Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 22

message: When this article was in the sandbox, I got Peter to carefully explain EXACTLY what the potency measures meant, and wrote this up. I propose to expand this, potentially as a subsiduary daughter article to this one (or as a footnote, but I am not sure there is room). I feel this would be an extremely valuable contribution because in my surveys of the online literature, I have never seen this well described anywhere. It can be something that WP can really use to set WP apart; the one source that completely and clearly explains what exactly the potencies in homeopathy mean. Comments?--Filll (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a side box? Like on W. S. Gilbert? Adam Cuerden talk 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that got redirected to Homeopathy at some stage. Adam Cuerden talk 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No daughter article is needed. The info can be explained in a single small paragraph if done right and can be put somewhere so that it doesn't get in the way of the flow of the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about something more extensive and complete, as Peter suggests. What I propose to do is to collect some of that information (hopefully it is not yet deleted Wikidudeman?) and try to format it into a presentable form. Then we can see how long it is, how much it overlaps what we have in this article already, and where we might put it; an infobox, a footnote, a subsiduary daughter article, or wherever. My goal would be to make a reference article that anyone studying homeopathy could look at to understand in very full and complete detail any and all of the metrics used to measure potency in homeopathy, as well as the mathematics involved. My anticipation (which ScienceApologist and a few others also felt) is that this would be a very valuable contribution and one of the places where Wikipedia can make a unique and extremely important piece. This is one of the most confusing and irritating areas for someone from mainstream science who is trying to investigate homeopathy, and with a very small amount of effort, we can write some text that will clear this up forever and make it available to everyone.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would love to see is a table summarizing homeopathic dilutions and their corresponding values in concentration units.  The first column would be homeopathic dilutions, in decreasing order.  The second would be the corresponding values in molar units (mol/L), and the third would be values in mg/mL for a typical homeopathic remedy, say, potassium dichromate or another small molecule.  We'd have to use scientific notation.  Would this violate the no original research policy?  My HTML skillz are, well, nonexistent, but I could do the calculations.  Cheers, Skinwalker 13:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for explanation of potency metrics 

message: Somehow or other ALL the refs have been screwed up how why? dunno...can someone fix this? thanks Peter morrell 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: I think you overdid the deletions, WDM, slightly, principally because some of those were good and some were dubious, OK fair enough, BUT some had been there a harmlessly for a fair while and had consensus approval, so why not justify what you removed and why? just a helpful suggestion so as to clear it up. thank you Peter morrell 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing external sites

message: Edit wars solve nothing and will not improve the article; after a nightly 'orgy' of same maybe it is time for folks to bring their issues to the talk page so their views can be discussed and perhaps a consensus might be reached, thanks Peter morrell 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I've been trying for months to get Mr. Ullman to discuss issues about his biographical article without fruition.  I don't think he reads talk pages.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to love it.  Has he accused you of stalking him yet? David D. (Talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet.  The one time I got him to say something outside of an edit summary he wasn't belligerent at all.  I even referred him to OTRS if he has a serious BLP problem with his article, and I requested uninvolved input at the COI noticeboard.  My feeling was that he just wasn't reading the (unacronymized) links I put on his talk page.  Meh.  Skinwalker 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit wars

message: "a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"
I think that that number should be changed to 1060. --200.69.215.69 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, forgot to log in. That comment was by me. --W2bh (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exponentiaal notation, but I think it's better to spell it out - most people won't realise how big 1060 is Adam Cuerden talk 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if you spell it out like that, is just reads like a bunch of zeroes, and it doesn't make any sense. You don't have a meaningful relation laymen can understand. On the other hand, "This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth" does provide an understandable relation. --W2bh (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, even spelling it out does not help. An analogy is far better. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you give it in numerals and covert molecules of water to a volume or mass of water then the numbers will become a bit more understandable. Metric tonnes might be the best option for units. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lessee. 1 kilogram of water = 1 litre, so ... 10^60 molecules / (6.022 * 10^23) molecules per mole   * 18 grams per mole * 1 kg /1000 g  * 1 L / 1 kg =  2.98904019 × 1034 litres of water. That's a lot. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using chemical notation 

message: I'm looking at the quality of the references here.  OK, so lets look at the references on the "malaria" point, which should be pretty black and white.
One is an article on the guardian newspaper, which reports on the BBC news show
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/14/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth 
One is a letter to the bmj with a single case report 
(if this is the quality of quotes that I can use, then can I please, PLEASE use a letter from the National Enquirer to prove that Michael Jackson killed Elvis Presley when he went back in a time machine).  
And the other is a reasonably credible source.  The BBC quoting it's show, and quoting the NHS London Homeopathic Hospital in saying that they believed there was no evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm
 
If someone really wants to get cit-tastic they can of course cite the 1999 BMJ 
quoting the "A recent meta-analysis, published in the Lancet, examined over 100 randomised, placebo controlled trials and found an odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.93) in favour of homoeopathy. The authors concluded that, even allowing for publication bias, "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.""
Lets have a little bit more quality in our citations people.  I know some of you love to get hot under the collar.. but it's a little crazy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And another thing poor quality citing 

message: Dr. Ernst, who is cited throughout the article, is repeatedly accused of having an anti-homeopathic bias, should he be allowed to be cited so much?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.146 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ernst

message: When talking about Clinical Trials, this article goes on to suggest that the NHS finds "no convincing evidence" but this is not supported by the reference.  I have previously discussed this with the editor who vehemently reverted my changed, twice.  Thus I'll let someone else change it this time.
The NHS article (which is in a public "NHS Direct" watered down website) goes on to say that there is difficulty with the evidence, but not that no convincing evidence exists.  The other bodies listed do (in my view anyway) hold the view that no evidence exists, but the fact that the NHS runs multiple homeopathic hospitals lies question to the suggestion that they are of the view there is nothing in it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No convincing evidence arguement

message: If you disagree with what the meta analyses state please explain why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead summarises, it should not consist of a long list of quotations. Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Try summarising the quotes in your own words. This summary can't be over a few sentences, and must give due weight to the quality of the source and provide an accurate reflection of current knowledge on the subject. What do you propose? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid the writing was pretty awful in your revision - things got said multiple times, and infelicities abounded. Also, you'd have to show reference for some of the comments from similar high-quality sources. Adam Cuerden talk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean, Radames1, by "balanced"? Tim Vickers 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead + Neutral point of View ?

message: There is  a controversy on the evidence.It is well known and documented
Thats why I changed it. 
INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.
--70.107.246.88 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly controversy about how medicine should respond to people's use of homeopathy. However, there is no good scientific evidence that homeopathy is effective. The very best interpretation you can make of the data is that it might not be completely due to placebo effects, but this interpretation is highly unlikely to be true since no plausible mechanism exists. The best data we have point to it being just placebo and this fits best with other areas of knowledge. Consequently, when describing the scientific evidence about homeopathy, calling this "controversial" is misleading. Tim Vickers 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the sources do not clearly make that argument. We both agree that homeopathy is controversial, but we disagree about what the controversy is about. Within science and medicine, the controversy is not about efficacy, but about the proper response to homeopathy and alternative medicine - this is what the sources say. The current phrasing is completely unacceptable "...the evidence supporting its efficacy" is a highly biased presentation of the data. Tim Vickers 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The overwhelming, broad, government-endorsed scientific agreement is that trials are actually a terrific way to demonstrate efficacy. Few things are as neutral as a doubly-blinded, controlled study in a system where all trials must be pre-registered in order to avoid positive publication bias. There is no controversy regarding the science of clinical trials; there are just those who disagree that they should be held to such stringent standards. Antelan talk 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So long as the homeopath is blinded as to whether or not the pharmacy is actually dispensing the remedy or a placebo to his patient, then a double blind trial could be completed. Antelan talk 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Antelan - that might work at a superficial level. The issue though is that the "gold standard" of randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled studies is flawed. Take, for example, a series of studies as to the efficacy of a simple NSAID for joint pain, as brought in by the pharma reps, all of which show that their particular brand is better, cheaper, more efficacious than all others. And these are valid studies. Take then, independent studies of a single NSAID and out of 10 studies you will find 4 say "effective", 4 say "ineffective" and 2 say "inconclusive". Which is the source for all these drug rep studies which say the opposite of what the other reps studies show. There is a wealth of information about these flaws. Now, place homeopathy under such a flawed system of examination, and the results you get out pretty much reflect what the investigator wants them to show. Which is why so many pure allopaths criticise the positive results, and so many homeopaths criticise the negative results. Ideally what we need for further discussion on this page is a course in statistical analysis. docboat (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Docboat, a double blind study is only as good as it is designed and carried out. It is the bare requirement for a authoritative medical study, but is not sufficient in itself. Painting the entire process with a broad brush because some unnamed pharma company somewhere didn't do it right isn't going to convince anyone. Jefffire (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Docboat, you claim that controlled trials are "flawed" as a gold standard, but your example doesn't address this point - it addresses fraudulent reporting on the part of pharma companies. So, getting back to the point at hand, the fact that drug companies misrepresent their products does not begin to convince me that homeopathic remedies could not be usefully tested with doubly-blinded trials. If you have a more rigorous trial in mind that you think drugs, surgical procedures, or homeopathic remedies could be subject to, I'd like to hear about it. Antelan talk 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, Antelan, you miss the point. These studies - or at least the uses made of them by pharma companies - are not in the least fraudulent. Pharma is usually very keen to avoid any suspicion of fraud. And in no way are they misrepresenting. It is just that the imagined "gold standard" of these studies (placebo controlled etc etc) is NOT the gold standard people imagine. Hence the need for more people to actually study statistics. Boring, I know, but it is very useful. Been there, done that. As for other examples - well OK - any study on SSRI's for example, or the whole "cholesterol as a model of heart disease" studies - that model is plainly wrong, although a billion dollar industry is predicated on it. References for that abound, but an IHT article from last year springs to mind as a popular but well-written analysis of the issues. As for trials for homeopathic remedies - the problem is that for one diagnosis (say "sore throat") there may be 100 different homeopathic "causes" and 100 different individual remedies. So when you do a double blind etc etc trial on 1000 sore throat patients, you are getting only 10 patients per group. Not valid for analysis. Rigorous studies? I would think the best method is probably a cohort study over a number of years. And the best study method for medical practice in general? I wish I knew .... <sigh> .... a major problem in medicine is the question of validity of our actions. In 100 years time they will look back and think very poorly of us, much as we look back at treatments from the 1920's (hint - treatment for asthma in 1920? A cigarette laced with strychnine. True. And it worked to a degree) - no good answer there, sorry. Now back to the issue of investigating the efficacy of homeopathy - If we had a mere placebo effect, there should be a 30% cure rate. Recent pharma admissions in public (hearing US Congressional hearing? Not sure of date) claimed that any drug presented to the medical profession for general use had a 25% chance of success in any one patient. Hence you often need to try a second or third drug before the desired effect hits. Not saying drugs have no effect - that is patent nonsense. But we need to look with a clear - if jaundiced - eye at the whole medical business in general, and the statistics in use in particular. docboat (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly not all drugs have no effect, double blind studies on beta blockers and antibiotics would be clear.  Your point is well taken though, many drug trials are so poor statistically that their supposed positive effects are doubtful (in fact, the whole field of epidemiology is now beginning to be questioned), especially considering there may be side effects too. However, this does not negate the point that homeopathic drugs too, have a less than clear effect with respect to treatment.  At least they have no side effects, so in that sense they are better. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite so. But that leaves the issue of which method(s) can best be used to demonstrate an actual effect, if any , of the substrate? Meta-analyses are not worth anything, really, based as they are on very varying studies with very varying standards. Individual studies using the placebo controlled etc etc method of classical allopathic design will fail due to known statistical issues. A cohort study on a population may be of interest, but a cohesive group such as SDA vegetarians, or the classical Framingham study will be very difficult to control in all parameters. Maybe we should go back to 19th century approaches as used by Koch and Virchow? docboat (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say i have answers? ;)  I think the point that should be made is that there is no definitive effect, this is clear from trials that have been done. Obviously this point can also be made for many pharma drugs, but that does not mean the same point cannot be made here too. David D. (Talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Antelan. I would not agree that the views are fringe. I believe that most of us (the medical fraternity) accept these views, just that we do not speak about them. Partly because most doctors are woefully ignorant of science in general, and statistics in particular. The concerns I raised on studies of SSRIs are in fact most definitely and worryingly mainstream, because the conclusion is that there is not one single SSRI available that can be rationally prescribed with full knowledge of the drug, because due to the manner of the studies, the bias of studies, the choice of publishing (journal or location of publication) etc etc the facts have been irretrievably muddied. Sad, but true. Or, for example, prescribing antibiotics for middle ear infection which - as demonstrated in Holland - can be avoided 95% of the time with simple analgesia and time. But that solid evidence has been largely ignored. What this article needs to have applied is a dose of mutual understanding and acceptance.  docboat (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: As I survey the article, although it is immeasurably better than it used to be, I still see lots of examples of little problems. However, with the edit warring going on, it is almost impossible to fix these. People who are frantic to destroy the article by introducing statements that are effectively equivalent to "Homeopathy is fantastic and all other medicine is BS and we hate all doctors and scientists and science so there nya nya nya...now bugger off now" really is not helpful. There are still problems remaining in just a pure exposition of the subject, without having to contend with edit warriors who think if they just rant and rave enough, we will turn this article into a paean of praise for a pseudoscience. Sorry, but that ain't gunna happen. I would rather see the article deleted permanently than see that outcome. --Filll (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammar and language problems are definitely a problem. The third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph that could be reworded slightly and placed in the section "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism" but certainly not in the opening introductory paragraphs. The way it reads now sounds like something out of "Quackwatch" or some other biased group with an agenda. Arion (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) That's not a grammatical issue. 2) The lead summarizes the article. Hence, the presence of that material in the lead. 3) It's neutral, although not favorable to homeopathy. Antelan talk 00:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and language problems etc