Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 30

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prevalence of use 

message: I will give a barnstar to the editor, or editors, who implement the non-controversial (I hope) improvements listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2#Homeopathy.  I refer to the style issues reported by the automated script. Jehochman  Talk 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about a bottle of Scotch?  Wanderer57 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah! Twas made by a little old lady in Leningrad. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Chekov. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements and incentives 

message: 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):
# 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
Or reordered like the below to get the below:
# Homeopathy
# popular 
# alternative medicine
# controversial, lack of scientific confirmation
# 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.
# (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease")
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  What happens if we put important things first? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Generalisations are generally bogus •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow sources 

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

message: "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.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments by Arthur Rubin

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussing the LEAD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1796 

message: Comparing:
and:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Stylistically, you are right about the 'created' and 'creates' in the same sentence.  It reads badly.  Jehochman  Talk 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd sentence 

message: 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:
Please state your opinions, preferred versions, or objections here.  03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create create 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Research 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Strong disagreement with the above section 

message: since we are impperatively using the British spelling, should this article be renamed "homoeopathy"? Smith Jones (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Commonwealth spelling would be homœopathy. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: Funkadelic took it over?  Ligatures (the erroneously named "double letters") are still extant in English. •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British spelling 

message: # 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.
# The figure on the right adds little if any value.  By making the paragraph narrower, it also makes it visually longer.
# 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)
replies: text: Agree. I tried but Orangemarlin reverted. See discussion below. Mccready (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with the lead of this article - a highly personal opinion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Research on medical effectiveness 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ethical and safety issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: well, Peter morrel is a respecatlbe homeopathic researcher aif thats your point. See also http://homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm here. If only everyone else here was that. Smith Jones (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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#Treatments 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Whig (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So this talk page is now officially a forum where people evangelize for magic? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No magic necessary, just different ways of analyzing and categorizing. —Whig (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hahnemann and molecules