Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 23

message: Should it be mentioned that Homeopathic remedies can be shown to be helpful for treating dehydration? --Puellanivis (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume your point is that they're (nearly) pure water?  It seems a bit silly, even by the standards of homeopathy, but if you have a reliable source that makes the case go ahead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In most  cases of dehydration severe enough to require treatment, water would be a poor choice of therapy, and electrolytes are needed. So even in this case, homeopathic remedies are too dilute to be effective. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points over all... Thinking about it now seriously, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even do that.  Although, the homeopathic remedy for dehydration would have to be something that "causes dehydration", like perhaps... salt.  If it's reasonably concentrated then it would be a reasonable homoepathic remedy... although they'd probably go overboard with the dilution.  Plus, again, the cost of doing all that dilution, etc, would likely make it much more expensive than buying a Gatorade. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm thinking that they would take water and dilute it serially with water until there was no water left, and only the karmic life-energy waves of the water were left in the water. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be mentioned? 

message: Here are my suggestions to improve the article:
(1) The second introductory paragraph of this article has a sentence that gives an incorrect description of why homeopathic remedies are prepared in the way that they are.
The sentence states:
:These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.
It should say:
:These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe transfers into the dilutant characteristics from the original substance that act as a catalyst to evoke a healing response in the patient - even where no molecules of the original substance remain.
(2) The third introductory paragraph should be placed in the section "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism"
(3) The language of that third introductory paragraph needs to be corrected to Wikipedia standards of NPOV. Here is my suggestion for slightly modifying the wording so that it does not appear that it is the article or Wikipedia that is making the criticism:
 
:Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.;  They conclude that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.; ; ;  Lack of evidence supporting its efficacy has caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. A recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of a placebo. Medical critics also accuse homeopaths of giving "false hope" to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs and prefer to use homeopathic remedies in their place.
(4) The placing of the Category:Fraud on this article needs to be removed.
(5) The wording in the "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism" section could be modified in this way in order to convey the same information from a neutral POV:
:Critics state that homeopathy has not been supported by modern scientific research. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient (no atoms, ions or molecules) in the final product. The idea that any biological effects could be produced by these preparations is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. The proposed rationale for these extreme dilutions - that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient - is also counter to the currently accepted laws of chemistry and physics. Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect, where the patients subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the power of suggestion, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. Critics cite the lack of viable scientific studies for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies as evidence that they are not effective and that any positive effects are due to the placebo effect. Critics also contend that homeopathy is inherently dangerous because it deters patients from getting conventional medical treatment.
:"High dilutions"
:The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy have been a major point of criticism. Homeopaths believe that the methodical dilution of a substance, beginning with a 10% or lower solution and working downwards, with shaking after each dilution, produces a therapeutically active "remedy", in contrast to therapeutically inert water. However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy. Since even the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds, critics have concluded that any effect that might have been present from the original substance can no longer exist. 
:Homeopathy contends that higher dilutions (fewer potential molecules in each dose), combined with forceful shaking, result in stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body. This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in thousands of experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats and humans.
I would request the comments of the other editors so that we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Arion (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding point #2, the purpose of the intro is to summarize, so that's not going to fly. We've discussed this and point #3 already. With regards to #4, categorization is not the same as labeling for the label's sake. #5 requires a more thorough reading so I'll take time before commenting on that. Antelan talk 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  #5 has a strong bias towards presuming that science is about to be overturned by homeopathy, and #1 doesn't seem to match the sources. Adam Cuerden talk 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The correction in the wording for #1 as to what reason is given for serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, is the correct one. After studying homeopathy since the 1960s, I clearly understand homeopathic principles and practice. Arion (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the first is a paraphrase og Hahnemann. Adam Cuerden talk 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing but POV suggestions.  BTW, critics suggest nothing, Scientists state that homeopathy is nothing but junk science.  The rest of it, just POV.  Let's move on.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The critics are those so-called scientists who have one opinion against homeopathy. There are numerous research studies by other scientists that validate various aspects of homeopathy. Arion (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these already cited in the article? If not do you have the citations? With regard to the critics, are they criticising homeopathy or are they criticising the fact that "extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient".  I thnk it is safe to say scientists if the latter, homeopathy itself is incidental to such criticism. David D. (Talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the article

message: Summarizing: Parts of the article are seriously biased intentionally or unintentionally.  
All meta analyses state that the results in homeopathy are promising or positive but not convincing and/ or sufficient. Only the last meta analysis states that homeopathy effects are placebo effects which has been criticized in debates (natural history museum, articles in major or notable publications, BBC.) 
All the above and basic Homeopathies principles and objections on evaluation methods (even external links with debates on homeopathy organized by organizations like the natural history museum)  have been REMOVED or excluded using facetious excuses.  Including the basic homeopathic ideas, which really need just one paragraph to be presented in the lead and in the body in an article ABOUT homeopathy, is an obvious obligation of a sensitive and objective editor. There is not excuse for not doing that.  
None of the above as  I said  is included in the article or the lead. Some of the editors (more or less)  intend to include only information that “shows” that homeopathy is just a pseudoscience. Since the sources don’t support exactly that, they have changed its conclusions when they sources phrasing don’t comply with their ideas. Again look at the studies 
There are studies showing positive results which are not even reported (and of course properly criticized ). 
I intend to put the under dispute flag.
If there is any objective administrator ( I have noticed that they do exist ) watching he/she will recognize that there 2 opinions in this forum. Therefore he will protect the article AND the under dispute flag until a consensus can be reached. 
This is the only fair and effective way to discuss. 
The discussion does not lead anywhere that way - I assure you. --Orion4 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV disputes must be over whether the article adequately presents authoritative viewpoints with appropriate emphasis, not over whether the article reflects opinions in this forum. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not exist here. Please read above why.--74.66.227.35 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful for you to login. Not doing so gives the impression that there is more support for your viewpoint than there really is. If you are actually an anonymous editor, disregard this. Antelan talk 02:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pov

message: Regarding the often controversial clinical studies homeopaths argue that "Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect." They believe that "the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology." has been reverted twice. First by Orangemarlin who used the wrong reasons for reverting it, secondly by Antelan, whose reasons hold more water. But how, I ask you, is the wording misleading? Where is it factually wrong? Is this not a standard understanding amongst homeopaths? Does it not deserve a place in the article? You might argue that the wording is poorly constructed, uses style to less effect, but that is an issue of copyediting. Comments? docboat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the phrasing is misleading. It suggests that orthodox medicine is somehow incapable of giving remedies for the totalities of a patient's symptoms. It is untrue, and overly sympathetic to a fringe viewpoint. Hence, misleading. Antelan talk 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That homeopathy "is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology" is quite simply irrelevant to the issue of whether double blind studies can assess its effectiveness. It's handwaving, not a logical objection.- Nunh-huh 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I see your point, but the issue has been addressed earlier. Take 1000 cases of sore throat to be a randomised double blind etc etc trial. That is a valid trial of - say - a pastille to treat sore throats. But a homeopath would see 1000 sore throats as 1000 different illnesses, not one. There may be 100 different remedies for these patients. The trial is not valid. docboat (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That trial is not valid, but a double-blind study in which homeopaths prescribe their different remedies for each patient is valid. Individualized remedies are, quite simply, subject to valid scientific testing, and to suggest otherwise is deceptive. - Nunh-huh 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah I see where you are coming from, Antelan. But you are actually wrong. Let me explain. As a medical doctor, I am trained to elicit symptoms - these fit into a pattern (diagnosis, more like a list of differential diagnoses) which are then treated. Say "common cold" with sore throat, cough and runny nose. Then you get medication to contain the symptoms (or suppress them, as a homeopath would say) such as NSAID, pseudoephedrine and cough mixture. A classical homeopath would look to the very explicit symptoms of the totality of this illness experience, and search out that ONE remedy. Now, the differential diagnosis list for a sore throat and cold might include leukaemia. (Not an exaggeration, just very uncommon for people presenting with a sore throat) A medical doctor would notice something was wrong later on, say after a blood film. So then we get to the (the one and only) diagnosis, and treatment can begin again. A homeopath has gne down that road much earlier, because of the need to "individualise" the case. Of course, I am not saying you should treat leukaemia with hoeopathy, BUT the statement reverted above is quite accurate. It makes no reference to allopathic medicine, and is completely NPOV. Comments? docboat (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes explicit reference to "conventional medicine," it is written from a homeopathic POV, I think your comments regarding leukemia are very telling, and I disagree with your view of what you claim is your profession. When you prescribe antibiotics, you are treating the underlying condition, which then resolves all symptoms. Antelan talk 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Antelan, you really need to get things in perspective on this. BTW I am an allopathic doctor and not a homeopath, and have been a medical doctor for 28 years. So, while I can understand your difficulty in understanding things from my perspective, you need to take a step back from claiming to understand medicine more than I do. My comments regarding leukaemia - and your inability to understand what I wrote about it - is also very revealing. As a matter of fact, I have come across leukaemia masquerading as a sore throat, so again, take a step back. I - unlike yourself, I suspect - am at the coalface in medicine, and deal with these issues in a practical manner with living people - not in theory, as many of the contributors here. Now as for your statement about using antibiotics to treat the underlying condition. Beep. False. Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria, or stop them growing. The underlying condition for an infection is NOT the bacteria, but the condition which allowed the bacteria to proliferate in the first place. It is, in fact, a question of immune competence, including social factors, financial status, housing conditions, presence of intercurrent illness or other conditions - but why I am teaching you microbiology 101? Back to the issue. Re-read what I wrote, and think about it a while. docboat (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The homeopathic view of epidemiology & statistics, which is a multidisciplinary field used and accepted by most walks of science, may be notable. But I've already asked for a source that demonstrates homeopathy's view of clinical trials. Someone provided us with a source that demonstrated that homeopaths indeed do accept and even reference favorable trials. This is a spurious request. Antelan talk 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and those sources support my statement above. None of the sources you provided suggest that major homeopathic organizations believe that homeopathy cannot be studied with clinical trials, and indeed one of the sources discusses homeopathic trials. Antelan talk 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's, perhaps, a little hard for me to be neutral about Vitholkas, given he organised a campaign of meatpuppets to attack Wikipedia and me early on in my involvement with this subject. Adam Cuerden talk 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To reiterate my point, the BBC article quotes someone from a homeopathic organiziation claiming that studies show homeopathy is more effective than placebo. In other words, homeopaths accept the notion that their field can be studied with scientific trials. The same person went on to say that they don't think double blind studies work for homeopathy. Again, if the field really doesn't believe that the most highly valued aspects of evidence-based research apply to their field, that's probably notable. Wording it appropriately is, of course, important. Antelan talk 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: His edit summary was "...Trim this sentence to the parts that don't read like an advertisements. everthing "advancing" and "popular""
He then removed the following text:
::"His early work was advanced by later homeopaths such as James Tyler Kent, but Hahnemann's most famous textbook" 
I want a better explanation for this than the edit summary above, which I disagree with. Where is popular even mentioned and why is it not possible to mention other pioneers in the art of homeopathy? Of course they were advancing homoeopathy whether you disagree with homeopathy or not. Let's not let this lead slip back into the anit-hoemopathy mess it was before. David D. (Talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps when he said "popular" he meant "most famous", which is not an unreasonable mistake to make. "Advanced" is a slanted term, and alternative rewordings could have been chosen. Antelan talk 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no justification for removing the whole sentence. David D. (Talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to think of why talk about Kent and such is relevant in the lead, which is, after all, a summary. It seemed a diverson from the main point, that Hahnemann was the founder, and his work is still considered important. Given how much Hahnemann is quoted and cited, that's the key fact. (and, yes, famous, not popular). Adam Cuerden talk 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly, both are clear. I think you need to readjust your POV meter. David D. (Talk) 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, well. I do trust your judgement, so do what you think best. Just seemed a bit WP:PEACOCKy. Adam Cuerden talk 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll rewrite it to be less peacocky rather than deleting the info.  See what you think when I've done it. I don't have time righ now. David D. (Talk) 13:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam's change to lead

message: The "system of similars" emphasized in homeopathy was first described by doctors of the vitalist school of medicine, including the controversial Renaissance physician Paracelsus. Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced medicine based on  beliefs resembling those of Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 
This is, simply, an unreadable mess, and the article's better without it until we can fix it. Adam Cuerden talk 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fewer clauses would be good, but this, if true, would be useful in the history section. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not saying the information shouldn't be there, just that it was the first paragraph after the lead, and it is a mess of clauses. It's probably more useful to the reader to let him know that most of the article is readable, than to have this information in, but lose 95% of our readers immediately after the lead. Adam Cuerden talk 04:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems a bit like trivia when phrased like that. Can we get an introductory sentence of some sort, or suggest where it would go? Also "credited with the creation of modern homeopathy" seems a very strange way of describing someone almost universally referred to as the founder of homeopathy. Adam Cuerden talk 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points. I'll try once more, keeping the trivia but rearranging so that it flows more naturally (Introduce homeopathy, and then mention that it does have a precursor). How about: 
Samuel Hahnemann is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. His practice was based on beliefs similar to those of the vitalist school of medicine, as practiced by Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown. Antelan talk 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we should mention Paracelsus? I don't know, I'll have a look after tomorrow's exam. It certainly reads better now. Adam Cuerden talk 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed paragraph 

message: I removed the inappropriate "Fraud" category at the bottom of the Homeopathy article. This was reverted by OrangeMarlin. Placing this article into such a category not justified by any standards of fairness or neutrality. Arion (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already commented on this when you made a note about it above. You didn't reply to my comment above. Antelan talk 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Category:Consumer fraud might be better, since this already contains things like water-to-gasoline pills. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting point. However, I don't think this category does apply, since the OED defines fraud as "Criminal deception; the using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage or to injure the rights or interests of another." Since homeopathy isn't criminal, I don't think it can be classified as a simple fraud. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it is hard to prove homeopathy is a fraud.  What about the conmen ministers? For example, Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, does their existence mean that the article Christianity should be labelled fraud?  David D. (Talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ecxe^(pi*i))Arion's incessant soapboxing aside, Category:Fraud may not be a good choice for this article.  Who was it that said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity"?  I'm willing to assume a modicum of good faith with respect to the founding fathers of homeopathy, due to the horrific state of conventional medicine at the time, but the modern practitioners do verge into fraud territory IMO.  Maybe something more nuanced is called for. I bet we can, however, find some good sources that will allow us to use Category:Consumer fraud instead.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fraud" category is inappropriate for this article

message: It is time to archive most of the discussions on this page I think.--Filll (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Ok, so since the original is in German, and I speak German fluently, I wanted to see what it said for myself.  At http://www.mickler.de/org-rtf.zip you can download the organon sixth edition, with the quote in question at §269: "Die homöopathische Heilkunst entwickelt zu ihrem besondern Berufe die innern, geistartigen Arzneikräfte der rohen Substanzen, mittels einer ihr eigenthümlichen, bis zu meiner Zeit unversuchten Behandlung, zu einem, früher unerhörten Grade, wodurch sie sämmtlich erst recht sehr, ja unermeßlich - durchdringend wirksam und hülfreich werden."
Upon getting this translation a few things immediately popped out at me, where the English translation provided is incredibly inaccurate.  "unermeßlich" means "immeasurable", yet that occurs nowhere in the English quote, no less, the English quote has information that is not in the German quote.  If you want to read the real quote, updated to modern language, and as absolutely literal as possible translated:
"The homeopathic healing art develops for its specific purpose, the intrinsic spiritual medical-powers of raw substances, by means of a peculiar handling-untried until my time-to a grade unheard of before, by which they all become more than ever very immeasurably penetrating and helpful." -- Hahnemann
This quote differs significantly from the original quote given, beyond explanation of progression of language. (Namely I'm not count effacious -> effective) The meaning of the English Quote given is reasonably different from the original to call it a dubious translation. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an impressive find, and it certainly complicates how we should be editing the paragraph where we (incorrectly, apparently) quote Hahnemann. Antelan talk 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that it's a quote from an earlier edition that didn't get updated, or that the translation combines a later sentence for clarity? Adam Cuerden talk 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hahnemann's original German quote 

message: ... are there good reasons for me to think User:Orion4 is not a sock-puppet of User:Arion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible you mean ? You could ask for a check user, but it would not surprise me if those supportive of homeopathy only edit on homeopathy related pages. Is there a reason other than similar contributions? David D. (Talk) 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i just looked at the contributions and they don't seem particularly similar. This does not seem like a good place to bring this up. It will inevitably poison any discussions in the near future. David D. (Talk) 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate to seem skeptical, but... 

message: There remains the incorrect concept that homeopaths believe that the preparation of the remedies by a serial dilution and shaking process is to only remove side effects. That would only be true for a few substances, such as arsenic (Arsenicum album) and lead (Plumbum metallicum). The vast majority of the thousands of types of substances that are used, such as calcium carbonate (Calcarea carbonica) and red coral (Corallium) are not toxic and essentially inert in the body.
Here's my suggested wording for that sentence in order to clarify this (with citation as to the reference quoted):
:These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects from those that may be toxic, "adds to their power to stimulate a response", and "develops the special properties of the remedy" - even in those that are chemically inert or past the point where any molecules of the original substance remain.Smith, Trevor. Homeopathic Medicine Healing Arts Press, 1989. 14-15
Do I have your agreement to make that change? Arion (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 6th Organon he uses the phrase 'inner medicinal powers' rather than 'spirit-like medicinal powers' is that any better? I shall insert the uncontested rest of the revised para. thanks Peter morrell 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A wonderful demonstration of how poor the English translations are.  He uses both in the 6th Organon in German. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My translation was actually from Hahnemann's 6th Organon in German. And the word "geistartig" (spirit-like) yet remains in the wording, but also there is the word "innate", "inner" has kind of a different meaning than "innate".  An "inner power" is something that can be developed, and "created", while "innate power" means that the power is there no matter what.  It cannot be removed, it cannot be separated, as it at least partially defines the object with that power. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for rewording of the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph

message: Are all products sold as homeopathic actually examples of homeopathy?  I get the impression (at least from advertizing) that a lot of these are just various "natural remedies" using a marketable term.  But I may be entirely wrong on this, as I'm not terribly familiar with the alternative medicine business.  Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative medicine is more than homeopathy, so I suspect you are not looking at homeopathic remedies when you see them in a concentrated form. But i should probably not comment since I never look at the alternative medicine aisle, or any medicine aisle for that matter. David D. (Talk) 08:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh...my....gosh...--Filll (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products labeled ''homeopathic'' 

message: I've reorganized the lead by moving the stuff about legal status and extent of usage to the end of the lead. By doing this, the structure of the lead is now basic definition -> principles of the method -> scientific perspective -> legal status and extent of usage, which I think is a more logical progression. I didn't any substantive points, only the order. Please comment as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that works. docboat (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of the lead