Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

message: I agree that this whole article is too long but the problem is not the introduction. I have reverted the introduction back to the previous version.  I do not understand how the introduction can be viewed as too long since it fits the guidelines perfectly (  Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section).  The guideline recommends four paragraphs for a long article.  Certainly the minute version that i just reverted does not encompass the content of the article whatsoever.  The introduction is supposed to be an abstract of the whole article not just a definition of the topic. David D. (Talk) 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The article should be a general overview of homeopathy that includes its history, fundamentals, practical applications, controversies and links to further resources. Specific areas of a more intensively scientific or theorehtical nature should be their own articles that this article would direct readers to. As a reader who is already familiar with homeopathic principles, I look at this article and I'm lost. —Morganfitzp 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: no opinion - I'm going to copyedit for redundancy and grammar only, and try to at least get the flow a bit less awkward and the word count down a tiny bit. If even someone who knows the subject is lost, it may be time to split it up, whether or not it looks like a POV-motivated split.
Resonanteye 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction too long?

message: ::Electroconvulsive therapy is highly controversial, with no agreed mechanism of action, but the majority of psychiatrists apparently believe that it is effective for certain conditions. But it is not included in the pseudoscience or quackery categories. Why not? Jedermann 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above notes that the "quackery" label refers to the attitude of the scientific establishment in the relevant field.  If "the majority of psychiatrists" believe in ECT, as you assert, then it's not quackery.  Of course, the majority can be wrong.  If there's a notable POV against ECT, then our article should fairly present that POV, but the "quackery" label is inapplicable. JamesMLane t c 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying "if the majority of homeopaths believe in homeopathy it's not quackery". --Lee Hunter 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as the "scientific establishment" - the term is used entirely as a strawman to promote a point of view. Electroconvulsive therapy, along with dozens of other therapies, has gone through waves of popularity, been rejected, modified, found new interest, etc., etc. Psychiatrists advocate it because their empirical, largely clinical experience suggests that it works in certain cases. Barrett's definition of quackery is bogus because it ignores the inconvenient fact that a huge proportion of modern medicine is not evidence-based at all but based on effects that practitioners have observed and reported. Hence all the arguments about generic vs. branded drugs. Clearly, this article should state what the controversy about homeopathy is all about, just like the articles on electroconvulsive therapy, flu shots, etc., but to categorize it as quackery is to surrender to one group's opinion, which is what we're not supposed to do here. --Leifern 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no such thing as the scientific establishment? Of course there is. The shape of the earth is well established, as is the validity of the atomic theory, the theory of evolution, the dose-response phenomenon and a vast number of other things. I thought we'd already been through that. --EthicsGradient 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You use the term "scientific establishment" to refer to a group of people among whom it would be possible to gain a consensus on a particular issue. None exists. There are some facts that enjoy the unanimous acceptance among scientists the world, but not as many as one might think. Some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs have come because some scientists were unwilling to accept conventional wisdom. --Leifern 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Often regarded" is a weasel term and not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Leifern 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Often regarded" appears in this discussion, not in the article... If we were to de-weasle all the talk-pages of Wikipedia, we'd be in for a lot of work. --EthicsGradient 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using weasel words to justify a categorization. I think you understand this. --Leifern 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I in turn think that you understand that homeopathy is often regarded as quackery. I think we can agree that the quackery category is poorer without this article. So what is the problem? Are you saying that homeopathy doesn't pertain to quackery? The category lists items that have to do with quackery, whether rightly or wrongly. And whatever your stance, it is clear that homeopathy is often labeled as quackery. -- Ec5618 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you understand what Wikipedia's "avoid weasel words" dictum is all about.  "Weasel words" are turns of phrase that can be included in an article to make it NPOV without directly reflecting one opinion or the other.  "Often regarded" may or may not be a weasel term, and if it is it's not appropriate for use *in the article itself*.  To assert that we can't use it in this discussion is an attempt at diversion and bullshittery, a rude attempt to discredit your opponent because you can't debunk his position.  128.196.189.108 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not particularly inclined to respond to an unregistered editor who is trying to start an edit war on this issue, but I think you know better. If someone wants to slap a category on an article because the term is "often regarded," he/she is using sloppy logic camouflaged with weasel words to justify his/her POV pushing. I didn't edit out the term "weasel word," I merely said the justification was inadequate. --Leifern 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My thoughts are that these arguments are not just against this article's placement in :Category:Quackery, but in any article's being placed there. I suggest that you take this argument to that category's talk page, and come up with some neutral principles for which to determine an article's suitability for it, and then this and other potential-quackery articles or subcategories can refer there. Tyciol 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely the categorisation as "alternative medicine" is sufficient.  Those who regard alternative medicine as quackery believe the terms to be synonymous in any case while those who are advocates of alternative medicine embrace the term.  Surely "quackery" is simply a perjorative term for "alternative medicine" in any case. Aop27 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. Medicine can be alternative without having it be quackery. For example some herbal remedies may not be quakery although they are generally classified as alternative medicine. JoshuaZ 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double standards in WP

message: I hold no particular light for homeopathy, but all I see to justify the categorization of Homeopathy as quackery is opinion. The burden of proof for categorizing a topic with a derogatory label should fall on those who want this categorization. It is shameful if this approach should prevail here, and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia. I would encourage everyone to be intellectually honest on this topic and set aside whatever personal prejudices or opinions they might have. --Leifern 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That said, since homeopathy is an often used example of quackery, whether rightly or wrongly, I feel it should thus be included in the category, just as the The National Council Against Health Fraud is listed. That organisation isn't quackery, but it does pertain to the issue. -- Ec5618 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a world of difference between noting a derogatory comment in the text of an article where we would always (and I mean always) explain who is making the comment and why versus using the same derogatory comment as a category. It's a derisive label applied by a few members of the medical community  for something that is widely endorsed  by members of that same community (note the figures I provided above)  --Lee Hunter 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since homeopathy is an often used example of quackery, whether rightly or wrongly, I feel it should thus be included in the category, just as the The National Council Against Health Fraud is listed. That organisation isn't quackery, but it does pertain to the issue. -- Ec5618 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mob categorization 

message: I've semi-protected this; there is too much reverting going on and it will get full prot on The Wrong Version unless some compromise can be reached William M. Connolley 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprot 

message: Can editors in the quack controversy review the following abstract of an RCT published in Chest (not included in the Lancet metaanalysis which ignored trials later than 2003), and the abstract of a commentary in Critical Care, before stating whether the authors (who are all clinicians or scientists) of the two papers are quacks or not? It's interesting that this study used a homeopathic dilution prepared from a toxin (potassium dichromate) well known for causing upper respiratory irritation and atrophy, lower respiratory effects, in addition to being a potent carcinogen.
Chest. 2005;127:936-941
Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients
Michael Frass, MD; Christoph Dielacher, RN; Manfred Linkesch, MD; Christian Endler, PhD; Ilse Muchitsch, PhD; Ernst Schuster, PhD and Alan Kaye, MD
From the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy (Drs. Frass, Endler, and Muchitsch), Vienna, Austria; II Department of Internal Medicine (Mr. Dielacher and Dr. Linkesch); Department of Medical Computer Sciences (Dr. Schuster), University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Department of Anesthesiology (Dr. Kaye), Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX.
Correspondence to: Michael Frass, MD, Professor of Medicine, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Duerergasse 4, A 8010 Graz, Austria; e-mail: michael.frass@kabsi.at
Background: Stringy, tenacious tracheal secretions may prevent extubation in patients weaned from the respirator. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with parallel assignment was performed to assess the influence of sublingually administered potassium dichromate C30 on the amount of tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions in critically ill patients with a history of tobacco use and COPD.
Methods: In this study, 50 patients breathing spontaneously with continuous positive airway pressure were receiving either potassium dichromate C30 globules (group 1) [Deutsche Homöopathie-Union, Pharmaceutical Company; Karlsruhe, Germany] or placebo (group 2). Five globules were administered twice daily at intervals of 12 h. The amount of tracheal secretions on day 2 after the start of the study as well as the time for successful extubation and length of stay in the ICU were recorded.
Results: The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 ± 1.61 days vs 7.68 ± 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean ± SD]).
Conclusion: These data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) potassium dichromate may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.
Key Words: COPD • double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study • extubation • homeopathy • tracheal secretions
Critical Care 2005, 9:238-240
Recently published papers: Out with the old and in with the new ... then something new for the old!
Simone Carbert1   and Richard Venn2
1Senior House Officer, Department of Critical Care, Worthing General Hospital, Worthing, UK
2Consultant, Department of Critical Care, Worthing General Hospital, Worthing, UK
Critical Care 2005, 9:238-240     doi:10.1186/cc3723
Published   12 May 2005
Abstract
New therapies are challenging older, established practices. One recently published report shows us that we may be able to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with a reduced level of consciousness. Recombinant activated factor VII is proving to be useful in many coagulation disorders, and intracerebral haemorrhage can be added to this list. Homeopathy, in the form of potassium dichromate, shows promise as a new treatment for excessive tracheal secretions. Rotation protocols for antibiotics have been evaluated with respect to their ability to prevent the development of new resistant micro-organisms in our hospitals and units. Finally, glucocorticoids may be of benefit to septic patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU) and may prevent their deterioration and admission to the ICU.
Jedermann 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy for critically ill patients 

message: According to Wikipedia:Categorization "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Since applying the quackery category to homeopathy is highly controversial and not at all self-evident, I have removed it.--Lee Hunter 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline must therefore bear on the pseudoscience category as well. According to the authoritative Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ed. Ted Honderich), pseudoscience is a term of 'epistemic abuse'. Jedermann 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great so now everything any idiot wants to claim to be credible is real science. Don't think so Skeptic Jim 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what it means is that something shouldn't be labelled as "science" unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that it qualifies as science. Homeopathy would not, in any way, make the grade. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to label homeopathy as pseudoscience. In the same way  that stuff that's not explicitly Christian doesn't have to be labelled "Spawn of Satan"--Lee Hunter 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me? This is a ridiculous comparison. There are subjects which the scientific and medical communities consider pseudoscience and should be labeled as such. Comparing that to labeling something "Spawn of Satan" is both unhelpful and counterproductive. JoshuaZ 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Homeopathy's inclusion is self-evident--it contradicts what is known from chemistry and physics.  There has to be a limit to how noncontroversial a categorization must be.  With categories such as Quackery it goes without saying that True Believers will protest the inclusion of their favorite scheme or scam.  Allowing such objections to rule the day, we might as well include Scientology and the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist in the category of science organizations.  Bkalafut 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self-evident to you but it's not self-evident to me. Nor is it self-evident to thousands of medical doctors or millions of their patients. Again you've got it backward. As I pointed out, you only put something in a category when it is absolutely uncontroversial that it belongs there. Putting Scientology in science or putting homeopathy in science would be controversial because a hell of a lot of knowledgable people would very strongly disagree. Putting homeopathy in quackery is definitely controversial because a huge number of intelligent, knowledgable people would disagree. The guideline is very clear and very sensible. If you don't think it's a good rule, you should change it. --Lee Hunter 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Not being self-evident to quacks and their patients doesn't count.  See JoshuaZ's note below.  4.240.69.231 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is self-evident to among others to the editors of the Lancet. See  to the ones who matter- the major medical associations and the major science journals this is a clear issue. JoshuaZ 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But even the editors of the Lancet did not use the term "quackery". So what's your point? --Lee Hunter 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   So they didn't use the term.  What's your point?  Would having a euphemism for quackery make you feel better? 4.240.69.231 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is, to put it mildly, bizaare to not be able to use a cat unless that precise wording is in a source. I'm not aware of any policy in that regard and the Lancet article easily fits the defintion of the cat. JoshuaZ 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're just being illogical. If positive studies about homeopathy have recently appeared in well-respected peer-reviewed journals, you cannot possibly claim that the category of " Quackery" is uncontroversial. You seem to be suggesting that a positive result is inherent proof that the study itself is flawed. This is a strangely unscientific stance for someone who's making a big noise about what science is about. Furthermore, "quackery" is itself, NOT a scientific term. It has nothing to do with the careful and controlled observation of the universe. It's a polemical, perjorative term. The fact that scientists sometimes like to bandy it about doesn't make it scientific. Finally, someone brought up the case of astrology. If there were peer-reviewed articles showing a basis for astrology appearing in major, respected publications then calling astrology "pseudoscience" would be incorrect. As far as I know, there's not, so the cases are quite different.--Lee Hunter 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and the problem with polemical, perjorative terms is that those who use them rarely are willing to use them consistently. If we are going to categorize one topic with such a term, we have to use clear, unambiguous definition for it. So far, all I've seen are opinions and strange appeals to authority, such as the opinion of Stephen Barrett and someone else. It just amazes me that the same people who call for scientific precision on the one hand are willing to be completely subjective on the other. --Leifern 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it has now come up, Protoscience is not an accurate categorisation, and implying legal action (by describing a category as "libelous") is frowned upon. Jefffire 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, if you're not going to actually read the sources that you cite, perhaps you could try reading a little about them. For example, as I pointed out earlier, you try and justify the use of the word "quackery" with an editorial that doesn't actually use the word. Now you refer to a Lancet "trial". Actually it was a "meta-analysis". You can learn something about it in the homeopathy article where it is noted that "The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective or that all its findings are placebo effects, but does show that the totality of tests analysed show outcomes consistent with the interpretation that all of the reported effects are placebo effects. The Lancet accompanied the meta-analysis with invited editorials. The Lancet study was criticized by a number of homeopathic researchers and statisticians on methodological grounds, including lack of transparency concerning the review protocol and reporting, leading to the allegation of data dredging.[110] The Lancet rejected the majority of criticisms submitted for publication. Some of the correspondence rejected by the Lancet was subsequently published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine." So the Lancet doesn't call homeopathy quackery. They publish a meta-analysis which casts doubt on other studies but doesn't in any way, shape or form support the label of quackery (and the meta-analysis itself is strongly disputed). Finally, the word "quackery", as I've pointed out so many times it must be getting tiresome to you, is simply a perjorative, polemical word. The question of whether "Quackery" should be removed as a category is a related but separate issue, so I see no reason to wait for the outcome of that discussion. --Lee Hunter 16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  The lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet. To say that somehow we can't use it as reliable source because the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" isn't happy with what the Lancet has to say would be akin to saying we can't label Flood geology pseudoscience because the creationist ICR and AIG organizations have journals they claim are peer-reviewed and dispute the claim. JoshuaZ 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not in any way suggest that Lancet is not a reliable source. I pointed out that what has been published in the Lancet does not, in fact, support your position so I'm baffled as to why you keep bringing it up. They did not use the word "quackery". You have extrapolated (i.e. performed original research or a stupendous act of mind reading) that what they really meant to say was "quackery". Please respect the very clear and relevant guideline for categorization which says that Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. --Lee Hunter 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  To suggest that the precise wording of a category has to be used in order to use the cat is simply ridiculous and I've already explained to you that it is self-evidence and uncontroversial among the major medical journals and establishments such as the Lancet. No OR is going on here and to claim it is indicates a misunderstanding of that policy. All that is happening is that given the Lancet and other sources the cat description almost word for word matches what is being described in the source. Given that and that we have an fellow of the Royal society explicitly using the term quakery to describe it there really isn't an issue here at all. JoshuaZ 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You write "To suggest that the precise wording of a category has to be used in order to use the cat is simply ridiculous". Ridiculous? How about blindingly obvious. What you seem to be saying is that we should use a highly unscientific word to describe what you claim scientists universally think (even though we've shown you that a number of respected scientists don't hold that opinion). I mean really. All you've done so far is  cite one scientist (a guy who's made a second career out of ranting about alternative medicine) who used  the term on his blog. --Lee Hunter 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, the person in question has a large number of papers to his credit and is a fellow of the royal society. In any event, what matters is not that there exist a few doctors who disagree but that the major journals such as the Lancet describe this subject in a way that  meets our criteria for inclusion of the cat. JoshuaZ 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand how the fact that Lancet does not use the word "quackery" in describing homeopathy somehow supports the position that WP must use quackery in describing homeopathy. I'm sorry, but it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. --Lee Hunter 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what you mean. The way you've phrased it doesn't make any sense- I'd agree there. The point is that the Lancet description matches are criteria for the category. Whether it uses the word itself isn't that relevant. JoshuaZ 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of this entire long  discussion is whether one specific word can categorize this article. You're telling me that a bunch of other words amount to the same thing and I'm telling you they don't. Neither of us is "right" in any ultimate sense.  We're both interpreting what Lancet wrote. The only thing we are 100% sure of is that Lancet did not use the word "quackery". You seem to feel that if Lancet used the word "negro" you can say that what they really meant was "nigger" (to use another example of an unwarranted epithet). I say that we should take their words at face value. Here's another example, numerous studies have shown that for normal labor, birth by Caesarean section is far riskier for mothers and babies than vaginal birth. The science is perfectly solid and yet doctors, especially in the United States, who are well aware of these facts increasingly perform c-sections for otherwise normal births and place mothers and babies at much higher risk. Surely this is a better poster child for quackery? But of course it's not, because the guideline says "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."--Lee Hunter 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned before, guidelines are not policy, and the general consensus view across article is that this guideline is not applicable in cases such as this. Jefffire 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that is such completely obfuscatory untrue BS. Cases such as what, exactly? Such as when you think the guidelines should be dumped because they are inconvenient? Explain yourself. Show me where this "consensus" is recorded. --Lee Hunter 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see the dictionary for the definition of "guideline", sir. Jefffire 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you mean like this "A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action" (American Heritage Dictionary)? Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the guideline exists to provide guidance, especially in the case of a dispute or uncertainty. I'm asking you to show me the Wikipedia policy, guideline, custom (ANYthing for heaven's sake) that supports your position that guidelines can be arbitrarily ditched. --Lee Hunter 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would direct you to WP:Guidelines, which cleary states "Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions". Jefffire 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel pretty confident that if I characterized a medical doctor as a "quack," he/she would have a case for suing me for libel. --Leifern 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jefffire - a) stop putting words in my mouth or attributing intentions to me that there is no basis for. It is inappropriate. b) Do not threaten me with blocking or other disciplinary actions that there is no basis for. --Leifern 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I atribute no intentions. I simply noted your actions, Wikipedia policy on such matters, and the penalties for doing so. Jefffire 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely and utterly reject the accusation and will take it as a personal attack unless you withdraw and apologize. --Leifern 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I make no personal attack, that you take one is your own issue. Jefffire 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are accusing me of something I did not do. That is your issue. --Leifern 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed out your edit summary was contrary to policy, nothing more. Jefffire 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You threatened to block me for threatening legal action. --Leifern 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia guidelines re categorization

message: The previous version said that homeopathy "rejects standard medical diagnoses" which is, as far I can see, completely incorrect. If someone has a high cholesterol or a kidney infection, homeopathy would completely accept that diagnoses. The difference is that homeopathy also proposes an underlying imbalance which causes the illness to appear (in much the same way that any doctor might say that a patient has X illness due to something like lifestyle or stress). Homeopathy is much more concerned with this theoretical imbalance than with its manifestation (illness) but that doesn't mean that it rejects the diagnosis in any way. That's also one reason why it's difficult to compare homeopathic care to medical care. Pharmaceuticals are designed to address specific illnesses and pharmaceutical trials are designed to measure how the illnesses respond. Homeopathic remedies are often prescribed on the basis of a very detailed picture of the individual of which the actual illness might be only one small detail. Sometimes a particular remedy will be prescribed even though the presenting complaint is not mentioned in the literature for the remedy but the individual otherwise fits the profile. --Lee Hunter 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopathy does reject standard medical diagnoses as modern diagnoses are declarations of disease etiology, not symptoms.  If you don't recognize this it's no wonder you don't understand why this belongs in the quackery cat.  Prancybald 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Etiology can be a part of the diagnosis but it's not the same thing. Diagnosis is the identification of a disease. Etiology is the theory of how that disease came about. A doctor can certainly have a diagnosis without having any clue about the etiology. In fact, this is fairly normal. And homeopathy does not reject the standard etiologies but rather proposes what is claimed to be a deeper and more subtle underlying cause. --Lee Hunter 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no reason based in medical science or evidence to propose that cause, when such causes are even something that could be real and not just pseudoscientific jargon and hucksters' cant. Bkalafut 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll qualify that with "when the etiology is known."  A medical doctor practicing scientific medicine would say (e.g.) someone has an infection and perhaps that bacterial toxins are causing disease.  A homeopath would at best say more of the toxin or bacteria, albeit at low dose, is the cure. Prancybald 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A homeopath would try to understand everything they can about the patient. By looking at a very big and very detailed picture which might include emotional health, food preferences, physical tics and many other things they could well come up with a remedy that has no obvious relationship to the illness. --Lee Hunter 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No *obvious* relationship?  You mince words.  They give a placebo.  A sip of water, a sugar pill, something with no relationship to the illness at all.  At best it's witchdoctoring, at worst it's outright fraud. Bkalafut 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a quick question.  Would the homeopath give a low dose of the toxin or bacteria, or would they give a low dose of something that causes say a fever, headache, and sore throat in a normal person.  It wouldn't be the actual bacteria would it?  I thought they would give something to increase the body's natural responses, but that shows how much I know. --Dematt 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard medical diagnoses

message: In WP, heresy is defined, among other things as "By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative." By this definition, homeopathy is most definitely heresy, so I don't think we're dealing with a WP:POINT here. I'm untroubled by such a categorization, though I'm sure others would disagree with me. --Leifern 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that homeopathy is a kind of heresy, but :category:heresy seems to be exclusively theological. Homeopathy would look a little funny amongst the cathars and judaizers. --Lee Hunter 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point with regard to the more complete defintion.  WP:POINT comes in, however, since the category appears not to encompass the broad spectrum. Rather it is limited to common usage (primarily theological). Did they burn homeopaths at the stake? Clearly an extreme example but that is the immediate connection I make with heresy.  I suppose homeopaths could be considered witch-like to some, especially with the potions, but now we're off track. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the mid-19th century, the forerunner of the BMA tried to get government to outlaw homeopathy, but failed. So they made it a punishable offence to practice homeopathy or to consult with a homeopath on a case. Breaches of this ideological heresy led to being struck off the physicians' register. The same happened in the USA. Jedermann 10:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy 

message: I wanted to draw everyone's attention to the categorization of the Adolph Hitler article. Everyone knows that Hitler was a dictator, but there is no "dictators" category. Everyone knows that Hitler was a madman, but there is no "stark raving heads of state" category. Instead what we have is this: Categories: Semi-protected | Articles with unsourced statements | Articles with large trivia sections | Adolf Hitler | Hitler family | Nazi leaders | Chancellors of Germany | World War II political leaders | German military leaders | Artists who committed suicide | Anti-Semitic people | German anti-communists | Time magazine Persons of the Year | Wagnerites | Austrian Germans | German political writers | German vegetarians | Nazis who committed suicide | Politicians who committed suicide | Suicides by firearm | 1889 births | 1945 deaths. In other words, all very obvious, self-evident and completely indisputable. So how on earth, can we apply a category like "quackery" to homeopathy. A category which is utterly vague, un-obvious and obviously highly contentious. It completely flies in the face of the use of categorization throughout all parts of Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should mention that I agree that placing homeopathy in a specific category called 'quackery' is counterproductive and far too argumentative to be useful. It's judgemental. Editors should be neutral. The category shouldn't even exist. T.J.C. 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So homeopathy is the same as... Nazism?  Lol. Skinwalker 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler?