Enric Naval (talk | contribs) →Proposed change #4: this is allowed |
→AE: misunderstandings about dilution/potency |
||
Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
::I know but the common practice in homeopathy from what I read is to use 6x preparations or "stronger" - no molecules . So how these results are justified? I' m really curious. --[[User:Motorola12|Motorola12]] ([[User talk:Motorola12|talk]]) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
::I know but the common practice in homeopathy from what I read is to use 6x preparations or "stronger" - no molecules . So how these results are justified? I' m really curious. --[[User:Motorola12|Motorola12]] ([[User talk:Motorola12|talk]]) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::The obvious question here is "How closely does a nominally 1X dilution step approximate the intended division by 10.000?" Depending on technique and degree of care, it could be significantly less. Re-use of containers could mean that material doses are in fact present when not expected. One would think there must be some RS on this.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
:::The obvious question here is "How closely does a nominally 1X dilution step approximate the intended division by 10.000?" Depending on technique and degree of care, it could be significantly less. Re-use of containers could mean that material doses are in fact present when not expected. One would think there must be some RS on this.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Big misunderstanding of potentised remedy preparation here - a tinture is made to the potency, including stated dilution. The usual method from there is to put one drop of it into a bottle of pills. Eg I use about 300 pills per bottle, some may use as low as 50. Sometimes powders are used with a drop mixed in to several powders. Sometimes a liquid potency is used where one drop is mixed into a bottle of at least 100 drops, often far more. So, the actual remedy is rarely reflective of the ''dilution''. Hence why potencies of remedies is the correct term, not dilutions. A 1x potency is likely to be dilute by between 500 to 5000, not 10. [[User:Cjwilky|Cjwilky]] ([[User talk:Cjwilky|talk]]) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:35, 18 December 2012
Homeopathy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Do List
|
---|
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Miasms" - I'm afraid all of you are wrong there
Hahnemann neither introduced the theory, it's ancient (old greece ancient), nor did he come up with the idea that miasms were the cause of most illness - this was common thinking in his days! --Six words (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I just had a look at the source for the sentence in question - it deals with chronic disease, which Hahnemann theorises is caused by "underlying ills", syphillis, sycosis and scabies. These at his time were thought to be caused by miasm. At the beginning of the book, he describes these three diseases as "miasmatic-chronic" and/or "chronic-miasmatic". Later in the book, the diseases themselves are called "miasms", so he's taking an (at his time) accepted concept and slightly re-defines it to primarily mean these three diseases. I think for now it might suffice to change the section title and the first sentence to read
Miasm and chronic disease In 1828, Hahnemann introduced the concept of "miasms" as the supposed underlying cause of chronic diseases.[30]
- but I'll try to find a source that discusses that miasm was a common concept back then. --Six words (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about: "Hahnemann proposed that "miasms" were the supposed underlying cause of chronic diseases. The "concept" part is redundant, actually, because "miasms" is defined in the next sentence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess this is a bit more complicated than I at first thought. The next sentence doesn't really define "miasm" - it describes the homeopathic theory (or definition?) of disease. "Miasm" (used the way Hahnemann seems to define it - as syphillis, sycosis or psora/scabies) is a theoretical explanation for why chronic diseases re-appear or don't respond even though they're treated with a matching "simillimum" - if the disease is caused by a different underlying disease, it won't be healed even though you use the "right" "remedy". We should try to find a secondary source for the definition of "miasm", right now this section isn't sourced very well. --Six words (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Aren't the references at Miasma theory sufficient?
- I guess this is a bit more complicated than I at first thought. The next sentence doesn't really define "miasm" - it describes the homeopathic theory (or definition?) of disease. "Miasm" (used the way Hahnemann seems to define it - as syphillis, sycosis or psora/scabies) is a theoretical explanation for why chronic diseases re-appear or don't respond even though they're treated with a matching "simillimum" - if the disease is caused by a different underlying disease, it won't be healed even though you use the "right" "remedy". We should try to find a secondary source for the definition of "miasm", right now this section isn't sourced very well. --Six words (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about: "Hahnemann proposed that "miasms" were the supposed underlying cause of chronic diseases. The "concept" part is redundant, actually, because "miasms" is defined in the next sentence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, Hahnemann used the concept in a different way than they had previously been used - see his book "The Chrinic Diseases" [1] Whilst acknowledging the way they can initially be contracted in a similar way to modern germ theory, he further proposed that once in the system they could be the root of all manner of symptoms - again not so different from germ theory. He didn't propose that they were the "supposed" cause, he proposed that they "were" the cause - unless you can show me differently. I think the sentence should be either left as is or: Hahnemann proposed that "miasms" were the underlying cause of chronic diseases.
- When he talks of miasms in terms of them getting in the way of healing, he is referring to a condition returning after having been alleviated (also known as having been being cured), or a new condition arising after a previous one has been cured. His goal was permanent and lasting cure (see organon), so this is why he looked for other approaches. Re last para of the Miasms section, to suggest that he was using the miasms theory as being a reason for treatment failures is misrepresenting this. You could just as easily say use of anti-biotics are treatment failures because very often the same or similar or a further condition arises. That para in a very unclear way, also says Hahnemann used miasms in some way to cover the failure of homeopathy to understand "the unique disease history of each patient" - erm... a homeopath certainly looks at the unique disease history of someone more than conventional medicine does, even today. Its a very low quality reference to include in the article, and that para anyway is very vague and easily confused - needs a rewrite if it is to remain included, though not having the book I couldn't do that. I dare say its probably only a page or so (pp148-149?), so if anyone has access to it I'm happy to write a better summary of Sheltons view.
- Having said this, there are criticisms of miasm theory out there from other homeopaths we can include, as well as the development of the theory. Cjwilky (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a theory. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi skeprap :) Better to follow the thread of the discussion rather than sidestepping to over analysing words. But, try looking at Theory. Maybe you are meaning a specific branch of that known as Scientific Theory, in which case if you read the Chronic Dieases book you will find that Hahnemann did take it that far.
- Please refrain, if you can, from derisory comments tucked away in the edit summary when you are posting :( "here we go again. Someone needs to read WP:NOTAFORUM" Cjwilky (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTAFORUM. You're using this stage as your personal "Homeopathy works" forum. You never get anywhere, because you've brought absolutely nothing to the article. OK? Your personal attacks are so lame that they're laughable. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wait, now the sentence should be left as-is? It was you who tried to change it (introducing the "supposed")! My contribution to this sentence was the "chronic" part. --Six words (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops! Nope, I didn't introduce "supposed", that was Dominus, and it doesn't make sense as a sentence if thats included. Yep, got caught too much into the whole section and forgot the chronic bit, that is crucial :) Cjwilky (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. Get your facts straight before you say someone did something. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, but no big deal eh? :) seems it was JzG. Cjwilky (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is a big deal, because I can count on one testicle the number of times you've been right about water, and that may be that it has two hydrogens and one oxygen in the molecule. But that's real science, so I'm skeptical about homeopaths even understanding that concept. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Cjwilky, you left the sentence as "In 1828, Hahnemann introduced the concept of "miasms" as the underlying cause of chronic diseases". That is misleading and/or inaccurate. He introduced miasms as the supposed cause, but they are not the cause of anything at all, because they don't exist. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- JzG/Guy - you can read that sentence two ways. He introduced the concept of miasms as the cause of chronic diseases (that continually returned after alleviation), he didn't introduce it as a supposed cause, he was very clear that it was "the cause" [2] . The less amiguous version of this sentence would be "In 1828, Hahnemann introduced the concept of "miasms" as being what he saw as the underlying cause of chronic diseases."
- Whilst I'd be happy to debate whether miasms exist or not, I don't think our take on them is relevant here. We are describing the philosophy and theory of homeopathy. Cjwilky (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, but no big deal eh? :) seems it was JzG. Cjwilky (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. Get your facts straight before you say someone did something. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops! Nope, I didn't introduce "supposed", that was Dominus, and it doesn't make sense as a sentence if thats included. Yep, got caught too much into the whole section and forgot the chronic bit, that is crucial :) Cjwilky (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a theory. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Having said this, there are criticisms of miasm theory out there from other homeopaths we can include, as well as the development of the theory. Cjwilky (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ "The Chronic Diseases". Retrieved 17 November 2012.
{{cite web}}
:|first=
missing|last=
(help) - ^ Hanhemann, Samuel (1828). The Chronic Diseases. pp. 1–141.
Alternative medicine article discussion to restore MEDRS and NPOV content and sources such as Annals of New York Academy of Sciences and Journal of Academic Medicine
A discussion to restore the first 14 sources of this version, including Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Journal of Academic Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
"the"/"his" doctrine of similia similibus curentur
I see in the first sentence of the article "the" has been changed to "his" with the edit note of "his doctrine, not a doctrine (it was more or less non-existent by then)". I don't get the reasoning here. It is a doctrine that has been in existence before Hahnemann eg Similia_similibus_curentur#similia_similibus_curentur. As such its clearly not Hahnemanns doctrine, so seems to me "the doctrine...." is the accurate term and should be used here in the article. Cjwilky (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Paracelsus laid the foundations with his "like cures like", but Hahnemann elevated this far-from-true idea to a pseudo-"law", even though it has no scientific basis. It is therefore "his" doctrine, which his followers believe, but which no one else recognizes: "Hahnemann's law of similars is an ipse dixit axiom,[1] in other words an unproven assertion made by Hahnemann, and not a true law of nature.[2]" -- Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The second paragraph that asserts that the law of similars is unproven is unfounded. Research has indeed been done that shows that indeed like does cure like, this was also done many decades ago when the first Thermographic cameras become available. A hot drink cools you faster than a cold one – myth or reality? Veritatis in lege (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cute, but hardly relevant. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ Renouard PV, Comegys CG, Jewell W, Friedberg SA (1856), History of Medicine, From Its Origins to the Nineteenth Century, Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstach, Keys & Co., p. 580, OCLC 14846134
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ The Dental Cosmos: A Monthly Record of Dental Science, Editor Edward C. Kirk, D.D.S., Vol. XXXVI, p. 1031-1032
Adverse effects
Here's a systematic review that meets MEDRS:
- Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series. P. Posadzki, A. Alotaibi, E. Ernst. International Journal of Clinical Practice, Volume 66, Issue 12, pages 1178–1188, December 2012. DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12026
Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the suspect nature of the author, Ernst, I agree with it being included, though only if its made clear that these are all cases where a material dose of the material suspected of causing the allergy/adverse reaction is used. I note that since 1978 30 cases have been found worldwide - perspective of this kind is relevant to the article - I'd say the same if we were talking about pharma med reactions, otherwise we are in danger of misleading. It would make sense to give examples of the potencies and substances concerned. Cjwilky (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
"homeopathy" or "homeopathic remedies"?
In this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=525999753&oldid=525973492 edit, skinwalker changed deleted some "citations needed" but also changed
- Johnson was unable to find any evidence that homeopathic remedies contain any active ingredient.
to
- Johnson was unable to find any evidence that homeopathy contains any active ingredient.
I suggest this is changed back.
I reverted it. Skeprap reverted it back to skinwalkers edit. I reverted this again and requested it be brought to talk if anyone had an issue. Skeprap reverted it again without saying why. I had corrected it again. I say corrected as explained in my edit notes ie that it makes no sense as homeopathy is a described process not a substance. Further, the youtube video cited claims:
- "remedies contain well... nothing"
- "common remedies are just sugar pills"
- "even critics say this part of homeopathy (the consultation) may have some value, spending time with a patient, as for the remedies..."
- "there's nothing to these homeopathic medicines"
- "homeopathic medicines are sugar pills"
- "there is no medicine in homeopathic medicine"
- "the remedies largely have no active ingredient"
- "when you get the remedies there's no active ingredient in there"
etc.
As you see, nothing whatsoever about "homeopathy contains no active ingredient", only that "remedies contain no active ingredient", and it does say "...this part of homeopathy (the consultation) may have some value". Seems that there's some inaccurate reporting going on by sceptics here. Skinwalker? Skeprap? Cjwilky (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Calling these "remedies" is a bit stupid, since they don't do anything. (Military music, anyone?) But that's what the source calls them and I don't have a better name for it. Replacing "remedies" with something else throughout the article would be ideal. "substances" perhaps? TippyGoomba (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- And Cjwilky has a hissy fit when I do this by make some lame accusation about something regarding me. I'd be ok with "substances" or "potions." SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Potions" is a good one. But more seriously, what about "preparations"? I agree that remedies makes it sound as if they actually are effective in some way, and should be avoided. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that "Johnson was unable to find any evidence that homeopathy contains any active ingredient" simply doesn't make sense: theology doesn't contain Gods,
geographygeology doesn't contain rocks, and homoeopathy doesn't contain remedies. "Preparations" sounds good though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that "Johnson was unable to find any evidence that homeopathy contains any active ingredient" simply doesn't make sense: theology doesn't contain Gods,
- Oh, come on, let's use potions! But if that's just a bit POV, preparations sounds great. Good one Andy! SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or "nostrums"! Or just plain "water"! But preparations seems the most realistic here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that 'preparations' is precisely the term needed, in that homoeopathic practitioners seem to insist that how the substance is prepared is what matters, whereas both orthodox science and common sense will hold that 'preparing' something this way has no significant consequence beyond increasing the price of the 'active' ingredient - water. Both agree that 'preparation' occurs - the debate is over its effectiveness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll go with "preparations" here too, although the source does say remedies and medicines repeatedly and never mentions preparations. In the past we have had similar discussions about words used and it has been said "thats what the source says", as though thats a definitive judgement, so useful to know thats definitely not the case in all your judgements. Cjwilky (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a homeopathic potion that you can concoct for passive aggressiveness? Damn, I'm funny. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
'Quackery' in lead'
Shivang Tyagi (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) on 8th Dec 2012 i Tried To Remove The Line Stating Homeopathy As Quackery For All Those Favouring It : Its Accepted Form Of Alternate Medication In Many Countries Including India. Plese Go Through These Articles First.. We Should Not State Something As Quackery Without Knowing Its Basics. Some Articles May Help Gaining Some Positive Attitude :
- understand-the-molecular-processes-involved-in-potentization [1]
- homeopathic-potentization [2]
- how-homeopathy-works [3]
- 'Molecular Imprints' Vs 'Bio-magnetic' - John Benneth Debates With Chandran Nambiar K C Over Sicence Of Homeopathy [4]
- Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and in particular, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). We will not accept a website run by a homoeopathic practitioner (e.g. as a source such as dialecticalhomeopathy.com) for anything except the practitioner's own opinions - if they are of any note, for which there seems to be no real evidence. That homaeopaths claim not to be promoting quackery is hardly surprising. And we are well aware that in some countries, homoeopathy is promoted as 'alternative medicine' - our article says so. This does not change the fact that it is widely seen as based on unscientific and disproven premises by the medical community, and generally considered by this community to be quackery. This issue has been raised before here by supporters of homoeopathy, as a look through the archives will reveal, and it is quite evident that the article lede complies with Wikipedia policies, is properly sourced, and states the facts, as provided by the sources we recognise as valid. A few links to a random homaeopath's website aren't going to change this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- An Exerpt From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Clearly says that studies of experts in relevant fields should be considered. we can provide his reference in the article if it provides any direction to the article.
"Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline."
- "generally considered by this community to be quackery" general considerations vary from person to person and isnt a authentic measure to considered to keep a point in front on large masses. here we have a study in above mentioned articles. would soon be providing you with more in-depth studies . I AGAIN Request to go through the articles from a neutral set of mind.
Shivang Tyagi (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2011/09/26/study-water-and-ethyl-alcohol-to-understand-the-molecular-processes-involved-in-potentization/
- ^ http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2012/08/30/homeopathic-potentization/
- ^ http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2012/04/05/how-homeopathy-works/
- ^ http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/molecular-imprints-vs-bio
- It may be that on balance the evidence is currently against homeopathy, and we know most editors on here consider it quackery. However, the article says "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." There is one source for this, but I wonder where in that source that is said? Anyone have access to it? Having discussed this particular point with several random medics, they all raised eyebrows and said they had heard that term used rarely. Some said it was used in more extreme criticisms. There is nothing in the world I have come across that supports this claim. I'd like to see evidence for this claim. Cjwilky (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- "It may be that on balance the evidence is currently against homeopathy"? Cjwilky, you are well aware of WP:FRINGE (and WP:OR concerning your 'medics') - please take your soupbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Consider reading this study : http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Potprobl.htm
- with references of this article mentioned here : http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Potref.htm Shivang Tyagi (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. We are not the slightest bit interested in such 'studies' - only material conforming to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) can be used here - this is not open to negotiation, it is Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- See the answer to Q11 above. Yes, it's quackery. No, we don't says so in the voice of the encyclopedia. Yes, we do report that others say so. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. We are not the slightest bit interested in such 'studies' - only material conforming to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) can be used here - this is not open to negotiation, it is Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Wahlberg ref was previously used to illustrate the last part of "The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery". I see BenKovitz changed the wording to its current version. Was this discussed? Where does the Wahlberg ref cite that homeopathy is generally considered quackery within the medical community? Cjwilky (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Q11 Above As Mentioned Demands Reliable Authentic Proof To Say It As Fraud/Quackery. Just On The Basis Of Ones Own Perception You Cant Claim The Whole Millions Of Homeopathic Doctors And The Branch As Of Quacks Without Actually Prooving Them So. You Need To Have Something To Either Proove It Wrong Or Withdrawing Such Words From Encyclopedia Used Without Neutral Consensus. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Have you actually bothered to read the article? Anyway, we don't have to prove anything, beyond what we say in the article - that reliable sources state that homoeopathy has not been proven to do anything whatsoever, that its supposed mechanism is incompatible with even elementary science, and that it is widely seen as pseudoscientific hokum by the medical community. And I've no idea where you get the idea that Wikipedia decides content according to any sort of 'consensus' of the opinions of contributors. It doesn't - it represents the sources. If you wish to promote homoeopathy, you will need to find somewhere else to do so. We don't misrepresent fringe theories as factual, no matter how profitable it would be for the promoters of such theories to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Article You Are Constantly Mentioning Should Be Referred To Others Too.. It Clearly States About Long List Of Acceptable Sources. I Don't Know What Personally You Don't Consider Among All Those Articles Mentioned As Against The Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here's A List Of PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL LITERATURE ABOUT THE BASIS OF HOMEOPATHY, EVIDENCE BASE, ITS RECOGNITION AND RESEARCH WORKS. KINDLY GO THROUGH THEM BEFORE COMMENTING.Some Articles Sourced From Europe & USA Based HOMEOPATHY SOCIETIES And Medical Journals. :
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/basic-research/biological-models
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/basic-research
http://homeopathyusa.org/specialty-board.html
http://homeopathyusa.org/homeopathy-now.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491607001051
http://homeopathyusa.org/faq.html (SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED)
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074360.htm (FDA Compliance )
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/regulatory-status (REGULATORY STATUS EUROPE)
http://www.homeowatch.org/history/reghx.html
By the Way FOR CONSENSUS Topic : WIKIPEDIA SAYS TO EDITORS (Below FAQs 2 column ) "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote." Shivang Tyagi (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes ShivangTyagi I think you are confused. There is no vote going on right now. Did you read the FRINGE link that AndytheGrump left you? We are not going to go through your long list of article from homeopaths. I did glance through one (http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/regulatory-status) and it is VERY outdated, it seems to just be a generic reference page that is unsourced and not reputable. I do not see what it has to do with your claim that the lede should be changed?Sgerbic (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not one of those citations qualifies as a reliable medical source. I know that homeopaths and real scientists look at reliable sources differently, but in this article, in this project, only peer-reviewed, secondary sources, published in high impact journals count. Websites, blogs, and homeopathic potion menus don't count. If you're unwilling to read Wikipedia guidelines, there will not be a good conversation here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes read Q11. Still no indication where its shown that the medical community generally call homeoathy "quackery". For sure a few people use the word, but hardly "generally" unless you can show different. Shivang - don't worry, most of them are usually like this, stick with it :) They are correct in what they say about sources needing to be quality, just a shame they made leaps of judgement sometimes like in the case of "quackery" and "generally"in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I Have Read All Those Links And Standards WikiPedia Needs. The Links You COMMENTED Think Are Not Merely Websites Or General Blog Sites. They Are Country/Continent BASED NATIONAL BOARDS OF HOMEOPATHY . I Don't THINK Calling SUCH REPUTED Media As Baseless And Unreliable Accounts To Anything. HAVE A LOOK AT THEM YOU WILL FIND PEER_REVIEWED JOURNALS IN ABUNDANCE, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND UNIVERSALLY FOLLOWED RESEARCHES. "Its Shameful to claim something without proper references and than demanding Further Reference TO REMOVE IT." And The One Calling Europe Board As OUTDATED.. Homeopathy Isn't New So, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ITS RECOGNITION TO BE OF RECENT YEARS??? ITS RECOGNISED DECADES BACK EVERYWHERE AND SAME IS BEING FOLLOWED UPTILL NOW .. Were You Expecting It Show You Recent Dates ?? That Gives You Dates Of Boards When They Were Formed And Accepted.
I Dont Think There's Any One MEDIC Here Who Can Actually Give ANY Proper Judgement Being Neutral. Its Of No Use To Argue With Non-Medics On Topics That They Actually Don't Understand. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- This article always has activity--and I think that's a good thing. What isn't however, is that the lead mentions "generally considered" with respect to the quackery claim, yet only has one source for this. I'd think "generally" would entail more than one source. Maybe even from a journal that isn't rooted in soft science, as that one is. But that's just me. Seeing how so many rational, confident scientists assert there is no way homeopathy can work (despite multiple claims otherwise) I'd hope there'd be better sources to back up this view. I say view, because, like so many other aspects of the "medical community" what isn't understood is considered either alternative, complimentary or discarded altogether. Shame.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- One Source That is A Book Of Wahlberg Mentioning Many Other Alternate Medicines As Quackery Not Only Homeopathy Is Considered A Reliable Source..???? Inspite Of Many Claims Otherwise Not Being Accepted !! I Really Don't Get The Users Here Want. Either They Want Their Thinking To Be Published Here Or They Just Don't Want To Accept Changes To What They Think. A Recent Edit By A IP User Was Acceptable Giving Some More Clarity To Article By Mentioning 2 Different Views Was Reverted back By Giving a "Self-serving special pleading." as comment. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some suggestions: (a) read the Wikipedia policies you have been told that the article must follow - including WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE etc. There is no choice whatsoever over this - it is Wikipedia policy. (b) look through the talk-page archives for previous discussions - you aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said before, and we aren't going to waste time going over the same ground again for the benefit of people who clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. (c) Use a capital letter at the start of the sentence, and in other appropriate places, not at the start of every word - it will make your posts easier to read. If you carry on as you are, you are unlikely to achieve anything beyond irritating people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Emphasis Is Given to Words Which Actually Need To be Emphasised (U Need To Make The User Read Them).Wikipedia has other policies too. So I Suggest You To Read These Along With The Ones Suggested Above : WP:VERIFY WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV WP:CONS& WP:UNDUE You Might Have Forgotten These. Do You actually Know What WP:MEDRS Means ?? Shivang Tyagi (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- O.k. you've ignored my advice. I shall ignore your postings, and recommend everyone else to do the same, given your clear inability to either comprehend the basic tenets of Wikipedia policy, or to engage in a meaningful discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Was Going Through The Previous Archives . Consider Reading These Discussions From Archives. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery_category
- Was Going Through The Previous Archives . Consider Reading These Discussions From Archives. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery_category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_17#Quackery
- First off, when you capitalize every word, you are no longer emphasizing anything. It's just poor grammar that serves no purpose.
- Second, what in those archives do you think is compelling about this specific issue (aka "quackery")? We are not going to argue the validity of homeopathy here. That's a WP:DEADHORSE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're discussing the use of "quackery" and "generally" in the first para - don't suppose you have evidence to support that, becuase nothing I've seen here supports the use of those words. Cjwilky (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- C'mon, you could just check Scholar. Or are you just saying we should drop "generally"? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're discussing the use of "quackery" and "generally" in the first para - don't suppose you have evidence to support that, becuase nothing I've seen here supports the use of those words. Cjwilky (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even using that very random method, 1300 results for quackery v 14900 for homeopathy, which puts it in the minority, and hardly generally. Cjwilky (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Used that quality google method and get 1800 for quackery and psychology, 500 with orthopedics, 900 with gyno, 1700 with antibiotics - will you be writing more leads in wiki medicine in the near future? Cjwilky (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery. Unlike those others though, it lacks the redeeming factor of an evidence base. Not that I expect you to accept this. The psychologists would see it as a cognitive dissonance problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- "I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery." Not sure what relevance this has to the issue here? My point above is that your "evidence" looks slim ie by using that evidence you are also saying many other mainstream medical disciplines and methods (antibiotics, gynecology etc) are quackery. Cjwilky (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery. Unlike those others though, it lacks the redeeming factor of an evidence base. Not that I expect you to accept this. The psychologists would see it as a cognitive dissonance problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Propose Warning Label
Just thought that it might be a good idea to start every article such as this one with a warning label such as the one used on the Italian Wikipedia pages. It would keep the back and forth discussions over the lede to a minimum. Here is one example http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agopuntura It translates to "The practices described here are not accepted by medical science, have not been subjected to experimental tests conducted with the scientific method or have not overcome. May therefore be ineffective or harmful to health. The information for illustrative purposes only. Wikipedia does not give medical advice: Read the warnings." So clearly there is precedent on Wikipedia for this. Sgerbic (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Um, the English Wikipedia is no obligation to follow Italian Wikipedia precedent, or vice-versa. On the whole, consensus here seems to be that such custom disclaimers are best avoided, if for no other reason than that they might be taken to imply that where an article did not have such a disclaimer, Wikipedia was claiming to be a legitimate source for medical advice etc - which could have legal implications. Note also that every Wikipedia article carries a link to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer at the bottom of the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand Andy. Had not thought about the idea that people reading other medical pages might think that Wikipedia actually endorsed it. I think a banner could be used only on fringe/controversial topics like this one. Yes, I understand that just because the Italian pages do it does not mean that English has to do it, but this does show precedent. As far as worrying about legal implications, the disclaimer at the bottom of the page (that is unlikely to be read by the general public) would suffice. I still think that this is worthwhile for discussion. Personally I think that we editors have a responsibility to the readers, I have seen many people edit the talk page looking for medical advice, clearly not understanding the article. I know that we can't hope to educate everyone, some will just not "get it" but I think a clear warning message (on medical pseudoscience topics) is a responsibility to the 120K+ readers this page gets each month.Sgerbic (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- For what is forth, we have a no disclaimers in articles policy.--McSly (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience 'warning' headers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for clearing that up. Completely unaware this had been brought up before, I've only been editing a couple years. I understand the reasons, don't completely agree, but abide by this. I remain hopeful that possibly this might change for certain pages. I suppose that we will have to go on discussing lede's and remain vigilant that the page reflects current scientific consensus. If for no other reason, but for the readers we are creating this encyclopedia for. Sgerbic (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience 'warning' headers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- For what is forth, we have a no disclaimers in articles policy.--McSly (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand Andy. Had not thought about the idea that people reading other medical pages might think that Wikipedia actually endorsed it. I think a banner could be used only on fringe/controversial topics like this one. Yes, I understand that just because the Italian pages do it does not mean that English has to do it, but this does show precedent. As far as worrying about legal implications, the disclaimer at the bottom of the page (that is unlikely to be read by the general public) would suffice. I still think that this is worthwhile for discussion. Personally I think that we editors have a responsibility to the readers, I have seen many people edit the talk page looking for medical advice, clearly not understanding the article. I know that we can't hope to educate everyone, some will just not "get it" but I think a clear warning message (on medical pseudoscience topics) is a responsibility to the 120K+ readers this page gets each month.Sgerbic (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding sources and content to this article
Hello,
I am new to wikipedia and frankly don't undestand why the revision 528014790 had to be reverted. The editor said the number one source is wikipedia - yes, it is, it is a transcription of the talk - if the transcription is not good enough for you, please watch the original video and hear for yourself that homeopath Dr. André Saine, really says what I have included in the text, specifically "skeptics have not studied homeopathy sufficiently to be able to conduct trials, or simply to be able to criticize homeopathy fairly", as much of the research effort does not study homeopathy, but only "poor imitations" of it. André Saine is one of the most prominent homeopaths today and I believe his words can be taken as representing homeopaths.
Other sources are from peer-reviewed journals and they do not deal with medical efficacy of homeopathy, they deal with the nature of high dilutions, which is a crucial stumbling block of acceptance of homeopathy. Some of the sources are quite recent and therefore important for the topic.
Please explain why such material is not acceptable. I understand that similar such papers are included as proofs against homeopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfLippe (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think these sources are reliable per WP:MEDRS - the first wouldn't even pass WP:RS as it is a wiki. Primary sources shouldn't be used to support controversial statements, and the statements about high dilutions definitely are controversial. --Six words (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:RS says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I have added the original source - the video - and also the transcription of this video. The source is an excellent resource for the statement at hand as it is made by a prominent homeopath. As to the other sources, how else can it be proved that there is SOMETHING in homeopathic remedies other than by citing studies that rsearch the phenomena? GhostOfLippe (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- They're self-published sources; I doubt that the publisher is an expert on study design. That good quality studies conducted by/with homeopaths such as Peter Fisher haven't been able to produce positive results also weakens his position. The most you could do with that youtube video would be to say "homeopath XY says that ..."; in this case you'd have to prove it's appropriate to cite that specific person's opinion. --Six words (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The publisher is an expert on homeopathy and when he says they are not testing homeopathy, I think we can believe him. Anyway, I can see that red tape also works on Wikipedia, so it's no wonder this article is in such a bad shape as it is - full of factual errors and imprecisions. GhostOfLippe (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, stay with it GhostOfLippe :) The essence here is that we're working here "within" the system only. Orthodox Journals have more weight as its considered they are are more rigorous, which in the main they are. Not that they are necessarily correct and free from various bias.
- Its useful to make one change per edit. In one edit, as well as a significant addition (which is bound to be disputed), I notice you changed
- "according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people."
- to
- "according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people."
- This is referenced to The Organon. Anyone with the basic knowledge of homeopathy knows that in a proving symptoms are collected and not disease names. The sentence curently in the article suggests that a remedy that causes symptoms of a disease will cure that disease. It is quite the opposite - a remedy that causes symptoms of a disease will cure anything which has a similar totality of symptoms. We maybe should then go on to specify what "totality of symptoms" means. In that version of the Organon cited, in the Preface, in reference to Hahnemanns initial experiments on himself and with others, Stratten says of Hahnemann, "In his investigations he arrived at this conclusion - that the substance employed possessed an inherent power of exciting in healthy subjects, the same symptoms which it is said to cure in the sick." Symptoms is what it is about, not disease names.
- I see you since edited just this one part, which the zealous previous revertion appeared to have overlooked :) Cjwilky (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed new source
A recent addition added this source, assuming this is MEDRS. I object, as this is an alt med study, published in an alt med journal, by an alt med practitioner. Alt med journals (such as Homeopathy) generally publish much more positive results than other journals, which is suggestive of bias - and part of the reason why we don't think journals like Homeopathy are reliable. I also tried to find if this had any impact in the medical literature - a google scholar citation search found few actual citations in the medical literature - some self citations by the author, other citations in other alt med journals, and mostly websites but no positive cites outside the alt med closed bubble. There was one letter to the editor by non alt med practitioners, but it was critical of the study. In other words, an alt med paper authored by an alt med practitioners in an alt med journal which has not had any impact whatsoever in the medical literature - probably shouldn't be used. Yobol (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office as part of the Complementary Medicine Evaluation Project (PEK) in order to evaluate the speciality homeopathy (alongside four other complementary medical methods: phytotherapy, neural therapy, anthroposophically extended medicine and traditional Chinese medicine – phytotherapy) for their efficacy, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness. Next to the primary study carried out by the PEK, the HTA report was to provide the basis for the decision whether statutory health insurance compensation should continue beyond 30 June 2006.
- The IMPACT you ask for was the continuation of reimbursement of homeopathy by Switzerland's national health insurance program. I believe this is an important impact and it should be included somewhere in the text.
- I have also noticed that beside removing the source, you have also reverted the wording of the sentence back to its biased form. Why? GhostOfLippe (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The impact which I care about is the impact on the medical literature, which outside the insular world of alt med journals has been unanimous in the conclusion that homeopathy doesn't work. We shouldn't alt med journals to debunk proper sourcing. I oppose the addition of it in this section as undue weight to a fringe position, but let's see what other editors think. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yobol, careful of the words you use. Unanimous implies all, in fact try looking at the definition of it. Just an off the cuff look brings http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673648 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435338/ There's also the insular world of skeptics to consider if you're wanting to get picky... :-/ I suggest you look at more co-operative ways of working on this page, and avoid potential slurrs no matter how mild or appropriate you think they may be :)
- There is a bias in that orthodox med journals will be more ready to publish something that may be of poor design but adheres to the norm. Homeopathy challenges the norm, massively. That doesn't mean its wrong, just that it, rightly, needs to prove itself more. So, whilst I acknowledge the need for evidence to come from the mainstream journals, for the article here the criticisms of the mainstream view from a persective that is sympathetic to homeopathy is also valid. eg the criticisms of many of the studies that clearly don't test homeopathy on a fair playing field like with the Randi attempt at replicating Ennis which failed on significant protocols (Ennis). Homeopathy isn't that easy to test. Cjwilky (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear in stating that there is consensus in the secondary sources; clearly there are positive individual studies (as you would expect by mere chance if you test something often enough even if with something that is known not to work). Again, I don't think we should be using fringe alt med sources for a discussion of whether or not homeopathy actually works. Yobol (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with that Yobol, except the idea of the positives being just chance bit... but we'll get to that eventually, be warned there is a lot of homeopathy research on its way and its generally improving quality wise, Shangs gonna look a bit yellowed and frayed soon ;) Cjwilky (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear in stating that there is consensus in the secondary sources; clearly there are positive individual studies (as you would expect by mere chance if you test something often enough even if with something that is known not to work). Again, I don't think we should be using fringe alt med sources for a discussion of whether or not homeopathy actually works. Yobol (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The impact which I care about is the impact on the medical literature, which outside the insular world of alt med journals has been unanimous in the conclusion that homeopathy doesn't work. We shouldn't alt med journals to debunk proper sourcing. I oppose the addition of it in this section as undue weight to a fringe position, but let's see what other editors think. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Replying to GhostOfLippe: "The IMPACT you ask for was the continuation of reimbursement of homeopathy by Switzerland's national health insurance program. I believe this is an important impact and it should be included somewhere in the text."
- Actually, that isn't true. The "IMPACT" of the PEK, of which the HTA was part, was that funding of homoeopathy and the other four therapies was withdrawn. It was only reinstated, for a further trial period, after a referendum vote in 2009. This "important impact" is already covered in the first paragraph of the article's regulation and prevalence section. Brunton (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Brunton or Six words: Can you provide some reference for this? GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try the one already used in the article: "Back in 2005 the interior ministry rejected the therapies, arguing they failed to meet the legal requirement of “scientific proof” of the three efficacy criteria." The HTA was submitted to the Swiss government in early 2005 (along with the Shang analysis and other research), leading to the PEK report which withdrew funding. For further discussion (including translated passages from relevant Swiss government documents) see here. Brunton (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change #1
I propose to change the current sentence "Although some trials produced positive results, systematic reviews revealed that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias." to "Some systematic reviews report positive results,[13][14][15] while other conclude that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.".
Reason for change: Current formulation is biased and makes it sound as if the pro-homeopathy studies were not systematic reviews, but only some individual trials GhostOfLippe (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The sentence is not reporting positive systematic reviews. It is reporting the findings of systematic reviews that while there are some positive trials, the evidence is not strong enough to support the efficacy of homoeopathy because of issues with trial quality and bias. For example, Kleijnen: "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias"; Cucherat: "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies", and see the comment of one of the authors here: "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'". These are not positive reviews. They are, at best, inconclusive. If you want the article to report that there are positive systematic reviews, you will need to cite some. Brunton (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that latter meta analyses (eg taking into account Linde's "upgrade") don't come to a conclusive positive result for homeopathy. We could argue about this but I think to give an accurate and fair assessment, thats going too far for this article. However, looking at what Brunton says above, the article doesn't quite reflect what is in the reviews. "because of the unknown role of publication bias" is not saying the publication bias is significant, nor even that it plays a part. "Studies of high methodological studies were more likely to be negative..." is again pointing at the inconclusive conclusion.
- How about:
- "Trials have produced results both for and against homeopathy being effective. Systematic reviews revealed that the positive was possibly because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias, and that overall the evidence was inconclusive."
- Without going into details of the analyses used in this article, an important missing aspect to this article is the criticism of certain types of trials, very relevant to a form of medicine that treats holistically.
Cjwilky (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- "...an important missing aspect to this article is the criticism of certain types of trials, very relevant to a form of medicine that treats holistically."
- Nope. That bit of special pleading fails because homoeopathy doesn't work any better in trials of individualized homoeopathy.
- Anyway, back to the sentence in question. How about changing it to something along the lines of "Although some trials have produced positive results, systematic reviews fail to establish that homeopathy works because of issues to do with poor trial quality and evidence of bias." We could use Linde (1999), which found evidence of bias, as a reference for the last bit. Brunton (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change #2
I suggest restoring previously deleted text on that nature of high dilutions used in homeopathy. This text should follow after "lower doses."
The latest research, however, reports that nano-particles of the original substance are present even in the super-Avogadro dilutions and it never reaches zero (even in continued proces of dilution), thereby providing a possible basis of a supposed effect of homeopathic remedies[1][2] and refuting the old claim that there is not a single molecule of a diluted substance present. Other researchers also report that highly diluted homeopathic remedies can be distinguished from each other and are different from pure solvent.[3][4]
Reason for change: The supposed lack of presence of original substance in high-dilution homeopathic remedies is what made and makes homeopathy so difficult to swallow. The studies mentioned prove that there is something that could explain the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Consequently, "not a single molecule" formulations should also be edited as they are not true, according to scientific research. GhostOfLippe (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226 - Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012 Nov 13;28(45):15864-75. doi: 10.1021/la303477s. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
- ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970092 - Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kane SG. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. 2010 Oct;99(4):231-42. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2010.05.006.
- ^ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(03)00047-5 - Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2003 May;323:67–74.
- ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822343/ - Rao ML, Roy R, Bell I. Characterization of the structure of ultra dilute sols with remarkable biological properties. Materials Research Institute, Penn State, USA. Mater Lett. 2008 Apr 15;62(10-11):1487.
- I would decline this change, as it's (a) not true [not very important in Wikipedia], and (b) not what those papers say, even if they were published in reliable journals, which they aren't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the effects decrease with dilution to the point that they disappear well before the equivalence to the critical 13c potency/dilution. However, it is an explanation backed by science albeit in the early stages, so with the correct wording I think it should be included within those terms. Cjwilky (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The first two sources show (quelle surprise) that substances that are insoluble in water/alcohol don't magically become soluble if you pestle them with lactose. They don't (and cannot) show that "super-avogadro" dilutions of soluble substances contain starting material, let alone that they have an effect. It is just more evidence that the way homeopathic "remedies" are prepared is nonsense.
- The third and fourth source are single trial that haven't been validated by other experimenters.
- btw: Even if these sources proved that "high" potencies generally contain traces of the starting material (they don't), that would mean little as long as the central claim of homeopathy (that these "remedies" actually do something in living creatures other than hydrating them) is unproven. --Six words (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Arthur Rubin: How come it is not important? This is a crucial information with regards to plausibility of homeopathy and this article IS about homeopathy. If homeopathy is not important for Wikipedia, then we should just delete the whole page. As to reliability of journals, you can consider Homeopathy journal as unreliable, but hardly Langmuir. It is published by American Chemical Society and it is a very respected journal.
- Six words: I do not understand how you came to such a conclusion. The second paper says "Using market samples of metal-derived medicines from reputable manufacturers, we have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates." What else is there to add?
- The first paper says "Extreme dilutions, especially homeopathic remedies of 30c, 200c, and higher potencies, are prepared by a process of serial dilution of 1:100 per step. As a result, dilution factors of 10(60), 10(400), or even greater are achieved. Therefore, both the presence of any active ingredient and the therapeutic efficacy of these medicines have been contentious because the existence of even traces of the starting raw materials in them is inconceivable. However, physicochemical studies of these solutions have unequivocally established the presence of the starting raw materials in nanoparticulate form even in these extreme (super-Avogadro, >10(23)) dilutions. In this article, we propose and validate a hypothesis to explain how nanoparticles are retained even at such enormous dilution levels." GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's not to understand? They found that metal derived "remedies" may contain metal particles even when they're (theoretically) diluted down so much that they shouldn't. That's not because the metal "imprints" itself on the solvent, it's because their dilution process is flawed. What does that mean for "high potencies" of soluble substances? Nothing, they're still unlikely to contain even a single molecule of "active" ingredient. What does that mean for the efficacy of metal based "remedies"? Not much - it's not impossible for them to have an effect since they contain material doses of "active" ingredients, but it remains to be seen if these ingredients do anything. What these papers do show is that it's pretty much futile to try to produce "high potencies" of metals. Do you think homeopaths will stop prescribing "high potencies" of metals? --Six words (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, if I omit those arguments from your response which are irrelevant ("imprint", "efficacy", "futile" etc.) to the discussion (whether or not the proposed sentences should be added), you basically agree that it is true, you just don't think it means much, right? But of course it means much, because THIS PRECISE supposition (there is nothing there but sugar) was and is the primary factor why homeopathy was and is being ridiculed. Now that we know that THERE IS something in there, beside sugar (nano-bubbles which MULTIPLY with continuing process of dilution), I think it is a BIG DEAL and we should let the world know. Those papers claim there is SOMETHING measurable and that they can distinguish among different potencies which was not possible until now. In the light of these works, it is no longer correct to say those remedies are just sugar and that not a single molecule of the original substance is present (and therefore it cannot do anything). Of course, it does not prove efficacy, but that is NOT THE POINT here. GhostOfLippe (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The "primary factor why homeopathy was and is being ridiculed" is because there is no evidence whatsoever that it works - and a great deal of evidence that it doesn't. Regardless of your original research we aren't going to suggest otherwise, on the bases of a selective interpretation of a few primary sources of questionable merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump: You are plain wrong. Study the history of homeopathy and you'll find the results of homeopathy far surpassed any other then-accepted medical practice. That's why some allopathic medical doctors turned homeopaths, BUT NOT the other way around. There is so much historical evidence in favor of homeopathy you would drown in it, but of course these are not permissible, I guess, as they are from historical records, but most importantly, they are not tolerable because they are favorable to homeopathy.
- I will give you just one little example. In 1849, there was a major epidemic of cholera all over the world. In Cincinnati, Pulte and Erhmann treated 2600 cases with only 35 deaths, or a mortality rate of 1.3%. The mortality rate for cholera in the 19th century was 50%, regardless of the physician, the place, the country or whether the patient was treated. In Asia, in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Turkey, they didn’t have treatment, and the mortality, was around 50%. And all this despite having 60-70 cases that were in a deep state of collapse. Now, there was a skeptic that said that they cheated. So there was a commission that was instigated, and the commission was chaired by Alphonso Taft, who became Secretary of War eventually under Grant, and his son became President of the United States, so he was a reputable person, and the commission’s outcome was that what the homeopaths had reported was exactly true to the point, in every single case.
- 19th century was a golden age of homeopathy, with a great many journals covering the topic and mountains of statistics of cured cases of serious diseases. If you studied those, you would be amazed how much evidence there is for homeopathy.
- Back to the point - homeopathy was ridiculed BECAUSE OF THE SMALL DOSES IT USED. But this only came very gradually. At first, Hahnemann used crude (physical) doses of remedies prescribed on homeopathic principles and only diminished them slowly as he progressed in his experiments and as his experience dictated. Hahnemann was a scientist and he did many experiments to test what works and what does not and modified his methods accordingly. GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The sources claim "there's something there" in ethanolic "dilutions" (dispersions, actually) of metals (sometimes - see table 2 of source 2, ND means "not detected"). I have no reason to doubt that. Doesn't mean that non-metal "remedies" behave the same, yet your proposed addition implys that, which is why it won't go in the article. --Six words (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- But there should be nothing, regardless of whether it is a dispersion or dilution. So you would agree to include the text in the article, if it mentioned the research only tested metal-derived remedies? GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- No - we won't 'agree' to violate Wikipedia policy - in this case WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. They aren't negotiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
- There shouldn't be something there if they were diluting a homogenous dispersion. You haven't offered a new text that I could agree to mention (and you'll have to find at least one reliable secondary source for such an addition, too. It's not appropriate to mention that metal based, ethanolic "remedies" may contain material amounts of the starting material based on two primary sources by the same authors). --Six words (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change #3
I suggest changing current formulation of "Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories" to "Homeopaths select remedies according to homeopathic materia medica (which record medicinal effects of various substances on healthy humans)"
Reason for change: Repertories are just indexes to materia medicae, they are not the primary source of prescription. In selecting a homeopathic remedy, repertory may provide quick clues, but the final choice is made by consulting materia medica. GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Most homeopaths will use both types of book. I agree materia medica is more fundamental, and indeed a repertory is but an index although as an index it does stand on its own. In practice a homeopath may often use just a repertory in conjunction with their knowledge of materia medica rather than the books themselves. The materia medica are more than just records of provings - they are descriptions of the whole effect of the medicines based on the provings, clinical experience and frequently a summary and interpretation of those. Further, they also use computer versions of these. So I suggest:
- "Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference sources known as repertories and descriptions of the remedies in materia medica."
- Further in the article I think it is worth going into more detail about this process and the sources that are used ie more than is currently there. Cjwilky (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cjwilky: I would agree, but I had an impression a true state of things is not important for Wikipedia, providing references for everything is what is important regardless of whether it is true or not. And this particular sentence quotes Organon, which does not care about repertories nor about computer software. Organon does not even consider CLINICAL pictures of homeopathic remedies, it mostly considers provings and nothing else as a basis for prescription. GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed the Organon ref and thought there was enough out there referring to use of repertories if we looked. If we're just making a minor correction here, and using that reference then of course, repertories were not around anyway at that time, so I agree with your suggested change for now. In essence its correct anyway if we're keeping it simple in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can you cite a source conforming to WP:MEDRS that states that "homeopathic materia medica... record medicinal effects of various substances on healthy humans"? I doubt it very much, given the complete absence of evidence that homeopathy works at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't there some Wikipedia policy against irrelevant discussion? I mean, this really amazes me. AndyTheGrump, I don't think you are contributing to the topic as you obviously have NO IDEA about homeopathy. If you wish to contribute, I believe you should first KNOW SOMETHING about the topic, the more the better. This last statement of yours proves your only qualification, in this context, is a healthy disgust for homeopathy. Isn't NPOV a serious part of Wikipedia policy? Why does Wikipedia allow people like AndyTheGrump (and not just him/her) participate when it is far too clear they are HEAVILY BIASED and will disrupt every serious effort in enhancing the topic at hand? It seems to me, you don't care at all who writes what and what reference they cite as long as it does not present homeopathy in a favorable light. GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't mean to, but right there you gave the show away, revealing why you are having trouble here. You say ATG has no idea about homeopathy so shouldn't edit the article (paraphrased), and infer that you should be allowed to contribute because you are an expert. Never thought I'd ever see someone with a POV be so blatant like that. Suggesting someone without knowledge of a subject shouldn't edit that subject is laughable. You are correct when you say ATG has a bias, but it is towards creating NPOV articles (he has edited more than 3700 articles). You have misinterpreted the situation. ATG strives to keep Wikipedia POV free, not put POV in an article. We editors are (or should be) motivated by a desire to help create a reliable encyclopedia, not to promote a pet subject, whatever it is. Moriori (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. I have a bias - towards basing articles on reliable sources, rather than on the opinions of promoters of fringe pseudoscience. Wikipedia has the same bias, for the same reason: it isn't a forum for the promotion of such material. Unless and until mainstream science and orthodox medicine suggest that it is anything other than a means for 'practitioners' to line their pockets, we aren't going to say otherwise. That is Wikipedia policy - and if you don't like it, find somewhere else to push your magic wooo-water. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump: I believe Wikipedia policies are sound, it just looks you are going far beyond the call of duty here and your arrogant attitude is the prime policy when it comes to this topic. HOW EXACTLY is THIS proposed modification promoting homeopathy? It corrects a factual error, but you STILL wish to disrupt, because you are happy with the page as it is and DO NOT WISH to see it improving. Your bias is BLATANT - "find somewhere else to push your magic wooo-water", "opinions of promoters of fringe pseudoscience", "line their pockets" and similar statements bordering on personal attacks. GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. I have a bias - towards basing articles on reliable sources, rather than on the opinions of promoters of fringe pseudoscience. Wikipedia has the same bias, for the same reason: it isn't a forum for the promotion of such material. Unless and until mainstream science and orthodox medicine suggest that it is anything other than a means for 'practitioners' to line their pockets, we aren't going to say otherwise. That is Wikipedia policy - and if you don't like it, find somewhere else to push your magic wooo-water. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't mean to, but right there you gave the show away, revealing why you are having trouble here. You say ATG has no idea about homeopathy so shouldn't edit the article (paraphrased), and infer that you should be allowed to contribute because you are an expert. Never thought I'd ever see someone with a POV be so blatant like that. Suggesting someone without knowledge of a subject shouldn't edit that subject is laughable. You are correct when you say ATG has a bias, but it is towards creating NPOV articles (he has edited more than 3700 articles). You have misinterpreted the situation. ATG strives to keep Wikipedia POV free, not put POV in an article. We editors are (or should be) motivated by a desire to help create a reliable encyclopedia, not to promote a pet subject, whatever it is. Moriori (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't there some Wikipedia policy against irrelevant discussion? I mean, this really amazes me. AndyTheGrump, I don't think you are contributing to the topic as you obviously have NO IDEA about homeopathy. If you wish to contribute, I believe you should first KNOW SOMETHING about the topic, the more the better. This last statement of yours proves your only qualification, in this context, is a healthy disgust for homeopathy. Isn't NPOV a serious part of Wikipedia policy? Why does Wikipedia allow people like AndyTheGrump (and not just him/her) participate when it is far too clear they are HEAVILY BIASED and will disrupt every serious effort in enhancing the topic at hand? It seems to me, you don't care at all who writes what and what reference they cite as long as it does not present homeopathy in a favorable light. GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Having an understanding of something helps to put the pieces together where people who have no idea will struggle, as is clearly the case from some of the contents of the article. Indeed it has been encouraged for people with some knowledge to edit on here. What GhostOfLippe is aware of, and ATG has just made a clear example of, are there are editors on here, mainly signed up Skeptics, who not only have a POV and focus on POV research (eg Ernst), but are abusive and bullying. Moriori appears to be falling into the same mould. There is also a skepto tag gang mentality on here where issues are not discussed but rather people are told there is a consensus, when in fact its a majority vote - not how wiki works. It appears to be a very desperate attempt by several eds on here to disrupt and abuse. Some eds, although skeptics, are able to rise above this. I hope you can change your behavious ATG and move to the light side too. I know this isn't "the right" place to bring this up, but ATG and Moriori chose that path above and its plain bullying which I'm sick of on this talk page. So pack in the abuse and POV slurring, and if you wish to discuss such issues further, take them to the appropriate place and don't cloud article discussion here. Peace :) Cjwilky (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- So pointing out that the supposed 'bias' GhostOfLippe complains of is in fact a consequence of Wikipedia policy - which has been arrived at by more than just the contributors here - is 'bullying', is it? If you really think it is, I'm sure you know where to complain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Moriori and AndyTheGrump You are just talking and it is an empty talk when your actions prove otherwise. Moriori, I said ATG's discussion entry is completely irrelevant and if you cannot see that, then you should not be an editor on Wikipedia. The CURRENT sentence I was trying to improve is INCORRECTLY referenced to Hahnemann's Organon (the BASIC book of homeopathy, in case you don't know), so I wanted to correct it to something that is actually mentioned in that reference. If this reference is not conforming to WP:MEDRS then you should have removed that particular sentence long ago - it is both factually incorrect, incorrectly referenced and (you say) does not comply with WP policies. But you did not, so you are not really striving "to help create a reliable encyclopedia", you are doing the exact opposite. If there were more editors like Cjwilky which a) maintain NPOV and b) do not disrupt but actually want to improve the topic, something could be worked out here. But not like this, when out of arguments, waving the stick of WP policies against all common sense (which I find hard to believe is NOT part of WP policies). GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find its made clear that wiki policies are not wiki Laws, as otherwise you're in danger of nonsense - I'll look up the ref to this when I've time. The inconsistancies in the references in the article where they don't relate to whats being said happens fairly often. I guess many here don't have access to all the original papers cited, so there's a lot based on the summaries, which sometimes when you dig, have no basis but the writers POV - and when we're talking Ernst for example, he won't let fact get in the way of that. Cjwilky (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change #4
I suggest removal of references
- UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"
- http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy "Homeopathy: An Introduction" a NCAAM webpage
from "Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible."
Reason for change: Those references are no scientific research, do not meet reference inclusion criteria. GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they're not scientific research, they're tertiary sources. They're published by government agencies/committees - above you seem to imply that Switzerland's PEK was a good/meaningful source. --Six words (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Switzerland's PEK was a scientific work, not some anonymous comittee, so I would not compare those. Anyway, some editors seem to argue that not even Langmuir is reliable enough for them and there were mouthfuls of WP:MEDS thrown in my direction before, so I really don't think these references are on par with what is required. GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- @GhostOfLippe. See WP:MEDRS#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. This type of source is acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it is, in this context. The sentence says "Scientific research has found", so the reference should be THAT RESEARCH, not hearsay, whether it comes from a supposedly reputable organization. Given the current status of homeopathy, such organizations are, in fact, the opposite of that. If they suddenly changed their position and started promoting homeopathy, their repute would quickly fade, I am sure. These sources should not be used precisely for the reason why you do not wish to use references coming from alt med journals. GhostOfLippe (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS is Wikipedia policy. It isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- A scientific organization can make statements about the state of scientific research in a field, and it's allowed to use those statements in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Choosing homeopathy does not mean not getting a medical diagnosis
Brunton reverted:
- Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine, and choose not to get a medical diagnosis, risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions.
to
- Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions.
Interesting logic Brunton uses in his edit notes
- homoeopathy by definition does not diagnose diseases, and many homoeopaths (in particular in the English-speaking world) are not medically qualified)
The revertion is avoiding giving the full and accurate story. Undoubtedly there are risks from not getting a full medical diagnosis. There are indeed risks in getting one too - can be a misdiagnosis or can lead to more serious problems - iatrogenic illness. All I did was spell out the basics, that its about not getting a diagnosis, not about whether one chooses homeopathy or not. Cjwilky (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The reversion removed POV which is not supported by the reference given. You prompted me to check the reference, so thanks for that. I hadn't previously seen the Mayo paper, and particularly noted its conclusion which was "The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition." Moriori (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Its not POV, its very simple A follows B logic. You can work it out or not. There is no evidence in trhe refernce to suggest that patients who choose homeopathy don't also choose conventional diagnosis, either by the medically qualified homeopath or by their doctor. Your loss chuck if you are making your choice of healthcare by articles cited here, lol! Though what relevance your introduction of discovering that someone has said homeopathy for kids isn't "convincing enough" has to this discussion I have no idea. Further if all you've done is read the Mayo Clinic article, you missed a great deal. Cjwilky (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- A follows B when a reference says so. Your third sentence is one of the wackiest non sequiturs I have seen in a while. Congratulations. Moriori (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The reference cites two sources as evidence that homeopathy may delay diagnosis: 48. Horowitz BZ. Homeopathic remedies for children: are they cause for concern? [letter]. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2000;38:355-356. and 49. Ernst E. Complementary and alternative medicine for children: a good or a bad thing? Arch Dis Child. 2006; 91:96-97. Jojalozzo 05:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- And two sources for evidence of delay of treatment: 50. Lehrke P, Nuebling M, Hofmann F, Stoessel U. Attitudes of homoeopathic physicians towards vaccination. Vaccine. 2001;19:4859-4864. 51. Schmidt K, Ernst E. MMR vaccination advice over the Internet. Vaccine. 2003;21:1044-1047. Jojalozzo 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Its not POV, its very simple A follows B logic. You can work it out or not. There is no evidence in trhe refernce to suggest that patients who choose homeopathy don't also choose conventional diagnosis, either by the medically qualified homeopath or by their doctor. Your loss chuck if you are making your choice of healthcare by articles cited here, lol! Though what relevance your introduction of discovering that someone has said homeopathy for kids isn't "convincing enough" has to this discussion I have no idea. Further if all you've done is read the Mayo Clinic article, you missed a great deal. Cjwilky (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "There is no evidence in trhe refernce to suggest that patients who choose homeopathy don't also choose conventional diagnosis, either by the medically qualified homeopath or by their doctor." What about all the homoeopaths who are not medically qualified? In the UK, for example, as of 2009 there were around 2,000 non-GP homeopaths registered with various organisations, an unknown number of unregistered homoeopaths, and only about 400 homoeopaths who are GPs. "The medically qualified homeopath" would appear to be distinctly in the minority. We can't use this in the article because of WP:SYN, but from this it seems to follow that a large proportion of homoeopaths are not qualified to make a diagnosis. Brunton (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, asking us to make the logical deduction "A follows B" would be the epitome of synthesis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
AE
New review PMID 23163497 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild-to-severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy".
Besides that : I read in the article that homeopathy cannot have any therapeutic effect since there are no molecules left in the remedies and more homeopaths do not use more than 6x. Isn't strange that the most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications.? --Motorola12 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Only the "strongest" preparations have no molecules left. There are plenty of lower strength preparations with measurable, though still diluted, presence of "active" ingredients. Jojalozzo 21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know but the common practice in homeopathy from what I read is to use 6x preparations or "stronger" - no molecules . So how these results are justified? I' m really curious. --Motorola12 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The obvious question here is "How closely does a nominally 1X dilution step approximate the intended division by 10.000?" Depending on technique and degree of care, it could be significantly less. Re-use of containers could mean that material doses are in fact present when not expected. One would think there must be some RS on this.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Big misunderstanding of potentised remedy preparation here - a tinture is made to the potency, including stated dilution. The usual method from there is to put one drop of it into a bottle of pills. Eg I use about 300 pills per bottle, some may use as low as 50. Sometimes powders are used with a drop mixed in to several powders. Sometimes a liquid potency is used where one drop is mixed into a bottle of at least 100 drops, often far more. So, the actual remedy is rarely reflective of the dilution. Hence why potencies of remedies is the correct term, not dilutions. A 1x potency is likely to be dilute by between 500 to 5000, not 10. Cjwilky (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The obvious question here is "How closely does a nominally 1X dilution step approximate the intended division by 10.000?" Depending on technique and degree of care, it could be significantly less. Re-use of containers could mean that material doses are in fact present when not expected. One would think there must be some RS on this.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know but the common practice in homeopathy from what I read is to use 6x preparations or "stronger" - no molecules . So how these results are justified? I' m really curious. --Motorola12 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)