Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 6

message: I'd like to see the article split to Classical Homeopathy and Modern Homeopathy.  The majority of information in the article concerns classical homeopathy.  Modern homeopathy can reference practices in the last few decades, and modern usage in the form of alternative medicine and herbology.  Modern homeopathy is often just herbology, and has little or nothing to do with the classical definition.
:I've never seen classical and modern homeopathy defined that way. I always thought that a person who works with herbs was a herbalist. All homeopaths use homeopathic remedies (some of which come from plant sources) and they might also incorporate herbs into their practise but that doesn't have anything to do with homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 11:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical vs Modern

message: I don't want to cut off any debate, but does anyone else think it's time to archive? At least some of it? Edwardian 01:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. everything before the "theory of disease" section seems reasonable.PhatRita 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I created Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 5. If PhatRita does not mind, I'll move this section near the top of the page for future reference. Edwardian 07:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sure I got no problems PhatRita 15:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive?

message: === Question about two expressions ===
Trying to translate parts of the text, I wonder if somebody could explain the meaning of these two expressions to me: What does "constant nature diseases" and "pathic disease" mean? Is there a direct german (probably original) translation to it? Thanks for help, --Nina 21:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bad section that needs significant reworking, and the specific paragraph you're referring to is especially bad - I suggest not relying on the Theory section at this point.Davidnortman 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so we maybe skip that part... thanks a lot for the estimate, I think I agree. --Nina 22:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: there is no single "homeopathic theory of disease" there are quite a few. Miasms is hanneman's thoery there are others.Geni 00:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarification-sake, please list them.  And if there are multiple theories of disease for homeopathy, it would be wise if that particular section started off by stating such. Edwardian 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: tricky for the most part they are attempts to combien the whole vital force thing with germ thoery which doesn't really work but no matter. Not all homeopaths some homeopaths wont accept any thoery of desease. Others talk about distubances in the vital force but avoid any mention of a causative agent. Yet other will accept germs ,genes and other as causertive agents but will claim there effects are on the level of the vital force. Some are just so mixed up an insane that there is no real way to describe them. Surface to say it is another issue where there are probably as many ideas as there are homeopaths.Geni 01:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not interested in reading case transcripts right now, but I would be interested in this article, or one entitled miasm, miasms, or theory of miasms, listing the miasms... with special notation of the original three. Edwardian 15:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of disease

message: Trying to translate parts of the text, I wonder if somebody could explain the meaning of these two expressions to me: What does "constant nature diseases" and "pathic disease" mean? Is there a direct german (probably original) translation to it? Thanks for help, --Nina 21:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bad section that needs significant reworking, and the specific paragraph you're referring to is especially bad - I suggest not relying on the Theory section at this point.Davidnortman 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so we maybe skip that part... thanks a lot for the estimate, I think I agree. --Nina 22:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about two expressions 

message: If the theory of miasms (or should it be the Theory of Miasms?) is the crux of the homeopathic theory of disease, shouldn't that be mentioned much sooner in this section.  It takes SIX paragraphs to get "miasms"! Any thoughts? Anyone opposed to a little trimming of this section? Edwardian 22:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no single "homeopathic theory of disease" there are quite a few. Miasms is hanneman's thoery there are others.Geni 00:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarification-sake, please list them.  And if there are multiple theories of disease for homeopathy, it would be wise if that particular section started off by stating such. Edwardian 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: tricky for the most part they are attempts to combien the whole vital force thing with germ thoery which doesn't really work but no matter. Not all homeopaths some homeopaths wont accept any thoery of desease. Others talk about distubances in the vital force but avoid any mention of a causative agent. Yet other will accept germs ,genes and other as causertive agents but will claim there effects are on the level of the vital force. Some are just so mixed up an insane that there is no real way to describe them. Surface to say it is another issue where there are probably as many ideas as there are homeopaths.Geni 01:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not interested in reading case transcripts right now, but I would be interested in this article, or one entitled miasm, miasms, or theory of miasms, listing the miasms... with special notation of the original three. Edwardian 15:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of miasms 

message: This section opens: "There is, and always has been, considerable diversity in the theory and practice of homeopathy. The major distinction may be between what can be called the pragmatic and the mystical approach, but it should be remembered that there are not two distinct groups, but a spectrum of attitudes and practices." "The major distinction" of what or between what?  Is this an opinion, or can someone present the "pragmatic approach" and "mystical approach" from a NPOV? Edwardian 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed important to report that not all homeopaths agree with each other. This section was an attempt (largely my own) to bring some order into the plethora of beliefs and practices. It is not authoritative and cries out for improvement by somebody in the know. I was trying to be NPOV, but the formulation can probably be improved as well. Art Carlson 08:36, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
That's another section that needs work, as the current characterization is incomplete. Discussing all schools of thought individually is difficult as there has been historical development, some have died out, the diseases that homeopaths deal today are very different from those dealt with in the 19th century and hence require a differenct approach, etc. But perhaps including several dimensions (one of which being the one mentioned) would provide a sufficient overview. I will try to do that sometime soon, though my historical knowledge is definitely incomplete.Davidnortman 16:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Diversity"

message: There appears to be a minor edit "war" regarding the title of one section. Let's talk more about it here. Edwardian 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding: "Clinical efficacy" as a concept says nothing about action of remedies, as any medical treatment is much, much more than the active remedy alone - just ask any good doctor. It may well be that homeopathy is an effective placebo but that doesn't take away anything from its clinical efficacy per se. This is a BIG equivocation on what the standard meaning of "clinical efficacy" means. The determination of "clinical efficacy" involves controlling for the placebo effect. If you're saying it works, but it could be the placebo effect - and you're not controlling for the placebo effect - you shouldn't be using the term "clinical efficacy". Edwardian 22:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It does with me. (I reserve the right to change my mind with the presentation of further evidence!) Edwardian 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it was me who orginally put percieved, because I felt that just clinical efficacy would be suggestive of something above placebo, which is of course, unproven. "reported" is a good compromise. PhatRita 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal vote regarding "Clinical efficacy" vs. "Perceived clinical efficacy"

message: I can't say I'm too fond on the latest edits. They seem to be supercondensed and are extremely tough to read and understand for a lay audience. I will revert it soon if there is agreement? PhatRita 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it is both POV and and written to "make a point" rather than to inform, though we can borrow a line from that material about the fact that provings may collect symptoms from the provers unrelated to the substance. (Is there an automatic way to revert or is it done through cut and paste?) Davidnortman 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a way to revert but someone has already written over with a few very good spellings. I'll revert it the old fashioned way. PhatRita 23:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by User:Aegis 

message: What the hell has happened to the article? It has been changed beyond any recognition since I have been away a few days ago. The histroy shows user:aegeis completely changing everything about the article, which I thought was showing significant improvement. What can be done? 
PhatRita 13:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have reverted the page to the last version by Geni. PhatRita 13:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pandemonium 

message: Considering the fact that homeopathy is completely unproven and has failed several double-blind studies (including James Randi's $1,000,000 challenge) I have to agree that this article is way too biased toward homeopathy.  AFAIK, every properly-conducted double-blind study has shown no statistical difference between homeopathy and placebo.  Besides that, physics/chemistry as we know it does not allow for molecules to "imprint" themselves in liquid water.  Homeopathy is complete scam and has never cured anyone.  The placebo effect, however, has.
66.215.44.176 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is more-or-less NPOV (though definitely a work in progress). Your assessment seems to come from your prior knoweldge or opinion, which this article seeks to remedy, e.g., by presenting references to (or articles containing refereces to) properly-conducted double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials showing positive results, of which there is a handful or two. James Randi's challenge is way too politically charged to be a high-level arbiter of truth; I see his name splashed about liberally like a generic noun, but as far as I know no one has ever passed his "preliminary tests", and since the decision whether to proceed with the actual test is his organization's alone it is he might be playing a power game. He performs a valuable service through educating the public in scientific literacy, but this doesn't make him am expert on all things controversial. (Nevertheless, James Randi is mentioned in the article.) Finally, this article contains information on potnetial mechanism of action. So after one reads the article there are two conclusions possible: the article is too pro-homeopathy because it is written pro-homeopathy; or that it is pro-homeopathy because more evidence for homeopathy is presented than the average reader is familiar with or expects. In any case it encourages the inquisitive reader to continue to research this subject matter rather than make a hasty conclusion in either direction.Davidnortman 03:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is way too pro-homeopathy 

message: Hanneman published a book called "organon of the medical art" (ok probably whatever that is in german) there are many organons I've never run across any evidence that hanneman published a book under that name.Geni 00:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were about 6 or 7 versions of that book but they are collectively known as the organon, at least in my reading. There are many spearate translations such as organon of the healing art, organon of medicine. PhatRita 12:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: latest edits

message: I will use the sub-subsection Miasms to bring to light the moral stance behind your multiple reversions. The views on miasms you attributed to Hahnemann are not his; they are your own, which is fully demonstrated by the quotes I adduced. Well, you certainly were not aware of it before; but although you became aware of it from my version, you still reinstall your distorted tale. That is, you deliberately regale the reader with your deceitful version because it represents homeopathy in more favorable light. 
Further in the text, among modern authors writing on miasms you mention only Sankaran (why not, say, Ortega?), and in most promotional style (highly influential). Obviously, you have good personal reasons for making so; but isn't it unfair to the reader? Don't you know how e.g. Vithoulkas said that "Sankaran alone has done more harm to homoeopathy than all the enemies of homoeopathy together" (the interview with G. Vithoulkas in LINKS 4/99)? 
And the fundamental point. The reader is entitled to learn from an encyclopedia article whether there is something real (physiological) about miasms. Your text creates illusion that there is, but produces no proof (because none exists). You intentionally deceit the reader. 
After that, you complain of disrespect. Aegeis193.193.199.86 21:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is a collaborative effort. Every time you take us back to your version from the distant past you destroy literally dozens of corrections, grammatical fixes and structural changes contributed by multiple editors. That's what I would call 'disrespect'. If you would like to make changes to this article, you must make them one at a time. If you try to rewrite the whole thing (inserting your POV throughout) it will simply be reverted.  --Lee Hunter 23:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miasms 

message: Anyone got a source for that claim that susiquen dilutions of LMs are only a factor of 100 to 1?Geni 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an error - thanks for picking it up. I've made the correction (still a little simplified as LM1 is more dilute than 1:50,000, it is in fact 1:50,000 following an initial 3c preparation - but this degree of detail is not relevant to the article).Davidnortman 05:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LM potencies

message: On a related note I agree with Geni that clinical homeopathy is practiced a lot - numerically it must surpass the use of classical homeopathy, certainly in places like Germany and France - so we should add a section titled Complex Homeopathy (since most clinical homeopathy uses complex remedies) or perhaps simply Non-Classical Homeopathy (in which case the use of one remedy at a time in classical homeopathy should be explained somewhere) to explain at least the basics of it. Any suggestions for location? Just before Scientific validity section might be good so that the studies make more sense, but maybe it pushes the section down too far? Toward the end? In the History section?Davidnortman 05:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you would also have to include practical homeopathy.Geni 09:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I am personally of the opinion that the article is long enough. What you are proposing should be added, but only at the expense of deleting some other stuff. PhatRita 16:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: the very fact that the article is contentious means adding new material can make the situation 
extremely volatile. I also think this revert war with aegeis should be sorted out before anything can follow through. PhatRita 13:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-classical homeopathy

message: It is important that references to articles from peer-reviewed medical journals be included here and properly identified.  --24.87.210.3 01:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are referenced in context in the body text so there's no reason to relist them. In response I've added this fact (that they are peer-reviewed) in the appropriate sections.Davidnortman 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer-reviewed studies

message: I seem to be engaged in a revert war with Aegeis and we've both exceeded the daily limit for reversion. I've asked him on his user talk page to engage in a dialog re. the content of this page and to make smaller edits. This is so that the work of other editors is not trashed and so that the edit is a reasonable size for others to work on. If this doesn't work it will have to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Lee Hunter 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think some kind of higher power, ie arbitration, is needed here. No compromise, no respect and no way forward here. PhatRita 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: I have blocked User:Aegeis and User:LeeHunter for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule today. When both are done with their "probation," I would encourage them to come to the talk page to discuss disputed issues instead of edit warring. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooling off