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly rabbit has put a slightly modified sentence in at the bottom of the same paragraph and added a reference.


 * "In many countries, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies.[26]"


 * This could be taken as "the laws do not apply, there is no reg. or testing. Scary."  or as "the laws do not apply but there are other laws regulating homeopathic remedies.  OK."  Based on a quick look through the reference, the former applies some places, the latter in others.


 * I think it would be better left out till it is reviewed, rather than put back in until it is reviewed. Please will some other editor(s) take a look at this? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a section of the article Prevalence and legal trends where these issues are addressed, and many more references are given, and qualifications provided. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should include some mention of this issue.  I disagree with the "Scary" interpretation.  That is your interpretation, and is in no way implied by the sentence itself.  Also, the sentence is not as unequivocal as you seem to suggest.  At least, now that I have said "In many countries...".  Perhaps a better alternative to this sentence exists, one which more precisely defines the regulatory issues for the purposes of the lead paragraph.  But I am thoroughly opposed to removing any mention of them.  Silly rabbit (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I didn't quite say what you appear to be disputing re scary misinterpretation.  I said it was "open to" that, by which I meant that such an interp was reasonably likely to be made by some readers.


 * But this is really all by the way. You and I disagree on this topic.  That is why I asked for some "other" editors to take a look.  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking?
Why are we nitpicking over contentious details? There is a useful peer review available (link at top of page) that shows major, non-controversial items that can be fixed to bring this article closer to featured article candidacy. For instance, the Manual of Style improvements, such as summary style should be easy to do, yet will greatly improve the article. Why don't we bypass the contentious issues now, and instead focus on the simple improvements that can be made. Rather than arguing wording, if we get close, we can let the featured article reviewers identify remaining flaws, and then fix thim in a calm, orderly process. Jehochman Talk 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, do you really think that improving the body of the article (spelling, style, flow, consistency, citations, neutral tone, etc.) is going to solve the issue of how the lead reads? I'm asking only half facetiously (spelling?).  Because, I think that's the biggest reason this article is on probation: the lead, and categories, and other aspects that stand out to the kind of reader who's looking for a quick fix and is going to be affected by the spin that WP puts on the subject.  I'd point out that, while much of the above involves nitpicking, we have some major issues here that are being sidestepped in the "consensus" process.  One that I & others  have brought up and which several people above have completely ignored (not even answering our rationale before proposing their own language to the contrary) is:


 * Whether homeopathy being "controversial" or "popular" (or not) should be brought up in the first sentence of the lead (I don't think it should)


 * I have committed to reading almost everything that's been said in the last few weeks on this talkpage, and most of what's been said in the last 2 or 3 months. But, even if people seemed more committed to consensus (many do not), the process is not physically working very well here.  Too much talk to read.  Not organized in a way that forces people to take each other's comments seriously.


 * I'm not sure I have any suggestions to help with this fact, but I have relatively limited experience on WP (several months?) and maybe there are features I don't know about. Part of it is the wonk-ish software, part of it is the requirement of consensus, and part of that is what I suspect is the powers-that-be's reticence to get involved (RfA & above) -- which is partly by design of WP but also seems partly to be a dodge: I suspect that while they didn't mind giving an opinion that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience and astrology is, they'd really like to stop at that and not get involved in labeling other ideas as such -- or not.


 * I think a lot of us just figure we'll keep on presenting our version of the lead here or by editting the article (I like several others, note, are on 0RR, though), and one day, magically, everyone will say "Wow -- that's it!" maybe because it's just brilliant and maybe because the detractors have just stepped away for long enough.....


 * However, I do feel that issues can be broken down here which have emerged that are not nitpicking, and are not going away. To name just one, whether controversial or other social aspects of this form of medicine should be mentioned at the start of the lead.    I don't feel it's encyclopedic, I feel that serious academics would cringe at it, and it does not follow the style that other WP articles tend to follow (though I'm not sure it's officially frowned on or not).  If I'm not mistaken, part of the appearance of agreement above that the first sentence should mention "controversial" results from a strange mixture of "pro-" and "anti-" homeopathy folks liking it, but I suspect that, while that seems to be a sign of consensus, the phrasing introduces the controversy over it early on, inappropriately.  (Hypothesis: there are anti- people who like it because it sounds a WARNING to the more gullible  readers; and pro- people who like it because it draws in folks who are attracted to ideas that are controversial (because they are skeptical of all things mainstream) and thus might actually drop their normal skepticism about the subject).


 * I don't know if this is the type of issue that might be brought before a power-that-be, but I don't see this going anywhere. There are of course other issues not dealt with in the lead, like whether WP itself wants to opine that homeopathy is implausible (or to report that others believe this), but first things first....   If you have an argument that leaving the lead til later is a wise option, then please do give it, and propose in bureaucratic terms how that might happen.  Otherwise, I can't imagine it happening.... ever!


 * PS... do battles like this usually go on this long on WP? I ask as someone with limited experience here....  >:-o


 * Friarslantern (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Battles like this can go on a very long time. The LEAD at evolution was very difficult to write. Same at intelligent design and Introduction to evolution, and in those situations we had people who all basically agreed with each other about the nature of the topic. Here we have people that radically disagree with each other about the nature of homeopathy.

I think homeopathy is popular among certain segments of population. It is not as popular as the homeopathy proponents here believe it to be, or want it to be. And they feel beleaguered as a result. Several would like to use this article as a vehicle for promoting their profession. They want it to read like an advertisement. It should not do so, in general. It is not as popular as it used to be. I think the word popular is a loaded word, with all kinds of connotations. I think common is better, and the practice is only common in certain places; India, and certain population segments in Europe and the Americas.

I am not sure that "like with like" characterizes homeopathy very well, since other more conventional therapies also use something like this. Remember ritalin is prescribed for ADHD. The phenomenon of hormesis is well known and a standard result in mainstream medical science. Lots of physical therapy involves doing more of whatever you did that hurt you in the first place, sort of. What is unique to homeopathy is not the "law of similars" at all. It is not the serial dilutions. It is not the succussion. Those are all common practices in mainstream science. It is the level of dilutions.for some remedies that are unique and for which homeopathy is well known.

I do not think we need in the first paragraph to go into great detail about how remedies are prepared, or the fact that there is no evidence for it. One word says it all: controversial. That is all you need to say. It is succinct.

I have read that about 95% of the readers will only read the first sentence. About 99% will only read the LEAD. Only 1% read more of the body. So we owe it to the readers to make sure they have the relevant information, summarized in the first sentence:
 * Alternative medicine
 * Controversial
 * some remedies have extreme dilutions (not all do, but some do)

You dont need to know who is the father of homeopathy. You dont need to know how the dilutions are done. You dont need to know fancy words like succussion or trituration. You dont need to know how many people use it and where. Those can wait for later sentences, later paragraphs, later sections.--Filll (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is false to say that the essence of homeopathy is NOT the law of similars. Do you think the name homeopathy was chosen at random? Hahnemann had a remarkable gift for languages, being a master of Greek even allowed to teach fellow pupils from the age of 12. He was fluent in Latin, Greek and German as a child and then taught himself English, French, Italian and Spanish. In his 20s he taught himself Chaldaic, Syriac, Hebrew and Arabic. He quoted liberally from original texts in all these languages in his 1812 dissertation 'On the Helleborism of the Ancients,' at Leipzig university, a dissertation that allowed him to become a faculty member in the medical school. Therefore, to propose that he didn't understand the meaning of the Greek roots of the word 'homeopathy,' which he chose to call his new therapy, shows a phenomenal lack of knowledge of this subject. The law of similia is homeopathy; small doses come a long way second. Peter morrell 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have evidence that readers don't read the articles, or are you relying on truthiness? In my experience, improving the quality of the article, and getting Wikipedia's top editors to review the article will tend to fix controversial things.  The problem here is that warring factions have scared away those top editors.  Please, can we do all the non-controversial fixes now, and leave it to featured article candidacy review to sort out the final NPOV issues?  The lead is supposed to summarize the article.  Once the article is in good shape and closely follows the reliable sources, it will be much easier to write the lead. Jehochman  Talk 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agenda that includes many non-controversial suggestions for improvement: Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2.  In partcular, I recommend the suggestions created by the automated script for better Manual of Style compliance. Jehochman  Talk 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Friarslantern said above: "the process is not physically working very well here. Too much talk to read. Not organized in a way that forces people to take each other's comments seriously."  Worse than that, the discussion of the lead is so scattered across multiple sections that it is practically impossible to follow.


 * The same nits are getting picked over and over again. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why I have asked to bypass this issue and work on non-contentious points. Once the rest of the article is in good shape, we can circle back to the lead. Jehochman  Talk 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i compeltely agree with the above. The harpy chorus abov e has created several useful posislbe leads but so miuch time and energy has been wasted going back and forth on extremely minor details than it doesnt not matter. Smith Jones (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All that has happened is that discussion has been shut down, not editing. And the LEAD is slowly turning into an unreadable inaccessible overly detailed mess with all kinds of POV imbalances etc. All of these areas are fraught with huge amounts of mumbo-jumbo. And Homeopathy is no exception. And so, we will end up a complete disaster for a LEAD, and eventually a complete disaster for an article, that looks like a carbon copy of something in a homeopathy textbook, or any one of thousands of pro-homeopathy websites. And this will not serve our readers well, particularly those who want to learn about homeopathy. Oh well. This is what happens I guess. Very bad idea for an encyclopedia. If that is to be the goal here, I suggest that we should just put this article up for AfD. It will not serve any useful purpose and will not be any different from the promotional sites for homeopathy.--Filll (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Propose a sandbox discussion of the LEAD
I propose that we stop editing the mainspace LEAD over and over and turning into an increasingly unreadable mess. I think we should place the proposed LEADs side by side to examine and discuss in a sandbox page. Then the main talkpage discussion can progress towards discussing the outside review and improving the body.

I also propose that we come up with a list of words that are forbidden in the LEAD for reasons of accessibility, like "Potentization", "Succussion" and so on. We are writing an encyclopedia for general use, not a homeopathy textbook.

I also propose that we come to some agreement about conforming to WP:LEAD requirements, and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I also suggest that given that the article is under probation, that admins be requested to block any who are arguing tendentitiously against following WP policy.--Filll (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, what makes your ideas so superior to what else is going on here? Why should anyone follow what you say? You have amply demonstrated that you want an anti-homeopathy article (because anything neutral you regard as way too pro) that is under-informed of the factual subtleties, and yet you just keep banging on about what everyone should do. If your ideas are so important then go ahead and write your own article in a sandbox and then invite folks to look at it and edit it, or at least to make comments about it. How does that sound? Please clarify why you want a fresh start as it is just not very clear to me. thanks Peter morrell 17:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I am just making suggestions. No one has to follow what I suggest of course.


 * I gave the reasons for what I thought we should do. They were unclear?


 * I do not want an anti-homeopathy article. I want an article that is according to the rules of WP:NPOV.


 * Now some might feel that WP:NPOV is against WP:FRINGE ideas like homeopathy because WP:NPOV requires the views be presented in proportion to their prominence. Maybe that is a fair criticism, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Other Wikis do not have NPOV, and so might be more amenable to uncritical or even promotional articles about homeopathy. But that is not Wikipedia.


 * I have presented my ideas on this page of course. And they were buried. Editing the mainpage is unproductive, as far as I can tell, because we cannot compare and discuss the different versions. And whatever is done to the mainpage is reverted and lost very quickly anyway. So editing the mainpage is worthless.


 * Discussing the LEAD on this talk page has been discouraged by the admins trying to control the situation. Therefore I suggested a sandbox discussion, so that this page could be reserved for other discussions.


 * Efforts by Admins to stop all editing of the LEAD and discussions of the LEAD clearly have not worked. So I am suggesting that we try something different. People are free to ignore this suggestion of course.


 * I am also in favor of making the article, and especially the LEAD, readable and accessible. Big words that no one except homeopaths use like "succussion" and "potentization" are not at all helpful for the LEAD or first few sentences. Remember, someone has to be able to read what is written here and understand it.--Filll (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Filll, I agree with you about not using jargon like "succussion" and "potentization" in the lead section. Addhoc (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree unfamiliar words should not be used in the lead, unless they are immediately defined (as was the case earlier today). I believe "potentization" should be in the lead since that is the unique feature of homeopathy (other than the law of similars). Simply saying substances are "diluted" is not only inaccurate, but makes homeopathy sound ridiculous. By the way, homeopathy also uses tinctures which are not diluted. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Earlier today I corrected the erroneous reference to "therapeutic powers" in the lead sentences . Homeopaths do not speak or write about "therapeutic powers" in these substances, nor do they believe in "therapeutic powers" in the substances used to make remedies. My correction was again reverted, despite my having discussed this a number of times on this page and in the archives. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, well OK you have clarified your ideas. Why not float a draft new lead of your choice here and let folks 'pick' at it! I mean you know check it out and make comments so it can be agreed-on. This seems to me an eminently reasonable and non-controversial idea. Why not just do it and we can then see what kind of fur and feathers might start to fly...hopefully not, but at least folks can have something to discuss, rather than endless hot air about numerous different versions. Comments? Peter morrell 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Peter. But given the opinions of the admins, I think it is best we do it in a sandbox so as not to upset the admins. I will make one.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the LEAD
Here is the sandbox discussion: Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion. Please bring your ideas.--Filll (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1796
This was the year of the first 'essay on a new principle,' NOT the year homeopathy was defined. There is no such single year. It evolved slowly between about 1790 and about 1810. There is no single 'birth year' of the subject. Sorry if that sounds pedantic but it is correct.Peter morrell 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. This is why, at least for the LEAD, things should be vague. LEADs have to be introductory, and just brush over the material. Details can be left for the history section of the article. If we get too exacting and precise in the LEAD, then the LEAD is unreadable and unhelpful.--Filll (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd sentence
Comparing: Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created by taking substances that can create, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease. and: Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases should be able to induce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease they are suited to treat. I consider the first version to be more direct, and more readily understood by a reader unfamiliar with the subject. Addhoc (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a bigdeal; the sentence is very awkward and unwieldy IMO and it might be possible to improve/clarify it further at some point. thanks Peter morrell 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. That is why I suggested we discuss it in the sandbox. Here is the sandbox discussion: Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion.--Filll (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Temporarily, for the sake of clarity, I changed one word to elimate the use of the words "created" and "create" in the same sentence: "Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be made by taking substances that can create, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease." Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stylistically, you are right about the 'created' and 'creates' in the same sentence. It reads badly.  Jehochman  Talk 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone revert my one word change - mentioned above - and use as the edit comments justifying that revert: "Once again, let's keep with the longstanding consensus language and keep out the POV.."

What POV?

What "longstanding consensus language"? Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Create create
The second sentence clearly needs to be fixed: the "create" "creates" is a problem, and in the current stalemate not even such an obvious problem can be fixed without edit-warring. My proposal: Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created by taking substances that can create produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease. Please state your opinions, preferred versions, or objections here. 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Research
I've tried to make the 1942 mustard gas trials link more useful, but they are far from the earliest. They were certainly randomized double-blind placebo-controlled, but so was the Nuremberg salt proving from 1835: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/19th_Century/lohner/lohner-tp.html

A systematic review of early prospective hospital-based trials of homeopathy found scores from the 1820s to the 1950s. http://www.kvc-verlag.de/katalog/titel.xml;jsessionid=58A88777826D0F09C24B058FF219F07B?tid=54

Should there be a separate history or clinical research article with room for such important data? I don't wish to intervene in the text of the current article, given its unfortunate history and instability. Sam Weller (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is interesting! We'll have to take a closer look before we decide how to incorporate it, though. Might be too specialized for more than a passing reference in the overview article, but is it notable enough for its own entry? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The battle of ideas about homeopathy from the 1820s onwards is too notable to be left out of any balanced account of the history, IMO. The battle involved appeals to theory and clinical evidence, from both sides of the fence, then as now. Clinical trials, positive and negative, were regarded as important evidence in that battle. Were they notable, singly or together? Several were methodologically notable enough to feature on the Lind. And several were clinically notable. But on WP, where every sitcom gets its own entry, along with every pill and surgical procedure, there is only a single article on the history, theory, practice, research and evidence for a widely-diffused therapy - worldwide second only to herbs, according to the WHO Global Atlas (2005). It's your call, as I'm just passing through.Sam Weller (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagreement with the above section

 * I don't see a reason to stray from the normal style of word first, etymology second, and then basic definition (and then elucidation of the definition). Doing so makes it hard for the reader, who's used to these conventions, to follow it.


 * Again, as I stated above, the social dialogue (controversy, popularity) does not belong in the beginning of the first paragraph -- the basic definition. We are stating science's qualms and thus showing there is a controversy -- WP is neither a specifically scientific nor a specifically sociological encyclopedia, but a general one.


 * Responding to the homeopathic concerns about characterization of the process involved in creating the remedies, I propose the following, which retains much Eighty-eight's changes and adds some new details....

Note: I defend the use of "however", in the last sentence. The two facts -- of its current use/popularity, and its lack of scientific confirmation, are contrasting facts, and using the word is therefore called for stylistically as an element that makes the writing easier to follow. I personally do not feel that this slants the paragraph's neutrality or takes a liberty (I didn't like linking the two thoughts with "despite", above -- for me that does go too far). Friarslantern (talk)

Saying it is a method of treatinf sounds like you are saying it works, whilst the article states the lack of proof. Also the same thing is implied by the word "potenized". Even thought you state this at the end, first impressions will stick. Also the 'apparent basis' sounds like a re-wording of "It apparently lacks any basis is scientific theory". This implies, to me, that there is some bias in the section, and I wouldnt believe the article upon further reading. I do think the opening is too long, but I dont agree with the above alternative.86.40.240.104 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

British spelling
since we are impperatively using the British spelling, should this article be renamed "homoeopathy"? Smith Jones (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since our spelling agrees with THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF HOMEOPATHY, I think we should keep the name as is. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Commonwealth spelling would be homœopathy. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * as long as we have a consisent spelling pattern, then I'm okay. I was just concerned because in all the research I have done homoeopathy was (or homœopathy) was used in Britain and its former empires and homeopathy used elsewhere. Smith Jones (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is homœopathy (and homoeopathy) in Australia. The Brits must have changed the name, as there are old references to "The British Institute of Homoeopathy" in the The British Journal of Homoeopathy.   --David Broadfoot (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That double letter is no longer used in English, commonly. Certain people use it, but I would say it is now defunkt.86.40.240.104 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Funkadelic took it over? Ligatures (the erroneously named "double letters") are still extant in English.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article degradation
This article over the last few weeks has progressed toward being more and more accommodating of pseudoscientific rationalizations and convoluted wording to get around inconvenient facts. It is clear that probation has had the effect of passing over editorial control to ignoring content guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct I fear. I have tried to engage 2 or 3 of those who are strong homeopathy advocates about what NPOV is, and they either would not answer at all, or flew into a rage and attacked me, or just answered completely incorrectly. The problem is, they cannot reconcile their vision for the article with NPOV and they know it. And they think that Wikipedia should just bend on this issue for them.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not make such blanket statements. It would be much better to cite 2 or 3 incidents of the problem you see, so that other editors can either work with you to improve the article, or try to convince you that the edits were in fact an improvement. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll: The characterization can be made of editors from both sides of this issue. The previous section is a case in point. Anthon01 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just look at the current lead. It goes into great depth describing how homeopaths make their snake oil and then says that it is "sometimes" characterized as pseudoscience. Give me a break. Homeopaths dilute their shit to such an extent that most homeopathic solutions contain no molecules of solute (notice how this fails to be clearly explained in the lead). Everyone who isn't a homeopath and considers this basically admits that this is classic pseudoscience. The lead is a joke. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides not making blanket statements, it is also best not to mischaracterize the efforts of other editors who are sincerely interested in finally getting this article to NPOV. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints (WP:YESPOV). The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The current lead is sympathetic to homeopathy and uses the pseudoscientific explanations provided by homeopaths to describe this pseudoscience on its own terms rather than from an objective stance. Thus the current lead is not NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop battling. I have provided a list of improvements needed to get this article to featured article review. Rest assured that the FAR process will result in a very NPOV article. Can we please focus on the large, non-contentious, sylistic changes that are necessary for improving this article? Issues of tone will be addressed later. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the list? Anthon01 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Right here: Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2. Want a brilliant idea?  Take a few of the long sections, and break them out into daughter articles.  Just copy the content into a new article, such as Homeopathic remedies then place a summary of the moved content into the main article with a link to the new daughter article.  See Gamma ray burst and Gamma ray burst progenitors as examples.  The new daughter article may even qualify for WP:DYK. Jehochman  Talk 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added what I think is perfectly fair balance in the lead. I am not an advocate of homeopathy, I just think that the article can at least be as neutral as the NIH and FDA are (who if anything are often considered industry apologists). They tend not to rail about "quackery", "pesudoscience" and other scare terms to their audiences. In the likely event my sourced info is deleted, please explain here why. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty typical. Any reasonable person who wants to change the article in any way to reflect the views of level-headed rationality is told he has to fight with you for two weeks on the discussion page and build a "consensus." But homeopaths can make enormous changes of their own initiative to promote magical thinking. This double standard and its enforcement by sympathetic admins is exactly why the article has become worthless. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support your other changes, but, IMO, the positive findings shouldn't be mentioned without the appropriate caveats. The current opening misleads the reader into believing that homeopathy has been confirmed to work in certain situations. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reported positive results are summarized here; as well as mentioned in the other references provided. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And...? NIH warns of the insignificance of these results shortly after first mentioning them (in q8: "Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.") We do not. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No the NIH does not warn of the insignificance" of the studies, it refers to issues identified by some authors doing metaanlyses. Nowhere is "insignificance" warned about, much less mentioned. Again this is a tendency of this article to take criticisms well beyond what is actually in the sources. What the NIH review does say is this:


 * The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo. I am simply saying that the fact that some studies found benefits is relevant and should be included, and that the general view is that results have been contradictory, not conclusively in favor of the "quackery" position being promulgated by this article. Science has nothing to fear from reporting accurately. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"[I]t is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition" is "present findings are inconclusive" in so many words. NIH was being used as a tertiary source for this conclusion. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And the NIH can equally be used as a tertiary source for the fact that some studies have shown benefit; yet you choose the negative version. In any case, I'm stepping away from this can of worms, preferring as I do to chase mice. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * is it NOT the purpose of Wikipedia?? to draw conclusions about anything. it is a supporsitory of information sourced, verifiable, and demeed reliable by the community. Perhaps the only way we'll get to anything approaching a FA status is to recognize that this article does not determine the reality of truth but instead compiles current verifiable information and source sfo r it the Internet communit.y Smith Jones (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this talk page is always in desperate need of levity, I do want to point out that I nearly shot soda out of my nose when I read"Wikipedia...is a supporsitory of information..."Smith Jones, I think you might mean repository? Maybe it's both? &mdash; Scientizzle 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe "supporsitory" is a contraction for "supposed to be a repository?" IDK, cud b. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of the Wikipedia requirement that an article have a neutral tone, I recommend that this NIH wording be incorporated into the article:


 * "The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo."

I do not want to add that without agreement from the other editors. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Government sources are a poor substitute for high-quality, peer-reviewed, academic journals. I suggest you not continue with the pro-homeopathy lobbying.  Wikipedia is not a soap box.  Jehochman  Talk 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Government sources, Jehochman, can be quite useful in formulating wording (though, arguably, less useful for deciding facts!), and I believe this statement by Arion3x3 goes just as much to a neutral style as to facts. It appears to me that the scientific criticism goes far more to the implausibility of homeopathic theory than to any conclusive research, and I'd agree that the implausibility should be mentioned in the same breath as the conflicting research (frankly I like my wording presented above "no clear evidence has emerged supporting..." as a starting point)
 * I would also disagree with the seeming singling-out of Arion3x3 for soapboxing; the way I see it that's going on amongst both sides here. Friarslantern (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't support this change. The equal credence it gives positive and negative findings on efficacy isn't a reflection of the current balance of research. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A gum'mint source can be useful as a summary of the current status of research, rather than pre-selected individual studies out of the countless number available. The Lancet meta analysis is a decade old, yet studies on homeopathic remedies are still being conducted. And there are results that are still inconclusive. I really doubt that Wikipedia is going to ignite a major health crisis simply by describing the situation accurately. Of course, the US government could be deliberately misleading the public, because it really wants to destroy the power and influence of big Pharma...oh wait, I'm sorry, thats Bizarro World. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for one, which I've since replaced, the references for the "overall weight" statement were not individual studies. They're reviews. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Regarding the comment that "Government sources are a poor substitute . . . " - both Friarslantern and Boodlesthecat, as well as admins SlimVirgin and Tim Vickers, agree that the National Institutes of Health website is a good reliable source (see comments: |Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#AMA_and_NIH). It offers third party summaries that bypass the need for us to go to individual research studies (which could get precariously close to original research).


 * (2) I have been consistent in my support for the Wikipedia policy of NPOV and a "neutral point of view" in this (and every) article. I do not believe that I have engaged in "pro-homeopathy lobbying" - however if I have not made myself clear, then I will restate my position: this article should not be pro or anti homeopathy - but present all sides neutrally and fairly without bias.


 * (3) As the article currently reads, it appears like a "hatchet-job" that is determined to demolish the premise of homeopathy. A number of uninvolved editors who have left comments on this page about the lead section (see Archives) have noted how "peculiar" it was that the lead has a substantial paragraph to push the POV of the medical and scientific establishment regarding homeopathy, even supporting broad conclusions by lists of refs. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Im afraid that I have ting to disagree with you ARion 3x3 on your last point. this lead is not perfect but it is the best it ahs been so far, and i see signs that it can only can better get in the future as we continue to work on it. Despite how much i might wish it Might not be so, I am afraid that Wikipeda must give higher weight to the Establishmetn due to its policy of verifiability. This does not make the article a "hatchet-job" and the lead is working a lot more fiarly with regards to homeopathy than it used to be. Smith Jones (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Smith Jones - the article should represent the views proportionately, which isn't necessarily the same as representing views equally. Addhoc (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but where is the proportional representation in the lead as is? Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most research articles don't speak in absolutes. For instance where many pro-pseudo editors want, "Homeopathy is not plausible ...", most science articles say "No plausible explanation has been found ...," which is IMO, the NPOV. I think we can take the tone of research articles and learn how to present NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please avoid equivocation. It is best to describe pseudoscience plainly and not on its own terms. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the suggestion was not to describe homeopathy "on its own terms" but in the terms used in mainstream research articles. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ROFL. You're kidding right? So now you're quoting yourself? This is not a policy or a guideline you are quoting from but your own user page. Anthon01 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientists equivocate because they don't "believe" in anything, they are open to all possibilities, which is the whole premise of scientific analysis. For example, the true nature of science to falsify theories, that is test it to disprove the theory.  However, speak to a scientist in person, and they may be fairly blunt in their rejection of pseudoscientific theories.  I think we are equivocating in this article by giving some weight to the pseudoscientific claims both from a historic and from a science perspective.  But it is not necessary to write the science in any equivocal terms, because so much weight is given to the pseudoscience.  Even the dilutions are written equivocally, since there is some small minor probability (approaching improbability) that one molecule could, by random chance, end up in a liter of water.  And I reject "mainstream" science as terminology.  There is science, and there isn't.  If science could test and confirm any pseudoscience, it would then be science.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I think 'they don't "believe" in anything' is a succint statement of WP:NPOV. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) We are not going for what you think "scientist in person" might say, but what is published via NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously peeps, let's not hide behind the alleged and much debunked mythology of the supposed NPOV of scientists and the scientific method, and the also much debunked notion that there is simply something called "science" against which all things in heaven and earth, my Wiki-Horatios, are weighed, and discuss issues. And let's try to fix up the article. Here's Boodles' (a non homeopathic feline) first complaint (all from the same short paragraph!):


 * "implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge"
 * "lack of convincing scientific evidence"
 * "contradiction of basic scientific principles"
 * "regarded as pseudoscience"
 * "and quackery at worst"


 * Methinks the Wiki-scientists protestesth too much! i mean come on, what respectable scientific journal, etc ever uses such a barrage of this, the language of the true believer, the acolyte, the devotee, striking down heresy wherever it rears its diluent head. Even the Lancet review, as vituperative as such reviews get, tells us "For some people, therefore, homeopathy could be another tool that complements conventional medicine, whereas others might see it as purposeful and antiscientific deception of patients, which has no place in modern health care." But our Wiki-Scientists, unlike those wishy-washy Brits, shall hold no truck for....horrors....equivocation! Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. Let's look at the way mainstream reference sources write about it -- for both style and NPOV. Friarslantern (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the editors here could get some helpful guidance on how to write a neutral tone article, that does not take sides and yet describes all sides without bias, by looking at the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education article titled: "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?" . Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need to reinvent the wheel, nor do we need to redefined "neutral" as "in favor of crazy magical thinking" the way you want us to. We have been over this a million times: the fact that homeopathy doesn't work is true and verifiable, therefore there is nothing un-neutral about pointing it out. Neutrality requires adherence to verifiable facts, not an avoidance of anything that could be interpreted as an evaluation. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that I agree with in Randy's comments is "Neutrality requires adherence to verifiable facts". I think it would be helpful for all of us to re-read Wikipedia's policy on NPOV before proceeding with improving this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, and always has been for months on end, that there are a large group of editors here who do not know what NPOV is, or choose to ignore NPOV. And therefore, we have problems. It is that simple. --Filll (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And I'm still getting "incivility warnings" and ban threats from an administrator-impersonator on my talk page for daring to participate in this article. The homeopaths haven't given up on their intimidation and dirty tricks. File that as another reason why the article is becoming impossible to save. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense
The third sentence says Subscript text-- "According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol)." ((My emphasis of the word diluent)). The general consensus of dictionaries seems to be that the word diluent means the substance used to dilute something, not the diluted result or end product. Anyone object if I change "diluent" to "end product"?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, homeopathy claims that the magic properties are retained by the diluent; that is, the substance doing the dilution. As with so-called water memory, the solvent (or diluent) is supposed to remember the properties of substances which had previously been dissolved in them.  It is often the case that the "diluted result" actually contains no active ingredients, and the homeopaths do claim that it is the diluent which retains therapeutic properties.  Silly rabbit (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying. I think. So, are homeopaths actually saying that the liquid they administer to patients has NO properties because they were "discarded" with the diluent? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) If that is not the case, then maybe I am correct in saying that what is administered to patients is NOT the diluent, but is the end product.Kaiwhakahaere (talk)
 * The end product liquid they administer to patients is the diluent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Please read my opening comment in this thread. According to dictionaries, the word diluent means the substance used to to dilute something. You say the end product they administer to patients is the diluent, which of course does not gel with dictionary definitions of diluent. See my point? If something/method is used to dilute a liquid to make it a homeopathic product, that particular something/method is the diluent, NOT the leftover liquid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Homeopathic philosophy is that the substance passes its "essence" on into the diluent. The diluted result is thrown away in favor of the diluent. It is the goal to end up with the diluent as the end product. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think the idea is that if you take a pinch of sugar, put it in the Pacific ("solvent" or "diluent") and then take out a cup of seawater ("end product") science cannot differentiate between "diluent" and "end product" since they are technically identical. Nobody is capable of finding any sugar and as such the "end product" is "diluent" without sugar. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead was blanked
The lead was blanked of everything but the intro paragraph during that edit war. I simply restored to three hours ago. If there were valid consensual changes in that time frame, please restore them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Vaccinations
I have edited "Surveys have shown that homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients against receiving immunisation for diseases." to "In one survey 16 out 23 homeopathic practitioners advised their patients against receiving immunisation for diseases." My edit is NPOV based on the references. On Feb 1st, I originally opposed the text Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination since the references clearly did not support the word Many in the text, and was in fact a violation of NPOV. As a result Adam Cuerdan advised East718 that I was being disruptive. Feb 2nd I was summarily banned from this article for 1 week by East718. The next day Adam Cuerdan changed the text to Surveys have shown that homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients against receiving immunization for diseases. That text also clearly violated NPOV. I challenge any editor who wants to revert the text to either prove using the references that the reversion is justified, or provide other references that support the reversion. Although I suspect that many homeopaths advise against vaccinations, the references provided do not establish that and I have not been able to find references to support that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Challenge met.
 * Did you read the references attached to that statement? Allow me to quote this one..."Some homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation. Several surveys demonstrate this quite clearly. When all homoeopaths listed in the telephone directory of Sydney, Australia were questioned about their attitude regarding immunisation, 83% did not recommend this procedure [31]. A similar but larger study was carried out in Austria [28]. All 230 Austrian homoeopaths received a postal questionnaire which was returned by 117. Only 28% of these rated immunisation as an important preventive measure. Our own group has recently conducted a survey of all 45 homoeopaths within our local area of the U.K. [11]. The response rate was 51%. Seven of the ten physician homoeopaths but none of the 13 lay homoeopaths recommended immunisation." That info as updated in this one:"Several surveys demonstrate that some (particularly non-physician) homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation. When all homoeopaths listed in the telephone directory of Sydney, Australia were questioned about their attitude regarding immunisation, 83% did not recommend this procedure [22]. A larger representative study was carried out in Austria [23], where all 230 registered homoeopaths received a postal questionnaire which was returned by 117. Only 28% of these rated immunisation as an important preventive measure. A further survey of all 45 homoeopaths within our local area in UK [24] yielded a response rate of 51%. Seven of the 10 physicians are homoeopaths, but none of the 13 lay homoeopaths recommended immunisation. Finally, 42 homoeopaths working in Massachusetts, USA were asked about their attitude towards immunisation. About 35% of them actively recommended immunisation while 9% openly opposed childhood immunisations [25]." Would you please restore the prior text? You can certainly replace "often" with "many". &mdash; Scientizzle 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done. I will modify the text. Anthon01 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Anthon01 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [EC]Thanks. In the future, if you can't check the actual sourcing of a statement for its validity due to journal availability, please post on the talk page prior to making such a change so that those of us with ready access can verify the attribution and prevent unnecessary edit war fodder... &mdash; Scientizzle 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that is what I initially did on Feb 1st. I stated that I didn't have the article and the abstract didn't support many. I did not edit the text initially, but waited for other editors to respond. You responded with new citations and a change in text. Anthon01 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No I didn't read the articles because I don't have access to the full text at this time. Isn't there a way to place pertinent text in the citation at the bottom of the page. The text you quoted isn't in the abstract. Anthon01 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a rather large block...the citation is enough. We don't have to spoon-feed readers the info, just responsibly offer it. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about just a small part of the block? Anthon01 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should clarify non-physician homoeopaths? Anthon01 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a minor point, frankly. But I'm open to suggestions. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if the large majority of homeopaths that are against immunizations are the non-medical homeopaths then I think we should clarify that. Why indict all when if the POV is limited mostly to non-medical homeopaths Anthon01 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon01, along those lines, this respect see here, eg:"Few studies have been undertaken to clarify this question and most of these have not distinguished between medically and non-medically qualified homoeopathic practitioners. Therefore, misunderstandings have arisen concerning this question. In the study presented only medically qualified colleagues were included. In the course of this study, 219 medically qualified homoeopathic and 281 non-homoeopathic physicians in Germany (response rate 30.4%) returned a questionnaire about the application and recommendation of 17 different vaccinations in their practices. The answers show that the responding homoeopathic physicians do not generally refuse vaccines but rather view them with a specific hierarchy."


 * In Ernst 1997 cited above by Scien, we read "It is concluded that the advice of some, by no means all complementary practitioners in relation to immunisation represents an area for concern, which requires further research."


 * In Ernst 2001 cited above, we read: "Several surveys demonstrate that some (particularly non-physician) homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation" and "In conclusion, some providers of CAM [note, this includes chiropractic and naturopathy] have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health."


 * Yet where the literature is indicating "some" (including the 3rd ref used which extrapolates from 23 respondents in Exeter in 1995 contacted from the Yellow Pages, in which 7 of 10 medically qualified homeopaths recommended immunization), our Wikiscientists feel we must say "many." I don't know if this is a sort of reverse Bellarminism defending the lambs in the Wiki-reading public from perceived disputations against the the current order of things, but it don't seem quite right? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be the use of a synthesis of published material serving to advance the position that homeopathy and homeopathic practictioners are a "danger" to the public. See WP:SYN for why this arguing to advance a position is not allowed by Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please specifically point out where you believe this synthesis is taking place? What part of the article is synthesizing information. Vague complaints aren't going to help us much, but if you can point to a specific problem, we can fix it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Right above my comments, "Boodlesthecat" gave a specific example: the use of the word "many" instead of "some". Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodlesthecat: Do you have a recommendation perhaps suggested text? I will get a copy of the 3 articles over the weekend. Anthon01 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there an emoticon for an eye roll? Put "some" down rather than "many", that's fine and clearly exactly citable. It's really stupid, in my opinion, to get one's undies in a bunch over vague qualitative (rather than quantitative) descriptors like "some" and "many" (which don't actually mean anything different). Arion, your statement above is a great example of how not to present an otherwise-reasonable opinion (that "some" is more appropriate than "many"); instead of saying 'why don't we exactly match the source to avoid a WP:SYNTH problem?' you holler about a perceived slight, complete with scare quotes. That, in my opinion, is the kind of discourse (of which Arion is not the only guilty party, mind you) that poisons the discourse on this page. I'm going on vacation...thankfully...If you must, just quote the source that says"Several surveys demonstrate that some (particularly non-physician) homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation"and use that in the article in place of the current sentence. Problem solved. Move on to the next arena. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, um, ""some" and "many" (which don't actually mean anything different)"? Hmmm, I dunno, I'd rather have some pokes in the eye with a sharp stick than many pokes in the eye with a sharp stick, but that's just me. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest text to replace what is currently there? Anthon01 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Scien's last suggestion above seems reasonable. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Anthon01 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the lead of this article - a highly personal opinion

 * 1) Paragraph 1 is written in such a dense prose that it is difficult to read. This could be addressed by simplifying the prose and also by splitting it into two paragraphs.
 * 2) The figure on the right adds little if any value.  By making the paragraph narrower, it also makes it visually longer.
 * 3) Paragraphs 2 and 3 are difficult to read because of the large number of reference superscripts included. (Just to be clear, I do absolutely recognize the importance of references. I am just pointing out the detrimental effect that they have on the readability.)
 * Wanderer57 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I tried but Orangemarlin reverted. See discussion below. Mccready (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert of LEAD
This is copied from Orangemarlin's talkpage

"My edits were copy edits to improve readability of the article. I hope you weren't implying anything to the contrary? Let's take one example of your bulk revert which I think resulted in a worse article. My edit:
 * Homeopaths say that serial dilution in water, sugar or alcohol, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while retaining its qualities.

Your edit:
 * According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol).

Would you mind explaining to me why your edit is to be preferred? I'll copy this to the talkpage." Mccready (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mccready, I think "according to homeopaths" has a more formal, encyclopedic tone than "homeopaths say". Addhoc (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion, with a proposal for the following sentence:
 * According to homeopaths, serial dilution in water, sugar, or alcohol, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative undesirable effects of the substance while retaining its remedial qualities therapeutic properties. The end product is often so diluted that laboratory tests can find no trace of the substance and it is very improbable that any molecules of the substance remain in the typical dose, but is still claimed to have an effect on consumers.

The first sentence incorporates elements of both versions shown above, and makes it clear that it's the "substance" rather than "the remedy". ... dave souza, talk 14:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Therapeutic properties' would be better rather than 'remedial'...which sounds rather hackneyed. 'negative effects' could also be improved to unpleasant effects? or unwanted effects? a mere $0.05 worth Peter morrell 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've tweaked my proposal accordingly, with "undesirable" rather than "unwanted" though both seem ok to me. .. dave souza, talk 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this wording, in line with my request for something easier to read.


 * According to homeopaths, serial dilutions, with shaking between dilutions, remove negative effects of the remedy while curative powers are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). Though the end product may be so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure diluent in laboratory tests, it is claimed to have a therapeutic effect.  Wanderer57 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an account of how this method first originated: "Hahnemann's use of minute, potentized medicinal doses originally arose from his interest in reducing the adverse affects of medicines. He then discovered that by successively diluting and succussing a medicinal substance, not only were the adverse effects of the medicine diminished, but the inherent curative power of the substance was dramatically increased. This led to his discovery that medicines and diseases act dynamically, not materially." It is clear from this review what was intended by 'adverse effects' and 'curative power.' thanks Peter morrell 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on medical effectiveness
The paragraph “In 2005 The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects”

gives a bias to the paper that does not stand up to inspection. Their actual conclusion was “there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.” This conclusion was drawn in their ‘Interpretation’, however, in spite of the study showing little evidence of differences between the two groups (homeopathy and conventional) when all the matched trials were considered (as might have been fairly assumed by the headline). There were differences only when a tiny percentage of unmatched larger trials were cherry-picked for further analysis (that is, 102/110 of the homeopathy studies and 104/110 of the conventional studies were discarded). (I say ‘cherry-picked’ as the study does not appear to have used a pre-determined rationale in discarding trials and ends up apparently 'dredging' the data, to give the most negative effects.) The remaining 6% of the studies, however, still showed positive (if not conclusive, possibly as the number of trials left in this final grouping was so small) evidence in favour of a homeopathic effect over placebo. No sensitivity analysis was undertaken over the final number of trials chosen. Therefore I propose that this statement be rephrased as follows:

“In 2005 The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The study showed little difference between the two groups except when over 90% of the trials were omitted subsequent to the start of the study, leaving just the single figure numbers of unmatched but ‘larger trials of higher reported methodological quality’. The paper concluded that there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies but that its findings were compatible with (but not proof of) the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects.” Martin Chaplin (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

''::In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo.51 However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61 Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo.'' http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507 --Dana4 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the 2005 Lancet meta-analysis is to be mentioned, then problems with its conclusions must be noted as well. Arion 3x3 (talk)

17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a critical commentary on the Lancet piece in an OUP peer-reviewed CAM journal here.

Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The anti-science POV tends to think that science works in black and white. Science has no POV.  I think it clearly states that Homeopathy is nothing more than placebo, as tested in a scientific manner.  Thank you for your consideration.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get your point here. Your first two sentences seem to contradict each other. Please can you clarify?  Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that some of the evidence is deeply flawed and should not be used without proper criticism. This goes for both sides. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article referred to above concludes with the comment: "The way forward is open, transparent science, not opaque, biased analysis and rhetoric." I agree. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethical and safety issues
Orangemarlin: I made edits to the "Ethical and safety issues" section to conform to what is in the refs provided. The section ''all homeopathic patients or clients should be fully informed of the lack of convincing experimental support for the effectiveness of homeopathy, prior to being given the remedies. They also note that it is unethical to employ unsupported and unproven remedies such as homeopathy when modern medical treatments are genuinely effective'' is sourced to Ernst 2004, an article that contains zero discussion of homeopathy, nor does it make the claim above with regards to CAM. Any editor that wishes to include that section should feel free, as long as there is a source. Your reverting my edits by simply asserting "Reverted POV deletions" is in direct contradiction to WP:AGF, not to mention that it is in fact a POV revert on your part based simply on your opinions of the subject. I am reverting it back not to be confrontational, but simply to assume you didn't give it your full attention. Please however do not revert it out without a clear explanation. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact check
The article currently states:

"From a modern regulatory viewpoint, any product that contains detectable levels of active ingredients cannot be classified as a homeopathic remedy."

There is no mention of what jurisdiction this applies to. From the abstract linked, I gather it is referring to EU standards. But I cannot verify who says a homeopathic product cannot contain detectable levels of active ingredients, or what method should be used for the detection. The full text of the article does not appear to be available online. Would someone please check this source? Dforest (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * certianly not true in the US see the whole zicam mess.Geni 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are homeopathic remedies in Europe that have measurable amounts of active ingredient. And there have been several products like Zicam in the US that contain measurable levels of active material. So I really do not understand where this statement comes from. However, it is impossible to fix anything since this article has turned into a war zone.--Filll (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'm giving it a shot and removing it. Maybe we can put it back when we have some clarification, but as it stands, it seems to contradict many known remedies. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course I get accused of censorship. . Seriously, censorship? Is it good for Homeopathy that none of the active ingredient remains? Hello? Ugh. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You were not accused of censorship at all. A question was asked. There is a difference.222.153.80.231 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so three users have agreed that there are doubts about this statement. According to Template:Verify source, if the citing is "doubtful and potentially harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source." So I am using my judgement to move it here. However, there may be some jurisdictions where it is true. If someone can confirm or clarify the statement, please explain here before adding it again. Dforest (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i rhink tha the data shoudl be removed if there is no reasonable sour ce and if anyone tries to put it back we can try to resolve it here or request an ARbCom to resolve a content disputes. Smith Jones (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * clearly from anylzing the statement and the poor edit summaries used to justify its inclusion (such as the baseless accusation fo censorship against User:INfofile) is it painfully obvious to me that this inadequatley sourced claim was inserted into the article to make homeopathy look stupid, a clearly biased and insulting statement that is eerily simialr to that of the drug company drive-bys. Smith Jones (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no baseless accusation fo censorship against  anyone. A question was asked. There is a difference.222.153.80.231 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no "drug company drive-bys." Your delusions of grandeur are amusing, but they also show why this article is a mess. No corporations are out to get you, no conspiracy is needed to make healing disease with magic look idiotic. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * so do you think that this information belongs in the article??? Smith Jones (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i remind you that other users have agreed that it should be remove d and that the the only other preson supporting is inclusion is a paranoid anonymous editor who has just accused User:Infophile of censorship 06:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is paranoid here? The anonymous editor asked a question. He/she did not accuse anyone of censorship. There is a difference. 222.153.80.231 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're going to accuse everyone who disagrees with your ludicrous position of being a paid corporate assassin, then link to the "assume good faith" policy? Really? Randy Blackamoor (talk)


 * you are dodging the issue. the issue is no t my personal views, or whatever yout hink my personal views are. the issue is whether or not the information that the anonymous editor wanted to add belongs in the article. I want to know if you think that itis a worthwhile addition to the article despite the fact that it is unsourced and contradicts other sourced statements in this same article. Smith Jones (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec^2) I wouldn't extend so far as to say it was put in to make Homeopathy look bad. Seems more likely it's just an over-generalization from what might be regulations in some specific area. It would be good to check the original source on this one. I'll be out of the office for a while, so I don't have my access privileges to check it up. Anyone else have access to it? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't use phrasings like "modern regulatory viewpoint" anyway unless we can cite secondary sources on the (worldwide) development of regulation of homeopathy. Without that, any such claim is just going to be opinion or original research, and is likely to have a national bias as well. Instead, if we're going to include the claim at all, we need specific examples of laws or regulations that limit "homeopathic remedies" to those containing no chemically detectable active ingredient. --FOo (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahnemann and molecules
From the article (section Dilution and succussion):

... ''Practitioners of homeopathy believe that this water retains some "essential property" of the original substance, due to the shaking after each dilution.[63] Hahnemann believed that the dynamisation or shaking of the solution caused a "spirit-like" healing force to be released from within the substance. He thought that even after every molecule of the previous substance has been removed from the water, the spiritual healing force still remained.[62]''...

The entire section freely mixes Hahnemann's original views and the views of modern homeopathic "practictioners", but is particularly misleading here since (without proper citation) it is in no way established that Hahnemann either explicitly accepted or rejected atomic/molecular theory, a science which was in its infancy at the time. Note that the given citation does not reference molecules in connection with Hahnemann's beliefs ("... He believed that even after it has been completely removed from the solution by enormous dilution, the healing force remained..." ) --DWIII (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I said that at the time it was reworded but it never got improved. Hahnemann in the 1820s had no real concept of molecules. That word should be removed. On the other thread a substance is homeopathic when it fits the case totality, NOT when it is deemed to contain x amount of a substance. IOW a substance is homeopathic not by virtue of its state of potentisation (or degree of dilution) but by virtue of its mode of preparation and its closeness to a symptom totality. The name homeopathy derives from the law of similars NOT from any concept about molecules or dilution or the size of the dose. thanks Peter morrell —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, you mind explaining what you mean by "case totality"? Don't remember hearing that term before. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were editing an article on the atomic nucleus I would not want to be seen asking what a neutron is. Far preferable not to edit subjects one knows little about. Get the picture? thank you Peter morrell 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That does sound important. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, perhaps that omission could be corrected. Anyway, the concept of molecules, or even atoms, was still controversial a century after Hahnemann and so removal of that term is appropriate. The source cited uses the phrase "infinitesimal levels", and more significantly states that "Hahnemann himself understood that dilutions of the magnitude he used eliminated all of the original substance" which is the point being covered. So, a suggestion – He thought that even after all of the previous substance had been removed from the water, the spiritual healing force still remained.[62]... dave souza, talk 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (responding to Peter here) Well that was rude. Sorry if I'm not up on all of the Homeopathic lingo. I figured it would be fine to edit this article knowing simply a little about reality, chemistry, medicine, science, etc., but apparently you're not allowed if you don't speak the language. And even just asking about it gets you snapped it, evidently... --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not rude; sorry, but it was blunt and the point stands: why edit this article if you have to ask what case totality is? I would not dream of editing an article I know little about. To do so, shows strong opinions (another reason to desist) and a certain arrogance, not necessarily of you personally, but as a general rule this is what seems implicit. The point I was making is that homeopathy is primarily based on similars not on the size of the dose being used. Therefore, something is not 'homeopathic' by virtue of the dose size, but by virtue of the symptom totality in the patient that it covers, i.e. the case totality. Is that any better? Peter morrell 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can parse from that is an implication that case/symptom totality is the law of similars, but I don't think that's right. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you search for 'case totality', along with 'homeopathy' in google then you will notice on the first page of results, mentions of a "Peter Morrel". I'm guessing this isn't a coincidence. Addhoc (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * well, Peter morrel is a respecatlbe homeopathic researcher aif thats your point. See also here. If only everyone else here was that. Smith Jones (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, just a reminder that for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, we are very lucky that Peter is willing to help us. Without Peter, we would be in much worse shape. So lets try not to drive him off, ok?--Filll (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be....but he should not be suggesting edits which support his POV with his web sites and articles. I've had to avoid suggesting my parents' books as sources for articles on the axiom of choice, even though I believed they are recognized to be the primary reference source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a mere dabbler in subjects that interest me, rather than those I know all about, it seems possible that "case totality" is an alternative term for the homeopathy reference to the "symptom totality" of the patient and the complexity of the "totality of symptoms" concept. Not made less complex by "totality" not meaning "total". The joys of jargon. . dave souza, talk 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Arthur Rubin, I felt as you did at first until I investigated further. Actually Peter is a world-renowned authority and researcher who has written extensively on the subject and has a faculty position in this area. He does not recommend his own work, although others sometimes use his published work as references; we cannot fault him for that.

On the topic of "totality": If it is a common piece of terminology, we should define it carefully either in this article, or a more advanced article (one of which Peter and I are working on). I want to make sure that at least some of the articles remain accessible so that a person can start out knowing very little and slowly acquire more and more background knowledge about the subject. So if this is the entry article (which would be my suggestion), at least the LEAD should be very accessible. Any specialized jargon or technical language belongs in the body, carefully defined, or in a subsiduary daughter article.--Filll (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding "totality of symptoms" - homeopaths use this term to refer to the attempt to consider and include all physical, emotional, and mental symptoms if at all possible, in the effort to arrive at the closest homeopathic remedy match (as found in the Homeopathic Materia Medica) to the individual being treated. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the google search there are 44 results and of these 16 mention Peter Morrel. Also the only google scholar results are by Peter Morrel. I agree with comments by Arthur Rubin about caution in referring to your own work. Addhoc (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a more user-friendly way to understand "totality of symptoms" is simply by saying that homeopathy is a system of treating "syndromes", not simply diseases. One person's "migraine syndrome" may need one homeopathic medicine (that it is known to cause) as compared with someone else's migraine syndrome which is decidedly different.  For those newbies to homeopathy out there, you may be surprised to discover that homeopathic thinking may make a lot more sense than conventional medical thinking that tends to assume that people should be treated with the same drug just because they have the same diagnosis despite a decidedly different syndrome.  Ultimately, to appreciate homeopathy, it helps to appreciate complexity and biological individuality and to have some distain for over-simple thinking and for assuming that disease is ever local (to a homeopath, disease is also systemic).  DanaUllmanTalk 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that some other medical systems follow similar approaches, Traditional Chinese Medicine for one, which have other ways of categorizing people by their constellation of symptoms than western medicine. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually not that uncommon, and hardly unique to Homeopathy. Look for anything that mentions Holism. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So this talk page is now officially a forum where people evangelize for magic? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No magic necessary, just different ways of analyzing and categorizing. &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy, if you prefer "meat and potatoes," please note my contribution under "Meta-analyses and Lead". Any comments? DanaUllmanTalk 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)