Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 4

message: I've tried to make this short and sweet and include all ponts of view, but keep it factual as well.
Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words  homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is one of four systems of alternative medicine identified by the World Health Organization.[THIS IS A FACT] The guiding principle of homeopathy is the ancient law of similars (similia similbus), whereby a medicinal substance is given that would produce similar symptoms in a healthy person (termed provings) to the symptoms in the patient. [THIS IS A FACT] While it is part of the health care system in various countries, such as England, India, Germany, France, homeopathy is controversial within science because of the use in most cases of remedies having no chemically active ingredients, which goes counter to established scientific principles. [THIS IDENTIFIES THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY. IT'S NOT THE LAW OF SIMILARS, WHICH IS USED, ALBEIT UNCONSCIOUSLY FOR EXAMPLE IN RITALIN, AN AMPHETAMINE, FOR HYPERACTIVITY] It was developed in modern form by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796, although the law of similars had long been known to medicine. [ANOTHER FACT - HAHNEMANN DID NOT INVENT THE LAW OF SIMILARS, BUT ITS MODERN APPLICATION]  - --Rudi 10:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Factual Analysis 

message: As conducted they don't provide useful data on what a healthy person would experence if they took a remedy.Geni 11:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Provings

message: There's now a great deal of overlap between the "Basic Principles" section and the "Practice of Homeopathy" section. Part of the problem is that Basic Principles doesn't stick to principles but wanders all through the history of homeopathy giving much too attention to medicine at the time of Hahnemann and who did what when. Basic Principles should just be basic principles (Like treats like, miasms. psoras, etc.) without going into all the historical context which would be much more appropriate for the Hahnemann article. --Lee Hunter 12:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that not all homeopaths would view miasms and psoras as basic principles.Geni 12:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we don't have to have the signed agreement of every last homeopath on earth before we can make some general statements. :)  --Lee Hunter 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Basic Principles" section needs more focus

message: A careful reading of both the discussion page and revision history of this article will show that attempts at arriving at a factually accurate and neutral presentation of this topic have failed, because:
* Editors who openly admit to considering homeopathy "quackery:"
** Revert and/or delete any proposed versions that present a neutral or balanced view of homeopathy
** Present only those facts and allegations that support their point of view
** Delete facts and allegations that directly contradict their point of view
** Present allegations as facts though they have no basis in literature
:::only the last would introduce any factal errors. Can you give any examples?Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't claim thisGeni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Err to start with the article mentions James Tyler Kent.Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: some do and that is what the article says.Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you prove that this statement is false?Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: the article does not claim he does. You also can't provew that he doesn't.Geni 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It would appear to me that no factual inaccuracies have been established, so the appropriate tag is NPOV rather than Totally Disputed. --Ryano 12:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this article is Totally Disputed

message: No it's dead easy to test for proving symptoms. Testing treatment is more difficult but it has been done.Geni 21:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And why exactly is it so "dead easy?"  --Rudi 09:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: becuase you have a straightforward claim that can be tested by using any one of a number of of the shelf protocols. See this stuy for example.Geni 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Also, because of the nature of homeopathy...

message: Sorry for this insert but does anyone know the technical term that is used to discribe the method by which when diluting water, the "memory of water" effect is achived by knocking the diluted substance against your hand a certain number of times? I have read the article present and I cannot find it covered here.
: "Succussion" --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in dispute. It's included in the reference to the principle of similars and the latin term "similia similibus" . If you like, you could add "like cures like" just after the latin term. --Rudi 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The article says: "Liquids are successively diluted (with water or occasionally alcohol) and shaken by 10 hard strikes against an elastic body, a process called succussion."  Is that the term you're looking for?  By the way, this isn't exactly the right place for your question, since this page is supposed to be for discussing the article rather than discussing homeopathy.  In general, if you want to know something, it's considered most appropriate to post a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. JamesMLane 09:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 would be consistant with Hahnemann's intial work but I belive he latter switched to 2. Of course many modern homeopathic pharmacies use vortex mixers.Geni 11:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Query about technical term

message: "His supporters see this result as suggesting that the experimenter may have an effect on the water sample, which could explain why some experimenters are able to reproduce his findings and some are not, which is consistent with Quantum physics understanding of the uncertaintly principle and various new understandings of chaos theory and the working of fractals in mathematics."
I'm not a scientific type, but the above sets off my bullshit detector.  If there is any truth in it, can somebody rephrase it so that it doesn't read like deliberate obfuscation and techno-babble? --Ryano 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: someone is tryiong to use quantum physics on the macro level. It's rubish.Geni 12:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum physics? 

message: I changed the last line of the second paragraph of the introduction, "...usually given in extremely low concentrations prepared according to a procedure known as potentisation, because it is held that this process gives higher dilutions more therapeutic power. Higher potentisation yielding greater therapeutic power is an incorrect generalization. Different potencies have different applications in homeopathy, so it is not correct to say that a potency of 1 M is "stronger" than 30 CH, or vice versa.
Also some minor grammar and clarity edits.
::What you have writen is not consistant with the claim of aggrivations.Geni 11:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro change