Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 7

message: This article is quite large at the moment. Given the complexity of the discussion and the effort that has been put into this page, I don't think much should be removed - how about splitting a section off into a separate article? It looks to me like the easiest section to move out would be 'History', with or without 'Homeopathy around the world'. Any comments? SeventyThree(Talk) 20:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the information present should be there. However, there has been a lot of drive towards adding a section on classical vs modern vs clinical etc. I feel that the section on miasms should really be removed to another article. the history of homeopathy is pretty integral to the way homeopathy is viewed and practised upon, so I wouldn't want to see that being moved. PhatRita 21:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

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

message: Anyone know how to archive this page and, while at it, how to block Aegis? - I am unapologetically renewing my previous charge of vandalism.Davidnortman 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes and yes. However while I could just feed thier name into the block log such an action would not be acceptable. The normal method would be to start an RFC.Geni 01:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would support your effort to block him, but I don't know if it would help your case to describe his actions as "vandalism". In WP admin circles that word is usually applied to people who do things like blank a page or swap in silly pictures. Aegeis is more of an obsessive nuisance than a vandal. --Lee Hunter 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a matter for admins. Personaly I wouldn't bother doing anything other than reverting him. He will give up sooner or latter.Geni 04:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I used to be more active on this article, but gave up thanks to Geni's wholesale reversions of anything he found disagreeable.  But I have to register my complaint about the POV of the introductory paragraph:
:Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, notable for its controversial practice of prescribing water-based solutions that in many cases do not contain chemically active ingredients. The model of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It is growing in popularity in some areas where it is practised today, but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards.
OK, here goes: 
#It is debatable whether homeopathy is "alternative medicine," since it has been around for as long as mainstream medicine. Clearly, it is out of the mainstream, but is "alternative" only from the point of view of the mainstream.  This is not a biggie, but it must be noted.
#Notable for its controversial of prescribing water-based solutions that in many cases do not contain chemically active ingredients. There are many things wrong with this sentence:
##Just what is "notable" or not depends on your perspective. This is indeed Geni's main objection to homeopathy, but  I suspect that most people would say that it's the law of similars that is most notable, or perhaps that the homeopathic practitioner takes into account a whole host of symptoms.
##In any pharmaceutical preparation, most of the material is not the active ingredient. It would be strange to say that benadryl is "water-based." The fact that most remedies are prepared in water is incidental to how they're supposed to work.
***This is a valid point. A vial of Benadryl (as used in a hospital for intravenous or intramuscular injection) is water-based and is indeed mostly water. But there is Benadryl in the solution. In the majority of homeopathic remedies there is no trace of the original "symptom-producing" substance. (See Leifern's next point.) Ifnord 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be precise here: a number of studies do in fact show that homeopathy is efficacious and safe. What has happened is that the majority of the medical community (who, it must be said, have a vested interest in this) remain unconvinced by these studies. By any reasonable standard, the vast majority of conventional medicine have doubtful safety and efficacy.  In fact, I can make a pretty compelling case that but for a few exceptions, conventional medicine is an abject failure at curing illnesses.    --Leifern 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in your conspirocy theories.Geni 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no conspiracy theory implied or expressed. Talk about a strawman argument. --Leifern 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: people with vested interests acting against something in secret is by defintion a conspirocy.Geni 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not implied or expressed that anyone is doing anything in secret. A conspiracy also requires that there's willful collaboration, which I never implied or expressed. To suggest that individuals deliberately or inadvertently act in accordance to their biases and interests is a non sequiteur. You are putting words in my mouth, and I can only interpret this to mean that you have nothing else to argue with. --Leifern 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well if everything is out in the open you will be able to prove it wont you.Geni 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ok lets see what your alturnative is.Geni 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't made a single coherent argument against what I've written so far. But I expect that whatever I'll write you'll simply revert. --Leifern 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop playing games and show your alturnative.Geni 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am under no circumstances playing games - I can only point out that you make arguments and accusations and then fail to substantiate them. I can also observe that every attempt that has been made to make this a neutral article has been met by your reverts to your polemical version.  This is not a game.  --Leifern 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You think the opening is POV. Ok lets see what wording you want.Geni 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made two requests for you produce an improved wording. Since the second request you have made two edits to this page. Until you produce something you think is an improved wording I don't see any point in carrying on this conversation.Geni 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV introduction 

message: At last we seen what Leifern wants
:looking for a pattern of symptoms across multiple organic systems, including personality traits, etc.
Two errors here:
*1.only applies to classical homeopathy and related. Practical homeopaths use many other methods.
*2. Conventional medicine dose this as well
:Treating "like with like," i.e., seeking to trigger healing responses in a body by introducing remedies that in large quantities produce similar symptoms to those that need treatment
Again two errors:
*1.it’s got nothing to do with quantities. Provings are commonly done at 30C. It is to do with whether the person is healthy or not. 
*2.Homeopaths have never been able to show that the results of proveings are correct (indeed the two objective tests that have been done came out with the results that would be expected by chance)
:Seeking to increase the potency by reducing the dosage, sometimes to the point in which the active ingredient is unlikely to exist in a dosage
Doesn’t make sense. Since the processes of potentization is apparently they key concept the use of does here is incorrect (ie the dose is kept the same the remedy is made more potent by repeated dilutions and potentizations)
:Although homeopathy is reported to be the fastest-growing medical discipline in the world, and is second only in popularity to conventional Western medicine
The although is POV. You don’t say who it is reported by. The last survey I saw put prayer as the most used and I suspect that TCM out ranks homeopathy by a reasonable margin
: though supporters of the field point to early support for it by Greek physicians and Paracelsus.
That should be claim rather than point to.Geni 21:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, as I expected Geni reverted to his completely false and fraudulent version. What a fucking farse. Geni essentially did a wholesale reversion, which is vandalism. Unless it is reverted and edited in a good-faith manner, I will report him for vandalism. Other than that, I wash my hands at this attempt at perpetuating bias and ignorance. This article is a disgrace. The totally disputed tag will remain until and unless a decent, informed version appears. --Leifern 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't vandalism. At least not as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have given plently of reasons why I object to your version. It is up to you to decide whether or not to disspute them.Geni 02:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leifern's intro

message: I think it makes sense to keep a separate article for homeopathic provings, although the present content of that article should be expanded. There is plenty of interesting but specialized information on that topic that should be available but that would overburden the main article. --Art Carlson 11:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the merge proposal as no valid reason was offered for the merge. --Lee Hunter 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Homeopathic proving]] 

message: I noticed that some people didn't think a reduced introduction was appropriate, but I stand by my assertion that using the phrase "notable" is bad writing in any context and indicates POV. Case in point: the person who did the edit posted this in my talk page (and not here, not sure why)
:For a lot of people Homeopathy is notable precisely because it uses treatments that are just water. It's important to have that stated up front in the introduction, in an appropriately neutral way, because not to do so doesn't properly present the balance of views.
For what people? Why is it important to state any of that in the introduction? Ultradilution is discussed ad nauseum in the rest of the article, including scientific criticism. How does an introduction that states, "Homeopathy is alternative medicine. Homeopathy was founded by.." an imbalance of views? Adding anything more is pushing an agenda, and we're going to continue having these stupid revert wars as long as people continue assuming the reader is a moron and can't wait 2 paragraphs to read the scientific criticism section.
(Oh, and there was something weird going on with the "Totally disputed" section(s) so I got rid of the topmost one, looks like it was duplicated accidentally.) T.J.C. 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction wars 

message: When I first encountered this article, I was amazed at how it presents only one perspective of homeopathy, that of the conventional, AMA point of view. 
For starters, the sentence in the introduction that states "Moreover, following Avogadro's discovery it has firmly rejected the possibility of most homeopathic preparations having any medicinal action" would give the casual reader the impression that homeopathic remedies are absolutely worthless, and as previous discussion has shown, this may not be the case for several reasons. This is the kind of bias you guys need to avoid to give a clear, neutral presentation of the subject material. 
Because it's a subject that has been contested for nearly 200 years, perhaps the editors of this fine document could find some way to present the facts without the judgements as to whether it works or not and why, and leave the controversy to another page or section here.
Someone who wants to make an informed decision about homeopathy, at present, will not find Wikipedia very helpful; and because of the biased presentation of the history and principles of homeopathy in this article, it could color many people's attitude towards Wikipedia in general.
Thanks,
Jeff
:I think we should do what the astrology article does - have an article on homeopathy, and then an article on the validity of homeopathy with "the case for" and "the case against" sections. Last time it was brought up, though, the reaction was unfavourable. T.J.C. 22:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative point of view

message: Here is my attempt at rewriting the Introduction.  This is still not perfect. but it's a start.  I hold that it says everything the current introduction does (plus a little bit more), but is significantly more NPOV in its presentation, as it needs to be.  If anyone has objections, please state them.
:Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine.  The model of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796.
:Homeopathy calls for treating "like with like", a doctrine referred to as the "Law of Similars". The practitioner considers the totality of symptoms of a given case, then chooses as a remedy a substance that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce a similar set of symptoms in healthy subjects. The remedial substance is usually given in extremely low -- sometimes vanishingly small -- concentrations.  Dilutions are performed according to a procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power.
:Homeopathy is controversial because many of its hypotheses and claims have not been verified to, or are at odds with, the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method.  For example, an extreme homeopathic dilution may result in less than one molecule of the original ingredient per dose.
Steve Summit (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. --Lee Hunter 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: I have no objections to it other than the slight error that molecule is not always the corect term (for example there is a homeopathic remedy made up from helium) however I understand that the term items is confusing.Geni 02:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting better, but the "notable" clause is still hopelessly POV and poor English. And Geni, when you take introduction to Chemistry, you'll learn that a molecule can consist of only one atom. --Leifern 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the common term. No matter I can also point to things like the light of venus and positronium. The problem of neither of these being in solution long enough for potentisation to be caried out is left as an excersise to the reader.Geni 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: Wikinfo is that way. What you propose is not consistant with NPOV.Geni 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the measure of an NPOV article is that supporters of both side of an issue can read the article and find that the article is scrupulous about distinguishing between facts and opinions. I agree with Geni that we certainly couldn't expect a homeopathic practitioner - no matter how well-meaning - to write a completely unbiased article about his/her profession. But neither can we simply assume that MDs have the final word on it. And to be fair to homeopaths, it is not as if they treat their remedies as trade secrets - they are entirely upfront about what they do, how they expect it to work, and how to measure it. It is entirely possible to present what homeopathy is all about, why people are skeptical about it, and leave it to the reader to decide what and whom to
 believe. --Leifern 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Introduction 

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

message: A papaer needs more than just a name as a reference. At least a year is also required (so I can find the thing) and for prefernce the full title.Geni 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which will be supplied. In the meantime, I note that you simply reverted (as usual) to a version that contains dozens of unsupported claims. --Leifern 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thats nice. List then And I will see if I can support them. In the new year. I'm not going to be around untill then.Geni 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leifern's papers

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