Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8

message: I've archived the discussion. I'm pretty sure it worked, haven't tried that before.
This article needs to be shorter and needs to be edited. I propose:
* Dumping the entire "Chronic Disease" section. It's boring and tangential.
* Dumping "Pragmaticism vs. Mysticism." It says nothing at all of substance.
* Dumping everything in the "Scientific Validity" section except for the first section, "Homeopathic claims contradict established scientific theories." An encyclopedia article should NOT be laboriously quoting dueling studies. It's tedious, useless, and lends itself to antagonism. Replace it all with "Critics claim the percieved efficacy of homeopathic remedies is entirely due to the placebo effect, but controversy and research continues" or some such neutral statement.
I think we all agree that the article is unacceptable as-is. This is the first step - cutting all the info that is not critical to a superficial understanding of homeopathy.
T.J.C. 18:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. I've nearly given up trying to do anything with this article, but I'm glad to see fresh blood. --Lee Hunter 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for a fresh start and do not believe the quality of the article has suffered on account of the edits. I do, however, think that somewhere in Wikipedia we have to give readers the means to make an informed decision about homeopathy. To do this, some of the editors who have been involved in this article should give up their insistence on making this a polemic. --Leifern 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate a little more on what (if anything) would need to be added to the article to help the reader make an informed decision? I think (hope) as long as we are sufficiently superficial and neutral and provide a variety of competing resources as a jumping-off point for further research, we've done our job. T.J.C. 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion archived / Trimming the fat 

message: Hi all! So far, it seems the response has been positive (or at least not negative, heh) towards the trimming job. So the next step would seem to be downgrading the article to "non-neutral" from "non-neutral and factually inaccurate". (I figure it might take longer to get NPOV, so one step at a time is probably best).
That being said, let's discuss: What in the article do you feel is factually inaccurate? I'll take another look-through myself, though I don't remember anything really sticking out - but I certainly don't have enough experience with homeopathic doctrine to know what is or isn't accurate in those sections.
One method we can certainly use is to prefix potentially contentious statements with "Homeopaths believe" or "Critics claim" with a suitable reference, or something like that, so we don't end up arguing. T.J.C. 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Step: Removing the Factual Inaccuracies 

message: I've gone through and reformatted the references section to replace footnotes with the new < ref > code. I found that lots of the backlinks were broken, because the text refering to them was removed. For now, I've just hidden them using  so that they are easily accessible. I'm planning to wait a week, and any that remain unused can be moved into a Sources section or something. Any objections? SeventyThree(Talk) 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I sliced out:
: "Those who do give and receive treatment are likely to argue that 'of course the treatment will not work for you if you fight it' etc etc. Let's face it, this is a religion."
Really didn't belong, did it (despite the fact that I agree) Manning 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which are these homeopathic remedies that you claim actually work?  I've so far heard of none that holds up to scrutiny. Daniel Lindsäth 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excised the following 

message: My edits are not intended to alter the balance of this article or change the content, but are intended to shorten/clarify/simplify, and I have noted the above discussion and made some minor adjustments to tone accordingly. I have only deleted text that I thought was obviously redundant or repetitive. I think that in its present form, the article is fair and balanced; there is clear expression of reservations, but also a very full and sympathetic account of homeopathy. I think that the reference list should be chosen more selectivelyGleng 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits 18 February

message: Let me be clear here: There is no consensus on this article. If there were a "condemned" tag, I'd slap it on this piece of pro     distic polemic. Geni, Skinwalker, et al have hijacked it, constantly reverting or reintroducing language that fits their point of view but no encyclopedic standard, repeat old canards again and again, and in the end everyone but Aegis (who himself/herself has abandoned any pretense of a constructive effort) simply gives up on the whole thing. --Leifern 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus - there is no consensus 

message: Again I think that this article is basically OK, and that the clean-up tag is not warranted. However, I think that the sections on Safety and on Validity could both be tightened by using selected very solid references from objective sources. I propose replacing the section on Safety as follows, which is essentially a precis of FDA statements from the cited link, except for the last sentence which is retained from the original.
"The FDA considers that there is no real concern over the safety of hoeopathic products "because they have little or no pharmacologically active ingredients". One exception is that, whereas
conventional drugs for adults can contain no more than 10 percent alcohol, some homeopathic products contain much more than this. The FDA has delayed its decision concerning alcohol in homeopathic products while it reviews the necessity of these high levels. There have been a few reports of illness associated with the use of homeopathic products. However, in cases that they reviewed, the FDA discounted the homeopathic product involved as the cause of the adverse reactions. In one case, arsenic was implicated. But, as expected, FDA analysis revealed that the concentration of arsenic was too low to cause concern. Perhaps the main concern about the safety of homeopathy arises not from the products themselves, but from the possible withholding of more efficacious treatment, or from misdiagnosis of dangerous conditions by a non-medically qualified homeopathist." Gleng 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. I don't know if it's even worth mentioning the alcohol bit. This is a general rule that obviously stems from concern over products like cough medicine that are sold in 500 ml containers. It's not really very relevant for products that come in one ounce or smaller bottles.--Lee Hunter 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety

message: I suggest replacing this section as follows (with references), and invite comments.
"The first important question is "Do homeopathic remedies have a beneficial effect?" The answer to this question seems to be unequivocally yes, for many patients and many conditions, treatment by a practitioner of homeopathy is better than no treatment, and many patients report benefits after conventinal treatment has failed.
The second important question is "When homeopathic remedies work, why do they work?" 
For a conventional treatment, such a question is likely to be answered by explaining a specific mechanism in detail. For example, the effectiveness of a conventional drug may be explained by describing the chemical structure of the drug, how this structure enables it to act at specific receptors, how this leads to a specific change in the function of particular cells that play a known role in a particular organ, and how this organ is involved in the disease process. Each step in the explanation will be based on a variety of evidence, will be experimentally testable, and will be open to further, more detailed explanation. For instance, the chemical composition of receptor molecules may be known, the gene for the receptor may be known, and disorders of that gene may have been directly associated with the disease. By comparison with conventional treatments, there is no rational scientific basis for the actions of homeopathic remedies.
So why do they work?. Homeopaths believe that the production of a homeopathic remedy involves a conditioning of the liquid that gives it some active properties. It is not impossible to envisage how this might occur, what is more difficult to envisage is how animals evolved a mechanism for responding to liquids conditioned in this way, or what that mechanism might look like. In the absence of plausible explanations of these questions, or of convincing evidence of relevant changes in the structure of water, most scientists prefer alternative explanations for the efficacy of homeopathy.
The preferred explanation is the placebo effect. If a patient believes that a treatment will be effective, it is often likely to be effective. Why placebos are effective is also not understood, but the brain controls the responses of the body to injury and infection, we know many mechanisms by which it does so,  we know that our "state of mind" influences these mechanisms, and in some cases we know which parts of the brain are involved and how they are involved. The placebo effect is often large, so any conventional drug is ideally tested in a large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial, the object of which is to test whether the drug has an objectively-demonstrable effect that is significantly better than the effect of a placebo.
Many clinical trials that partially fulfil these criteria have investigated homeopathy or related uses of ultradilutions, and many of these have indicated some kind of efficacy above placebo[7]. However, many of the trials are open to technical criticism or involve samples that are too small to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of trials of homeopathy, the largest and most rigorous analysis so far conducted, involving 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials. The outcome of this meta-analysis suggested that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are indeed likely to be placebo effects.
Homeopaths have responded to the publication of this meta-analysis by explaining that homeopathic medicines do not show ‘specific effect’. They show ‘individualized’ effect, that it is the whole patient that is treated, not a specific disease, and that during a correct homeopathic treatment, symptoms often aggravate initially. They explain that suppressed symptoms can reappear for some time during the process of cure – as disease again moves from more vital organs to less important ones, and that the trials analysed were a mixture of ‘complex homeopathy’ and ‘classical homeopathy’."Gleng 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response
"The first important question is "Do homeopathic remedies have a beneficial effect?" The answer to this question seems to be unequivocally yes, for many patients and many conditions, treatment by a practitioner of homeopathy is better than no treatment, and many patients report benefits after conventinal treatment has failed. (I understand what you're going for here, but pandering to people who don't understand the pragmatic fallacy is not acceptable in a scientific validity section.  How is it 'better than no treatment?' What are the "benefits?" This is way too unspecific.) 
The second important question is "When homeopathic remedies work, why do they work?" (Again: pragmatic fallacy. What do we mean by "work?")
For a conventional treatment, such a question is likely to be answered by explaining a specific mechanism in detail. For example, the effectiveness of a conventional drug may be explained by describing the chemical structure of the drug, how this structure enables it to act at specific receptors, how this leads to a specific change in the function of particular cells that play a known role in a particular organ, and how this organ is involved in the disease process. Each step in the explanation will be based on a variety of evidence, will be experimentally testable, and will be open to further, more detailed explanation. For instance, the chemical composition of receptor molecules may be known, the gene for the receptor may be known, and disorders of that gene may have been directly associated with the disease. By comparison with conventional treatments, there is no rational scientific basis for the actions of homeopathic remedies.
So why do they work?. Homeopaths believe that the production of a homeopathic remedy involves a conditioning of the liquid that gives it some active properties. It is not impossible to envisage how this might occur (Besides the fact that we haven't defined "active properties", assuming that we mean properties that are physically consistent with modern physics and thermodynamics, it is impossible given the method of homeopathic remedy preparation - by shaking the container.), what is more difficult to envisage is how animals evolved a mechanism for responding to liquids conditioned in this way, or what that mechanism might look like. (This is circular reasoning and assumes that a mechanism exists, whereas a primary scientific criticism is that none does.) In the absence of plausible explanations of these questions, or of convincing evidence of relevant changes in the structure of water, most scientists prefer alternative explanations for the efficacy of homeopathy.
The preferred explanation is the placebo effect. If a patient believes that a treatment will be effective, it is often likely to be effective. Why placebos are effective is also not understood, but the brain controls the responses of the body to injury and infection, we know many mechanisms by which it does so,  we know that our "state of mind" influences these mechanisms, and in some cases we know which parts of the brain are involved and how they are involved. The placebo effect is often large, so any conventional drug is ideally tested in a large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial, the object of which is to test whether the drug has an objectively-demonstrable effect that is significantly better than the effect of a placebo.(I like this, but isn't it beyond the scope of this article to completely explain the placebo effect? Linking should be enough.)
Many clinical trials that partially fulfil these criteria have investigated homeopathy or related uses of ultradilutions, and many of these have indicated some kind of efficacy above placebo[7]. However, many of the trials are open to technical criticism or involve samples that are too small to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of trials of homeopathy, the largest and most rigorous analysis so far conducted, involving 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials. The outcome of this meta-analysis suggested that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are indeed likely to be placebo effects.
Homeopaths have responded to the publication of this meta-analysis by explaining that homeopathic medicines do not show ‘specific effect’. They show ‘individualized’ effect, that it is the whole patient that is treated, not a specific disease, and that during a correct homeopathic treatment, symptoms often aggravate initially. They explain that suppressed symptoms can reappear for some time during the process of cure – as disease again moves from more vital organs to less important ones, and that the trials analysed were a mixture of ‘complex homeopathy’ and ‘classical homeopathy’."   (Honestly, this is just a rewrite of the last paragraph that, IMO, makes it more difficult to understand, and homeopathic talking points on "individualized symptoms" and symptom aggravation at the beginning of treatment and suppression and all the other dodges to explain the lack of efficacy and repeatability of randomized trials has no place in a scientific validity section, because it completely lacks a scientific basis.) T.J.C. 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revise of Validity section

message: At present this article is disputed. It still contains material that gratuitously expresses a POV, and I do recognise Leifern's concerns, or some of them at least. The remarks headed 
"Possible reasons for the increasing use of homeopathic remedies are...."
are perfectly reasonable opinions, but they are pure opinion. There is no evidence for these nor can I see how there could be. The obvious reason why the popularity of homeopathy is growing is simply that more and more people believe that it works, and this doesn't need to be said. This section reads like an explanation for why people believe stupid things. I suggest deleting it in the interests of NPOV.
The remarks about the AMA should I think be properly sourced and referenced and moved to the Validity section, which should be rewritten more or less as above.
I suspect that Aegeis has a point in insisting that miasms be included, however bizarre they might seem, they do appear to be a major theme in homeopathy. I'm sorry that he couldn't engage more constructively.
Lets try to get the text more non-judgemental, i.e. evidence-based not opinion-based. Gleng 09:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan?...

message: I will expose only two among them, for now.  
1. It is a lie that Hahnemann broke with contemporary medical practice moved by higher considerations, that is, being disappointed by its inefficacy. In reality, the reason was pecuniary: he was not able to earn for his living. Thus, he wrote in a letter of 29.08.1790: "I cannot reckon much on income from practice. This I know from fourteen years' experience". And in another letter of the same date: "I have entirely given up my practice for the past year, because it cost me more than it brought in..."
The legend was invented much later by Hahnemann himself. He used to tell it on occasions suitable for embellishing his personal reputation, as in a letter addressed to the very influencial Hufeland, published in 1808 in the Allgemeiner Anzeiger der Deutschen. But quotations from his private letters, as opposed to his stilted public declarations of much later date, clearly show that his claim was disingenuous.
Since this claim is irrelevant to the basic principles of homoeopathy, but nevertheless you insistently placed it in the most prominent position (at the very beginning of the article), it is obvious that you intentionally use it as a smokescreen, to dupe an unsophisticated reader.
2.The homeopathic doctrine consists of two main parts (represented by two main works of Hahnemann, the Organon and the Chronic Diseases), namely, the principle of similars, and the theory of miasms. The latter being manifestly obscurantist, you remove it to misrepresent homoeopathy as an empirical discipline. It as a silent lie; a close parellel would be representation of Nazism without concentration camps. 
3.After observing the quackery paradise of Wikipedia for almost a year, I do not expect an honest discussion of any subject on your part. Instead, the quality of Wikipedia articles on the subject will be publicised on the Web; your semi-literate comments on the Talk_page will only serve to expose the level of expertise of wikipedian writers.
Aegeis 14:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aegis, may I kindly suggest that you make edits to the existing version rather than just keep rving into your version? Your point about Hahnemann (if you have a citation) is reasonable to put in. As for point 2 and 3, notions of miasm don't exist in modern homeopathy as far as I can tell. If you want to add a comment in the history section that seems fine also. However, making comparisons to the Nazsi and calling the commentators who disagree with you "semi-literate" doesn't accomplish anything. As someone who strongly thinks that homeopathy is junk, the version that seems to be consensus seems to mainly adequately reflect the existing problems and criticisms. I am therefore rving it again. JoshuaZ 15:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miasms do exist in modern homeopathy.Geni 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Aegis, I do not think that the current text attributes any motive at all to Hahneman, either good or bad, if it does it should be neutralised, but I don't recognise this, certainly not as you assert at the top of the article. We might have opinons about motives, but this is not a place for opinions, and I particularly think it is unsafe to attribute motives on the basis of interpretation of private letters. As I have stated on the talk page, I think a section on miasms is needed, as they do feature in contemporary writings of homeopathy. I was going to use your text as a basis if no-one else is willing to engage.Gleng 15:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the miasms section because it was long, boring, and badly written. Are you, Aegis, accusing me of deliberately obscuring the truth about homeopathy? Oh my! My previous posts have certainly shown me to be quite the homeopathy defender, I'm sure. You're not interested in discussion for the purpose of creating a neutral article, you're interested in discrediting homeopathy, which is not consistent with the aims of a Wikipedia article. Host your overwritten (frankly, it appears you only use obscure "pseudo-intellectual language" for the express purpose of sounding intelligent, not for the sake of brevity or clarity) and POV (you are needlessly speculative and opinionated, e.g. "Perhaps, it was not especially embarrassing for Bönnighausen who was a professional lawyer."), but thorough and interesting report somewhere else, and we'll link to it. Honestly, I like what you've written, because it comes from actually having read the homeopathic manuals - I'm too cheap to hunt them down myself and it would probably just make me mad anyway. But what's the point of fighting about it on here? If you're too POV, you will just be reverted. You are too polarized on the issue to contribute effectively. Frankly, I think I'm too polarized to contribute effectively, which is why I don't generally bother. Gleng has been doing a good job at staying neutral, if he wants to add miasms back in, he should. T.J.C. 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The text of the article is made up of deliberate lies 

message: Removed Austria and Mexico as these comments were not associated with other points of general interest; homeopathy is very widespread and we cannot be exhaustive here.Gleng 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ..around the world

message: Just to be clear why I do not think that Aegeis' text is not acceptable. His/her article is interesting and clearly knowledgeable, but there are two fundamental problems:
a) it is extensively riddled with opinion  - for example, I do not know what evidence there is or might be that Hahnemann was senile at 72, but I doubt that this allegation can be substantiated.  
b) I think it is inherently unreasonable to represent homeopathy today by an exposition of what it was like 200 years ago; it would be unfair to represent conventional medicine today in the form it was even 50 years ago. 
Perhaps a separate article on early history of homeopathy would be appropriateGleng 16:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Aegeis

message: Should we semi-protect this article so Aegis doesn't keep messing around? JoshuaZ 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. --Lee Hunter 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: his account is old.Geni 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, this page is probably not a candidate for semi-protection.  Aegeis only vandalizes maybe, what, three times a day from an anonymous ip?  If you look at current requests for page protection, admins don't semi-protect unless there is sustained vandalism from several ip addresses.  I would favor blocking the range of ips Aegeis uses, as well as his account (he's shown that he has no interest in being a properly-behaved Wikipedian), but that may be difficult.  I mean, go ahead and submit the protection request, and if it's approved, great.  However, Aegeis will be back eventually.  I think we need to come up with a longer-term solution for this problem.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Range block would involve knocking out Lucky Net Ltd hitting 255 IPs.Geni 18:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protect? 

message: The statement that Hahnemann did not accept the conventional medicine of his day is a lie. He proposed the soluble mercury for the treatment of syphilis as late as in 1789; it was as toxic a preparation as all others of the same group. The innovation was completely in the spirit of the conventional medicine of his day. And so it was with all his earlier ideas. So, either adduce a single fact (before 1796) to the contrary, or remove the mendacious assertion.
:But why at all should the section on the basic principles of homoeopathy begin with such a statement, quite irrelevant in the context? It does not elucidate homoeopathic concepts, and even be it true, it would not entail that the latters are true either. It is here to bias the reader toward homoeopathy from the very start, using bloodletting and all as a scarecrow, and providing him with no real facts about homoeopathy; such a jesuite ploy. This trick is one of many which betray the biased (toward homoeopathy), POV status of the article. 
Aegeis 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. I don't think Hahnemann in any way saw himself as rejecting the conventional medicine of the time. He was simply experimenting with the same medicine that his contemporaries were using (mercury, Peruvian bark etc.)  trying to find a way of delivering them with less toxic side effects. In much the same way, researchers today try to find more efficient delivery techniques for chemotherapy. Having said that, it's not so much a "lie" as an overly romantic depiction. In any case, that sentence should be changed or deleted. --Lee Hunter 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: have you ever read the organon?  elizmr 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have revised to try to accomodate these points above, at least partly - the sentence on dilutions I have not deleted but moved to the other discussion on this point. I guess I don't see the article as being pro Momeopathy, guess it depends what you read into it, but let's not use words like lies; if a phrase is not appropriate or unbalanced or badly chosen or wrong then OK; let's please assume good faith thoughGleng 09:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tricky. Rejecting it yes. Closer to outright attack if you read his rants about allopathy. Of course if you consider what passed for mainstream medicine at the time he may have had a point.Geni 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias toward homoeopathy 

message: I haven't read all the discussion but I would like to share some knowledge I came across on the long journey of medical treatment ...
First, most scientist states that there is no evidence of how homeopathy works and always comes with the dilution solution.  I agree with them ...  indeed, there is no possibility that some particules are left in the solution...  but ...   some experiement were conducted, once major by Professeur Fritz-A. Popp (author of  Biology of light) shows that each homeopathy product has a different wave length.  What this shows is that homeopathy does not treat using conventional "physical matter" but instead using vibration and energy to cure.
Thus I would cathegorize homeopathy in the magnetotherapy group...
Studies made using GDV (Gaz discharge visualisation) shows the change of energy potential when "simple" water is "energize" with homeopathy (from a single spot of light to a big hallow).
As for the "clinical testing " they did for comparison... no wonder they have the same effect as the placebo ...  by definition the homepathy is specific to a patient not to a disease.  Did they interview the patient for their background, feelings, so on ?  I don't think so.  You cannot use the same method for analysing homeopathy as you would allopathy.  Thus you can't really make comparison.  
They are not different medecines, they are complementary.
I would use allopathy for "urgent" problems and homeopathy to cure/clean one's body on the long term.
Just an example of usage for those who still think that placebo is in effect...  I saw a little girl of about 4 months being bitten by a bee (of course she is allergic to the bees) in the upper arm.  immediately the arm started to get swallen.  The parents gave her "apis mellifica" (which was the cure for their daughter) and in a few minutes the inflammation stopped and the only thing left was the place where the bee bit.  Placebo ?  on who's part ?  the parents ?
Hope this will shed some more lights to actual effectiveness of homeopathy.
Regards
:You do realise that if the reseach was correct FIS and various spectoscoptic techniques involveing florense would be slightly imposible to use?Geni 13:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally some scientific evidence 

message: Looked at these, and I think that Cochrane is clearly a high quality source. However there is at least one Cochrane review which is partly supportive of homeopathy and this should also be cited. Less sure about Bandolier as a source, because I can't see that their Journal is peer reviewed, and seems not to separate opinion from evidence. Is this a source that meets highest WP standards? I think on the mainstream science side we should only use the very best and unimpeachable sources. Comments?Gleng 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bandolier and Cochrane

message: I'm glad that Aegeis is engaging. This section at present (Aegeis raw first draft) is full of opinion and interpretation, and there is a clear danger of "guilt by association" which should be avoided. However there are interesting historical issues here, relating to a) the links between homeopathy and religious beliefs, which were an explicit part of Kent's philosophy, and b)political (as opposed to scientific) support/lack of support for homeopathy. It seems to me that these could be developed objectively and would be relevant and interesting. Aegeis, can you trim out the opinion and develop the fact basis?Gleng 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aegeis/Nazis

message: I contributed much to this article back in mid-2005, and stopped following Aegis' "contributions". Now Aegis is going beyond all reasonable bounds to demonize homeopathy and totally disrespect the concept of Wikipedia - doing the equivalent of discrediting chicken as food because the Nazis liked to eat it, too. That he is allowed to do this shows the weakness of Wikipedia, and this article has degenerated to a ridiculous mess consequent to his insinuations and others' poor knowledge of the field.
It is for this reason that I am offering all of you the opportunity to see the article in a previous state where it was not a caricature (of both the pro- and anti- sides, I must add!) but a mature,informative article fit for public presentation. Please do not revert my revert but instead read the article in its entirety, and then the pre-reverted one in comparison, also allowing others that follow you with the same privilege. I do not underdstand why people who've read about an aspect of a complex discipline think that they know the whole, nor why Aegis has not been shut down by now for his unrepenent hostility (well, perhaps it's better to kill an article than people...).  Davidnortman 16:39, 28 March 2006
:Glad that someone took this in hand. It made me sick, but I really didn't have the time or knowledge, without extensive fact finding, to take it in hand myself. Doc 21:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ridiculous state of this article (re revert)

message: I have edited taking into account the useful edits of Gleng which built on Aegeis history edits (but moved them to history section). Despite the claim of Davidnortman it is a part of the history and belongs in the article. Though I am happy to discuss. I am disgusted by deletion of EBM. Pls discuss your reasons if you want to consider it again. Mccready 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nazi thing is only useful for cheap point scoreing when homeopaths try the "look at these famous people who support us" line of argument. Otherwise it has not real significance other than a historical curriousity.Geni 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aegeis, Gleng, Davidnortman edits 

message: Unless someone can supply sources for the popularity section, shouldn't it be deleted? And the figures of homeopathy assoc are not good enough. We need independent data. 
*Since Linde withdrew, so should the ref.
* I've tightened the science section - it was too long
* I'm very happy to discuss the science and if anyone deletes the science section again I will RfC
Mccready 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity and other issues 

message: If known facts pro et contra a theory are in the ratio, say, of 1:9, then a NPOV (unbiased) review of the theory should be overloaded with negative facts just in this proportion. If the facts are presented fifty-fifty, the review is biased toward the theory. 
Then, the only criterion of mentioning facts (insomuch as they are facts) in a review should be their significance, however scandalous or otherwise embarrassing they may seem. The facts concerning the allies of homoeopathy in its struggle against science are significant in the following aspects:
First, they shed additional light on the process of dissemination of homoeopathic ideas. 
Second, as concerns the Swedenborgian influence, they  show how much unempirical are many among practical prescripts of homoeopathy.
Third, as concerns homoeopathy under the Nazi patronage, its significance lies, as said in the text,  in its being the biggest clinical trial of homoeopathy in its history. 
Aegeis 21:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is NPOV 

message: Hi, regarting the recent reversion, why isn't the "law of similars" a theory?  Also, why can't one say "yet" regarding homeopathy and scientific evidence?  It is true that there are not enough studies yet to really evaluate.  Please explain?  elizmr 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me. The law of similars can't be regarded as a theory as it does not follow the principals of a scientific theory. At present it would probably be regarded as conjecture. Additionally the inclusion of the word 'yet' implies that proof of homeopathy is only a matter of time. Without trying to impose my POV, this may not be the case as it is possible that homeopathy will never proven. Thanks for taking to time to talk about it. Jefffire 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I don't get why it doesn't follow the principles of a scientific theory.  The theory is that treating a sick person with a constellation of symptoms with a homeopathic remedy which caused the same constellation of symptoms in a well person is something that can be tested.  elizmr 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To be considered a theory in the scientific sense is very different to being considered a theory in lay language. In science a theory is well supported and accepted by the community. The law of similars is not supported by the bulk of the evidence as it stands and the scientic consnsus is that it is pseudoscience. For these reasons it is innapproriate to call it a theory. Jefffire 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I disagree that a theory has to be well accepted to be a theory but the use of the word is unimportant.  I rewrote my previous stuff without using the word theory.  The exisiting paragraph was hard, I thought, for people to follow who don't know about the subject.  elizmr 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good, well done. Hopefully it won't get reverted on sight. Jefffire 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification