Talk:Allopathic medicine/Archive 1

message: My Webster's New World Edition, gives your definition and then says "loosely applied to the general practice of medicine today."  This is the way I have heard it commonly used on many occasions.
I think the term also refers to a general principle for modern medicine as well.  For example, to treat high cholesterol, you take a medicine that lowers cholesterol.  To treat cancer, you eliminate the cancer.  This is different than most other medical frameworks.  For example, traditional chinese medicine uses techniques to create energetic balance between organs.  The objective is thus balance not elimination of disease.
How about we use the full websters definition to avoid controversy then? - (unsigned)
As long as the accurate meaning is included. We already point out both the loose, inaccurate meaning used by foes of medicine, and the accurate meaning. - Nunh-huh 00:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said it was used "only" by foes of medicine? It's used primarily by foes of medicine, not only. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and I care about what a US publication thinks because? This article isn't just about US usageGeni 02:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Webster's New World Edition

message: :I'm disappointed.  First, you argue that dictionaries are what "collate" these kind of statistics.  Then you quote an entirely out of date definition.  If you were arguing it was from the unabridged version, that may in fact, be different.  But you are quoting a definition from 1971 from the Compact definition.  The online 2005 Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary has the following definition for allopathy:noun "the treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having effects opposite to the symptoms. Often contrasted with HOMEOPATHY." [] which is their current definition.  They do not have your 1971 definition. CL
::Dictionaries are indeed the authorities. But the online dictionary you cite is obviously incomplete, or incompletely cited. The 1971 edition is "compact" because it is photographically reduced, not because it is incomplete. The online "compact" edition states that it defines 145,000 words, which is less than the 1971 edition. Further, words rarely have but one definition, and definitions do not "replace" prior definitions: new meanings are added, old ones are not subtracted. And the 2003 Merriam Webster (as previously cited) contains the meaning, so the issue is not dates or changes but completeness. You are picking and choosing among definitions and declaring those you don't like obsolete, which they are not. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When it becomes a common enough usage to supplant the primary definition in dictionaries, we can make what you perceive as the "Harvard" usage our primary definition. Until then we'd best stick with authoritative sources. - Nunh-huh 04:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I read it the first time. The definition you wanted to make primary is not primary, but secondary and "loose". The current Collegiate edition of Merriam Webster has no such definition. - Nunh-huh 04:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misusing dictionary definitions

message: If one defines the opposite of health as overreactive histamine release, or an overactive immune sytem, or an overwhelming bacterial infection, and then one uses or designs drugs to counteract that (reduce histamine release or suppress the immune system, or kill bacteria) that is an opposing effect.  What does not follow is necessary restored health (a lupus patient not in remission, an ongoing pneumonia).  There is an attempt to treat by singling out the problem, and negating, reducing, or modifying it in some way. - CL
:No, that's your attempt to read a principle into a mode of treatment, not that of those doing the treating. It's not the principle they use to guide their treatment. No actual practitioner uses the induction of "opposite" effects as a principle to guide treatment. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably you do so because these treatments have been shown to be beneficial, rather than because they produce the "opposite" of the patient's complaints. - Nunh-huh 03:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: And that has absolutely nothing to do with the primary meaning of "allopathy". You are not being guided by the "principle" of "allopathy".  - Nunh-huh 03:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, and homeopathy also sought to treat disease by reversing processes that are dangerous or maladaptive. It sought to do so by administering substances which had the same effect as the disease. You do not follow an analogous "principle" by administering substances because they have the opposite effect of the disease, but rather because they affect morbidity, mortality, or comfort. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are as purposeful as the choices homeopaths make, and they are more effective. But your choices are not guided by a "principle" of producing opposite effects, while homeopaths are guided by a principle of producing similar effects.  According to your formulation, treating a disease is intrinsically an "allopathic" process. That's not what Hahneman meant when he invented the word. - Nunh-huh 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to read a principle into a mode of treatment

message: I do not think that the only way to treat disease is an "allopathic" way.  I think the main tool used by conventional medicine today is based on a principle that treats disease through opposing the underlying pathophysiology or countering the overlying symptoms.  This is the main tool of treatment of conventional medicine.  - unsigned.
:But the allopathy vs homeopathy distinction was based on treatment choice by similarity/dissimilarity of their effects to symptoms, not underlying pathology. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Conventional medicine does not select medicines based on the production of effects opposite to symptoms. It selects medicines based on their effects in alleviating disease. There is no principle of "allopathy" underlying conventional medicine. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allopathy versus homopathy distinction

message: Thank you RK for putting Arvindn in his place.  I could not have done it without your help.  :)--Mr-Natural-Health 19:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks RK 

message: A related discussion is taking place in Talk:Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints.  The twist is that the argument is being made in reverse.
Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia.  All supporters of  Alternative medicine should vote to delete this article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A related discussion is taking place 

message: I removed this spurious content, as it was unsourced, original research. Nunh-huh: please do not feed the trolls. --brian0918™ 16:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I am glad to have—at long last—some company in fighting the troll. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "short search"

message: I do not see the need for the "disclaimer" tags at the top of this article.  If there are no (reasonable, under 5K word) objections I will remove them.  brenneman(t)(c) 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took off the tone one. NickelShoe 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag Removal 

message: The opening paragraph of the article contains statements asserting the views of a broad class of people not those of the author(s).  It alledges that this broad class of people use the term allopathy as a term of disparagement.  This is factually inaccurate.  The term allopathy is not a term of disparagement.  It is a term used to identify a practice and to differentiate it from other practices.
Some members of this broad and ill defined group of other practitioners do speak ill of those who practice allopathic medicine with disdain.  That does not make the term a term of disparagement.  And it makes the two sentences factually wrong.
Similarly, many people who practice mainstream medicine speak ill of the broad class of people who practice or even who only use alternative medicine and therapies.  This does not make the use of the categorization "alternative medicine" disparaging.  The disparging is in the act of the persons doing it, not in the category name.
The sole difference between these two examples is that conventionl medical practice did not choose a name for themselves as a class.  I believe it was because they did not that the name allopathy was created - to class as a group those who practice conventional medical treatments, from that which was being set off at the time - homeopathy.
The name chosen was not chosen as a name of derision such as was done by some fringe members of the mainstream view in labeling anyone who practices things outside that view as quacks.
The name chosen was respectful.
As written the article is not written in a neutral point of view.
The opening paragraph needs to have the two offending and unsupported assertions removed.  
I believe it is important to maintain the idea that there is disagreement and that mainstream medical practitioners feel put upon by having a label applied.  That is more than adequately covered later in the entry.Farseer 15:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I would just like to point out that I found, by sheer coincidence, the very same discussion (points 1 to 16 on an AnswerQuest page under http://aqlogic.com/enc/Talk:Allopathic_medicine )
maybe someone should look into this?! --Eluec5 12:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AnswerQuest is a content reuser. Perfectly fine under the license. --Nick Boalch ?!? 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This same discussion on AnswerQuest???

message: It just occured to me that there is another problem with the word which I have never seen cited anywhere.  Suppose you have two neurosurgeons who work in the same hospital and do the same surgeries.  This is what we have been arguing that allopathic medicine refers to--orthodox, mainstream medicine.  But supopse one of the two surgeons is an MD while the other is a DO.  They are not practicing different medicine.  They are doing the exact same surgery in the exact same way.  How could one of them be more allopathic and one of them be more osteopathic?  Since the DO isn't doing some kind of manipuative thing, does that make him an allopath?  Or is the MD who is doing the same surgery as the DO practicing osteopathic medicine?  
DOs ruin the idea that allopathic medicine is what you call mainstream medicine.  Either that or osteopaths actually are allopaths... Donaldal 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I'd just ignore it for the purposes of the article unless you find a citation.  Original conclusions don't belong here anyways. NickelShoe 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new problem with the word

message: This article refers to the German article de:Schulmedizin. However, the de.wiki also contains an de:Allopathie page. The two terms appear synonymous in German, so I'd like to change the reference to the literal translation. Any objections? --Illythr 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allopathie" 

message: "The term "allopath" comes from the Greek roots meaning "opposite" and "disease"-- the form "allopathy" being formed by false analogy with other French word pairs." ??????
"As used by homeopaths, the term "allopathy" has always referred to a principle of curing disease by administering substances that produce the opposite effect of the disease when given to a healthy human." ??????
Some clarification here, from someone who had actually read Hahnemann:
http://www.homeoint.org/books5/clarkehomeo/homeoallo.htm
"Hahnemann pointed out there were three principal ways of using drugs - the homœopathic, the allopathic, and the antipathic or enantiopathic. The homœopathic is the like - to - like method, in which a medicine is given to a sick person because it is capable of producing similar state when given to healthy one - similia similibus. The allopathic method is that in which the drug given, being "without any pathological relation to what is naturally diseased in the body, attacks the part most exempt from the disease." The enantiopathic is the opposite of the homœopathic, and is the treatment by contraries. This treatment is palliative merely. When a large dose of opium is given to overcome sleeplessness ; or when an astringent is given to arrest diarrhœa, or a purgative is given to remove constipation - these are examples of antipathic treatment. But many diseases, such as inflammation, for example have no "opposites" except health, and these can not be treated by this method, and must be treated, if at all, in one of the other two ways."
Common treatments from the era of heroic medicine were mercury for syphilis, bleeding for fevers, antimony tartrate for pneumonia. These were not 'opposite' to the disease, hence Hahnemann's term. Only a few 'opposites' were used such as opium for diarrhea, and he termed these 'antipathic', not allopathic.
Overall, it looks like someone with a beef about homeopathy is using the article as a platform, not to elucidate the term allopathy. As such it's POV. Jedermann 11:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy, Allopathy & Enantiopathy