Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Metaanalyses and lead
I tried to add this and user Tim Vickers reverted it. Please justify.
-
File:Ajpe07tbl1-1-.jpg
--Dana4 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a copyrighted image, only the journals in this list are under a Creative-Commons licence on PubMed central. I'm deleting this image as a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
@ Addhoc: COuld you please justify why did you cut the "Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. It is one of the 4 sentences of the conclusions. --Dana4 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although that is a nice chart, it is quite busy. I am not sure it belongs in this article. If I understand, the biggest problem is that when studies are double-blinded, or large, or other more stringent measures are applied, homeopathy always seems to fail. So people try to come up with reasons why homeopathy still works just not in the presence of more careful controls. Ah well...--Filll (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- i cant see the graph can anyone else see it or is ti just something wron giwth my computer?Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It was copied from a copyrighted journal. The image has been deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- very well. then the problem is moto and we can just al for fend about it right now. Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Filll, glad to see your kind remarks about Peter Morrell below. I will AGF, but I want to make certain that you (and others) know that there are a LOT of high-quality double-blind trials that show that homeopathic medicines are effective. It is time that editors stop making ill- and un-informed statements such as the one Filll made just above. Here are some worthy of your attention:
- -- Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.
- -- Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957. (Oscillococcinum has been shown to be effective in treating influenza, though not in its prevention)
- -- Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476. (This is the FOURTH trial by this group of researchers at the University of Glasgow. Reilly concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trials don't--you choose!).
- -- Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. [1] (This study was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital, published in the leading respiratory health journal in the world, found "substantially significant" results, and is notable enough to now have two universities planning to replicate it.)
- One final note about Filll's comment about "large" trials. The problem with most of the largest trials in homeopathy is that they only use ONE homeopathic medicine for every patient without any degree of individualization of treatment. While using ONE medicine is sometimes effective (as in Oscillo or in the above trial on COPD using homeopathic potassium dichromate or Kali bic), these instances are the exception to the rule. By the way, for unknown reasons, the Shang (2005) comparison of studies "overlooked" the two of three LARGE and positive Oscillococcinum trials. I guess that they had to make room to fit that one study on weight-loss (that had a negative result...what a surprise). DanaUllmanTalk 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Friend, I will confine my comments for now to the Frass study and Oscillococcinum. You have just confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArsenicum_album&diff=192719779&oldid=192510465) that the words you placed in quotation marks were your own not quotations from the paper itself. It would demonstrate "good faith" if you would now explicitly confirm this. When you are citing a paper, it is sloppy practice, at best, to place words in quotations that are your own not the authors'. You have been told before that this study was not appropriately performed to bear the weight of interpretation that you require. Your confusion seems to reside in the fact that a pre-treatment group difference that is not statistically significant may amplify through the study, indeed this paper is a very good example of this problem. That completely undermines the validity of interpreting the low p-values in the way you have done. A better choice of words, to describe the p-values rather than "substantially significant" is "probably erroneous". The protection against it with such a highly heterogeneous patient-group is either to control better for the confounding variables and/or to recruit larger numbers. You have been told this before as well. Bear in mind the fact that of your having to rely so heavily on this single study speaks volumes for the sparsity of apparent positive effects for homeopathic therapies in controlled trials. The existence of a few apparent positives amongst a mass of equivocal and negative findings is exactly what one would expect from a therapeutic modality that is entirely placebo so that occasional positives will turn up due to bad study design and statistical fluke, aided by our old friend publication bias.OffTheFence (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- With respect to Oscillococcinum, perhaps you would like to remind us of the clearest 'positive' statistical finding reported by the Cochrane review. I think other readers will find the answer most illuminating.OffTheFence (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- WRT to Taylor et al, Reilly may have concluded that either homeopathy works or that RCTs don't but this is a false dichotomy. Others have concluded that the trials do not support the authors' conclusions [2] Acleron (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear OffTheFence, in due respect, you seem to be misinformed about the CHEST study. The chart in the article that compares the treatment and control group had no statistically significant differences. You chose to use the term "highly heterogeneous patient-group." To what are you referring, and whatever it is, ask yourself if this difference in a couple of patients was significant enough to lead to the big (actually HUGE) differences in results. Please respond to this. I used the terms "substantially significant" because the results were just that ("Group I" was the treatment group): The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]).
As for the Oscillococcinum trials, the fact of the matter is that the Cochrane report found that there WAS a beneficial effect beyond a placebo effect and that they referred to it as "promising." Acleron, your comment reminds me of the guy who claimed to fly and shows skeptics that he is able to do so. However, skeptics insist that because he doesn't fly as high or as fast as a jet, it is no big thing. Oscillo had an effect. Skeptics insist that there is "no evidence" for homeopathy. The Oscillo trials prove this wrong, especially in the light of the fact that these trials were replicated by independent researchers and were large trials (By the way, the imfamous Shang (2005) comparison study in the LANCET only chose to include 1 of the 3 large treatment trials...if he would have followed his own guidelines, he would have included all 3 of them.)
As for the critique of the four studies by Reilly...is that critique the only one you got because it is totally inadequate. Two of the Reilly studies were published in the Lancet and one in the BMJ...and you think that one short letter on one study is a killer? Not in my book. DanaUllmanTalk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
DanaUllmanTalk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Friend, my problem is that you persistently place the phrase "substantially significant" in quotation marks. The phrase "substantially significant" does not appear in the paper, so you cannot use quotation marks. Nothing controversial or problematical, just use quotation marks for quotations.[3]OffTheFence (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Friend, you seemed to have a problem my characterising a group of 50 patients in the ICU as "heterogeneous". I cannot see why and had thought this was self-evident. Clearly it was not so I shall explain. You have failed to ask why the patients were in the ICU in the first place. They were not there because of their COPD. No indication is given as to the reasons for their being there. The patients could have had anything from severe head trauma following a fall to sepsis after a ruptured gastric ulcer. Here are the Inclusion Criteria- "Inclusion criteria included a documented history of tobacco use and COPD for at least 10 years before acute deterioration; spontaneous breathing with CPAP with a FIO2 varying between 0.21 and 0.3, and positive airway pressure from 5 to 7 cm H2O after weaning from controlled mechanical ventilation. Additionally, extubation was impossible due to profuse tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions according to the criteria listed above." The COPD this group suffered form was just one feature of the complex medical problems that brought them to the ICU and not even their main problem. We cannot judge whether the treatment and control groups had similar kinds of diseases because we are not given the information. We cannot therefore judge how similar the groups were. I am sure you have already been told this but groups of 25 are small for an ICU study for precisely these reasons. It is no more than a pilot.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would also be helpful if you would comment on the bizarre homeopathy being practised here. Non-individualised. Focused on a single clinical feature in these complex cases. Let me speculate what might have been your first criticism had this study produced negative findings. I guess we just put this one on file to be produced every time one of your colleagues complains about lack of good homeopathic practice in any negative trial. In that respect, your advocacy of this paper has been of great service to the sceptical appraisal of homeopathic trials. Thank you.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Friend, you seemed to have a problem my characterising a group of 50 patients in the ICU as "heterogeneous". I cannot see why and had thought this was self-evident. Clearly it was not so I shall explain. You have failed to ask why the patients were in the ICU in the first place. They were not there because of their COPD. No indication is given as to the reasons for their being there. The patients could have had anything from severe head trauma following a fall to sepsis after a ruptured gastric ulcer. Here are the Inclusion Criteria- "Inclusion criteria included a documented history of tobacco use and COPD for at least 10 years before acute deterioration; spontaneous breathing with CPAP with a FIO2 varying between 0.21 and 0.3, and positive airway pressure from 5 to 7 cm H2O after weaning from controlled mechanical ventilation. Additionally, extubation was impossible due to profuse tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions according to the criteria listed above." The COPD this group suffered form was just one feature of the complex medical problems that brought them to the ICU and not even their main problem. We cannot judge whether the treatment and control groups had similar kinds of diseases because we are not given the information. We cannot therefore judge how similar the groups were. I am sure you have already been told this but groups of 25 are small for an ICU study for precisely these reasons. It is no more than a pilot.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- In this instance the guy who claims to fly bases his claim on asking people to look very carefully and see that sometimes a paper-thin separation might appear between the soles of his feet and the ground."There was no evidence that homoeopathic treatment can prevent influenza-like syndrome (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 1.43). Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chances that a patient considered treatment to be effective (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.00)."[4]. Note the lower end of these 95% Confidence Intervals, 0.06d, RR 1.00. I think we can reasonably ask for a more stringent CI criterion for something as inherently implausible as homeopathy [5], but even a 99% CI would render these data Non-Significant. Even at a 95% CI they would have to be described as marginally statistically significant and of negligible biological significance. By the way, accusing the sceptics of saying there is "no evidence" for homeopathy is close to being a strawman. In my experience, "no evidence" is usually meant as short-hand for "no valid evidence". There is a mass of "evidence" for homeopathy: all of it is properly dismissed as useless.OffTheFence (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tried scrolling down to the bottom of the 2000 BMJ Taylor et al. paper (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471)? You'll find a commentary on the paper and the conclusions that can be drawn from it right there. Brunton (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- No I didn't, to use your overly emotive language, think it a killer, it was an apposite response to your unreferenced quote. You used a false dichotomy in that comment and now you use a strawman argument. Scientists and skeptics, yes they can be the same, would love proof that existing theories are wrong, such is stuff of Nobel prizes, but it happens very rarely. Analogy is useful in teaching but not in real science, a fact that pseudoscientists find hard to handle. Your analogy requires but little modification:- homeopaths leap off the ground and even after their feet meet the earth they still claim they have been flying.Acleron (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"Real patients"
"Orangemarlin" changed "patients" to "consumers" with the edit note: "Since this isn't real medicine, it doesn't have real patients. These are consumers." I would suggest that "specific effects on patients and consumers" would be more accurate.
I respectfully point out that there are many physicians who administer homeopathic medicines to their patients. This is much more prevelant in countries such as France, Germany, and India, but is also well represented in the U.S.A, where all three types of priamry care physicians have some doctors who utilize homeopathy: [6] Here is a partial list of MDs (Medical Doctors) and DOs (Doctors of Osteopathy) in the U.S. that use homeopathy: [7] and a partial list of DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) in the US that use homeopathy: [8] Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not only that, it is not mainstream medicine -- either its practitioners, its researchers, or its academics -- that have a problem with calling non-mainstream practices "medicine", or calling the people they treat "patients". This is scientistic dogma. Friarslantern (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'Did it on purpose.... Friarslantern (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathic medicines are distinguishable from pure water
At present, the following sentence in the 1st paragraph is inaccuate. "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have specific effects.[2][3][4]" First, all of the references (#2, #3, and #4 are not notable and are not RS, never published in a peer-review journal, nor have they been refeneced in peer-review journals). References 2 & 4 are to a website that doesn't even review a single laboratory or basic science study. Because this sentence makes specific reference to "laboratory tests," these references have no place for this statement. Reference #3 is a simple homeopathic guidebook that is not oriented towards research at all, and is not even a notable book in homeopathic medicine. As for the laboratory evidence that there IS a difference between homeopathic water and placebo water, there is a large body of such evidence, including a review of 67 in vitro studies, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. [Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011] The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” DanaUllmanTalk 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- exactly!!! Smith Jones (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Analytical chemistry and other forms of lab testing generaly require things to be reproduceable. If they are not them the test is pretty much useless.Geni 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- it is reproducable. Anmother user Arion 3x3 has posted several articles and experiments who have replciated those exact results in other talk pages. in each of them someone made the objection that you just m,ade. if this experiment is reproducable so many times then how can it be totally useless??? Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Geni, all types of laboratory tests are not 100% reproducible and yet are still considered valid...and needless to say, this is also true of clinical studies (even vaccination doesn't have 100% efficacy). The fact of the matter is that the above review of in vitro studies shows an impressive number of studies that have been replicated. DanaUllmanTalk 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- efficacy and reproducibilty are not the same thing.Geni 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Geni, all types of laboratory tests are not 100% reproducible and yet are still considered valid...and needless to say, this is also true of clinical studies (even vaccination doesn't have 100% efficacy). The fact of the matter is that the above review of in vitro studies shows an impressive number of studies that have been replicated. DanaUllmanTalk 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- it is reproducable. Anmother user Arion 3x3 has posted several articles and experiments who have replciated those exact results in other talk pages. in each of them someone made the objection that you just m,ade. if this experiment is reproducable so many times then how can it be totally useless??? Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Dana, if you want to get your edits into the article without controversy, I recommend you find a friendly skeptic, perhaps Scientizzle, and collaborate. Jehochman Talk 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanx Jehochman, I agree...and please know that I am always interested in collaboration...and most of all, I am always committed to accuracy, to RS, V, and notability. Despite having a point of view, I am a reasonably guy. DanaUllmanTalk 02:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is the reference above to a large number of in vitro studies that have been replicated not NPOV? I'm afraid that your statement is a better example of POV than anything else here...unless you somehow feel that double-blind in vitro studies can show an effect from a homeopathic medicine because a scientist has a conscious or sub-conscious wish (in that case, you are much more metaphysical than I). DanaUllmanTalk 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the main point of Dana. The statement "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests" is inaccurate. I have no doubt that succussed water is different (at least in its solute composition) from water that has not been succussed and the difference is provable and has been proven. It is not, and never was, pure water, in any case. The main difficulty is understanding and explaining how the dilution has any extra effect beyond dilution. Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that references [2] and [4] are not good references to the sentence "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have specific effects.[2][3][4]" and I agree that reference [3] is not a recognised text in homeopathy. Dana is taking a balanced view of the in-vitro studies [Witt et al] Scifuture (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- So this article should mainly be written by scientists with little experience or understanding of the homeopathic process and history - how would that be good wikipedia policy? Who is in the majority - scientists or millions of homeopathy users worldwide and their homeopaths? Forgive me if this has been debated before.Scifuture (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Quoting from WP:PROMINENCE: Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. —Whig (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not want to dwell on this point as Whig has given the WP view we should follow, but is there any solid evidence either way on this issue of minority/majority of informed opinion? Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Evidence that the scientific community has soundly rejected Homeopathy has been given before on this talk page. I see no reason to retread this issue, which is why I'm not going to get into the argument here. We shouldn't have to fight the same fight over and over again with every pro-homeopathy editor who comes by. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is not what I asked. I certainly do not wish to retread any issue but I do not see any such evidence presented in the article. It should be there, if it exists. Martin Chaplin (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I don't know what you means by a good strong dose of mainstream content. The policy says appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint. What do you think that means? Anthon01 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The majority viewpoint is not the majority on this page. It is not the majority among alternative medicine practioners. It is not the majority in your home. It is not the majority in your town. It is not the majority among the public. It is not the majority among homeopaths. It is the majority view in the relevant field(s). The relevant fields here include healthcare and/or medicine and/or science, since claims are made about issues in medicine and science. The mainstream, majority view in medicine and science needs to be repeated to you? Does it need to be proven that is the majority? I think we have gone over this hundreds of times. And the policy says lots of similar things, such as "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" and "All relevant views are described, in proportion to their prominence" and "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community". What do you think those mean?--Filll (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't know the answer to the question, why don't you just say so? Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just had a look at the Aromatherapy page to compare the styles. It is a reasonably balanced article at first glance with a large 'Criticism' section mid-way down the page. This seems a reasonable approach rather than pepper every section with critical points.Scifuture (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Aromatherapy is rated as "Start" class. In other words, it is not a good example of what Wikipedia aims for probably. If you want to see, look at intelligent design. It is rated "FA". And sections where the criticism is segregated are usually discouraged. For example, from [9]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).--Filll (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, not the best example - the article has been tagged as having neutrality problems. Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Probably a good model article is Traditional Chinese medicine. Like Homeopathy it is a medical practice used by millions of people but not well accepted by the Western establishment. Both of these practices are well established in some countries, Homeopathy is well accepted in India for example. —Whig (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. It is rated B class, much lower than this article. Look at intelligent design. Also, the TCM article is in point form, does not describe the 5 elements, and has many citations missing. I am sure if I looked longer I would find many more problems.--Filll (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having a comment in the lead about it is a different matter. The lead should definitely make appropriate reference to critical views. One of these views is that homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water. We have it there; we have it cited; it should stay. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the problem is the references, find better ones. That homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water is something so basic I thought even the homeopaths agreed with it. If you think differently and think you can show a difference, James Randi has a million dollars for you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- (But only for two more years, so hurry!) The thing is, now Dana's arguing that you can detect a difference by their effects on people, and citing a meta-analysis as evidence. Problem is all the other studies that don't find any difference and the fact that even if this worked, there's no practical way to apply this method. There's no simple chemical or physical test that can be performed to tell the difference. If you need to run a huge study and then base your results off a spike which is hardly distinguishable from noise, then it's not a good test. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- A result on the people in a test is not a test of the substance used in the test. The sentence proposes a test of the physical attributes of the substance, and that is what a reference would need to state. True or false, a study showing positive (or negative, anything other than neutral) results of the substance when used to treat a malady is not a test of the substance. It's a several fold leap from the statement in the sentence to the results of the study. Which you, Infophile, agree with I'm sure, I'm stating this for the benefit of anyone making a leapfrog reference like that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Maybe in highly-qualified circumstances we could (properly double-blinded, randomized trial, large enough effect that it can't just be noise). In that case, we might be able to assume that there is some difference that our other methods of testing can't distinguish. The difference here is that we can only make this assumption once we have a study strong enough to rule out other potential confounders - the only possible difference is a difference in the substances. Anyways, I've pulled up the study Dana mentioned, and I'll look through it now to see if it has any merit. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- A result on the people in a test is not a test of the substance used in the test. The sentence proposes a test of the physical attributes of the substance, and that is what a reference would need to state. True or false, a study showing positive (or negative, anything other than neutral) results of the substance when used to treat a malady is not a test of the substance. It's a several fold leap from the statement in the sentence to the results of the study. Which you, Infophile, agree with I'm sure, I'm stating this for the benefit of anyone making a leapfrog reference like that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- (But only for two more years, so hurry!) The thing is, now Dana's arguing that you can detect a difference by their effects on people, and citing a meta-analysis as evidence. Problem is all the other studies that don't find any difference and the fact that even if this worked, there's no practical way to apply this method. There's no simple chemical or physical test that can be performed to tell the difference. If you need to run a huge study and then base your results off a spike which is hardly distinguishable from noise, then it's not a good test. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the problem is the references, find better ones. That homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water is something so basic I thought even the homeopaths agreed with it. If you think differently and think you can show a difference, James Randi has a million dollars for you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Arbitrary section break 1
As far as I know, we have no method of distinguishing high potency homeopathic remedies from water. Homeopaths are unable to. Scientists are unable to. That does not mean we will not be able to do so at some point in the future. But at the moment, we cannot. If someone has a peer-reviewed reference that is some sort of repeatable study demonstrating this, that has gained mainstream scientific acceptance, then I would like to look at it. Something in Science magazine, or Nature, or PNAS, or Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. --Filll (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- As a "friendly skeptic", I have to fully agree with this statement by Filll. That there is no readily repeatable way to determine if a remedy is different from diluent vehicle is quite well known. That homeopathy promoters trot out misunderstandings of quantum theory or speculative notions of water memory to try to explain the perceived effects of a treatment is precisely because they have yet to convincingly show (to those that weren't already convinced) any difference between their 30C whatever and a nice glass of tap water. That Dana can cite studies that claim to show an in vitro or in vivo difference in a treatment result beyond control or placebo is not evidence that the vehicle of the homeopathic test is distinguishable from the contorl, but rather that the entire treatment set produces a distinguishable result; an alteration a shaken-not-stirred water is a possible explanation for that treatment difference, but Occam and co. (and many here, many times over) have made it clear that more plausible explanations exist to explain such phenomena.
- I see nothing wrong with the sources as presented, and peer review is hardly a requirement, but here's a few more that say the same thing:
- this section already in the article
- ...and this section
- "An Idea Whose Time Has Gone: Why Homeopathy is bunk". Retrieved 2008-02-25.
- Teixeira J (2007). "Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view". Homeopathy. 96 (3): 158–62. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.001. PMID 17678811.
- Anick DJ (2004). "High sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies made in water". BMC Complement Altern Med. 4: 15. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-4-15. PMID 15518588.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
- Bottom line, until the scientific community is given sufficient evidence of any actual difference (in ultramolecular structure or whathaveyou) between water and water with 0 molecules of something in it, the claim that there's no detectable difference should stand as representative of the mainstream stance. — Scientizzle 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If Filli considefr the study provided by DanaUllman to be indaequate, then we should leav ethe information regarding homeopathy and water distinguishability off the aritcle until a better source be found. it is my personal philsophy that in a contentious article such as ]hoemopathy and related subjects it is better to leave unsourced info off the article unless a source is likely to be foudn shorlty, which from my own personal reaserch is unlikely since homeopathy tends to be included from sources such as Nature or Science magazine. Smith Jones (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would leave out material that we cannot find good sources for, unless we can find some mainstream sources that rebut the conclusions. So if we have some study that purports to show a difference, even if it is in a venue less prestigious than Science or Nature, or even if it has not been verified by others who managed to repeat the experiment, I would suggest we admit it ONLY if we also have comments from several mainstream scientists and/or allopaths on the inconclusiveness etc of the study. If we have balancing comments, however, we could admit it even if it has not been repeated or published in a mainstream location.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The only problem is that some people have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with it I think.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Friends, I deleted the offending sentence because all of the references given to it do not give any substantiation for it (the "sources" cited do not even review in vitro or basic science studies!). As such, this statement in the article should be deleted. References to disprove it are secondary because there is no substantiation for it in the first place. That said, the review of in vitro studies above provides evidence that there is a difference between placebo water and homeopathic water. Such reviews do not need to be in Nature (which doesn't publish clinical meta-analyses) nor Science...as long as it is in a RS. Although the above review of research acknowledges that no single study has had 100% replicability, there are innumerable conventional tests that are not 100% replicable (most immunology studies for example). This non-replicability is even more common in clinical findings. DanaUllmanTalk 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I know you badly badly badly want to make this only positive for homeopathy and remove any mainstream views. However, by NPOV, we cannot do this. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- DUDE i was AGREEING with you and Infophile that the pro-homeopathy informaiton unsourced should not be included without a source. there is no reason to bite my head off when there are a whole bunch of other editsor on here. 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I am not sure what you are talking about. I just want to make sure we slowly learn here what NPOV is.--Filll (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How are water and a homeopathic potency deemed to be identical? chemically? physically? therapeutically? Funny, I think I read somewhere that NMR studies had shown they are different. Hmmm Peter morrell 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are quite right Peter. There have been studies that appear from time to time showing they are different. However, these have all turned out to be false alarms, or at least not accepted or confirmed by the mainstream, at least not yet. If someone manages to repeat one of these studies and it is documented and confirmed, then it will be one of the biggest discoveries of the century. Someone will win a Nobel Prize for sure.--Filll (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2
Fill, just showing the solutions are different is really no big deal and is truly unimportant. Water dissolves the silica from glass test-tubes by simply shaking water in them. Also shaking dissolves carbon-dioxide and creates small changes in other solutes such as hydrogen peroxide. These in themselves prove very little. We know they are different and it would generally, now, not be important enough to publish. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The paper by J. Teixeira (Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view, Homeopathy 96 (2007) 158-162) certainly talks about the water used in homeopathy certainly being not pure and the papers by Elia (Elia V, Niccoli M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. J Therm Anal Calorim 2004; 75: 815–836) and Rao et al (Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R Bell and Richard Hoover, The defining role of structure (including epitaxy)in the plausibility of homeopathy, Homeopathy (2007) 96, 175–182,) show it is different from just solvent. Where are the papers that prove it is the same? Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Same" is not equivalent to "indistiguishable". And, Dr. Chaplin, you know better than to ask for proof of sameness (or, rather, proof of no difference--proving such a negative is bound to be quite difficult). Indeed, can you honestly say as a scientist that the consensus scientific view of homeopathic dilutions is that there is an established difference from pure vehicle? Successful replication of these type of experiments is rather low, is it not? Certainly there have been suggestive studies and plausible observations and hypotheses (such as you've stated)...and perhaps the next generation of tools will have the sensitivity to unearth waht we've been missing all along. But, be honest, isn't "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests" accurate? — Scientizzle 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy, this page is busy! I did not ask for proof of sameness, I expressed doubt over it having being done. (I agree with you, but some editors here state that sameness has been proved). Yes I believe that it is the consensus view that the solutions are different (and the consensus may also be that this difference is unimportant). To an extent the dilution aspect is immaterial to my argument here. But it is the difference between the succussed solution and pure solvent that we are discussing here. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well a good test would be to place some of the "active ingredient" in water in a container, and engage in potentization to 30C, say. And then take an identical container, and place no active ingredient in water in the container and perform the same potentization steps to 30C. And do this for 100 containers that start with the active ingredient in water, and 100 containers that start with just water. Then guard against the person doing this procedure learning which is which. And then pass on these 200 containers to someone else to test their properties and see if they are distinguishable or not. This would be interesting, I think. Has someone done anything like this? --Filll (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- wouldnt the container itself act to contiminate the water in both the control and the xperimental groups?? that wasn issue at the lab I used to work at; a lot of false readings came up early on when unexperienced scientists were involved and we ended up having to throw out all the results from the early stages of the research until down in R&D came up wth a way to contemplate for the presence of any foreign and unknown contaminants in the experimental and control groups. Smith Jones (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fill, Many of such experiments would indeed be interesting, but homeopathy research is short on funding due to the sceptics controlling the purse strings. I cannot say whether such solutions would be provably different or not without doing the experiments. In any case the dispute, I believe, was simply over whether such solutions are different from 'pure water'. I have a feeling that you might well believe they are. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. That is not particularly convincing. I just suggested a well-controlled experiment. You have stated that such an experiment would yield a Nobel Prize-winning result and would overthrow all of chemistry and physics and that everyone knows it and that it is obvious. I have to say, it is not particularly obvious to me. And I think they are not particularly obvious to anyone with standard scientific training.--Filll (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- A couple papers in some back-water journals does-not-a-rewriting-of-the-rules-of-chemistry-make. If the results of Teixeria 2007 and Elia & Niccoli 2004 were real and could be repeated/substantiated, then the effect would be well known in chemistry. It's not. There's no mention in any textbook or review article, and there's not even any mention of the effect in any mainstream chemistry or physics journals that I know of. Like Filll said, this is Nobel Prize winning stuff, so if the effect were real, then mainstream science would know about it. Yilloslime (t) 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that glass and carbon dioxide dissolve in water is well known and hardly rates a Nobel prize. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are talking about something where you dilute something to 30C and then still be able to detect it. THAT would win a Nobel Prize. I am positive. Because there is no standard reason it should be detectable or distinguishable from plain water. We are not talking about detecting whether shaking water dissolves air in it or some of the container finds its way into the water or not. We are talking about something far more profound. And far harder to believe, frankly.--Filll (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are, which is why it has no bearing on Dana's proposed deletion. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am confused. Let me try this again. So do you claim that ALL (or most) mainstream scientists know there is a big difference between pure water and 30C remedy? And this is widely known and accepted? --Filll (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Philip Ball (certainly no friend of Homeopathy) stated in his column in Chemistry World "Certainly, silicate does get added, in minute quantities, to water held in glass". Now I have made it clear that I do not think that this necessarily proves anything except that a 30C remedy will be different from pure solvent. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We are going around in circles here. The question is not whether silica is dissolved in minute quantities and whether that is detectable or not. The question is whether the effect of potentizing a solvent containing an active ingredient like Thuja is detectable or not, compared to a control (a solvent containing no active ingredient).--Filll (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the question needs to be rephrased? The Nobel prize would probably be awarded for any two different 30C homeopathic remedies to be reliably distinguishable.David D. (Talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the question is the one at the top of this section (no other) posed by Dana. Spitting hairs or not, they are not the same. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Filll, you have said many times that I only want "positive" information on homeopathy in this article. You say that I want it "badly badly badly." I insist that you stop making up these fantasy statements and strawmen. Please show me where I said this OR stop saying it. It is that plain and simple. Your words are offensive and not constructive. I want good, accurate NPOV information. The fact that no one, including Filll, has given NPOV reference to the statement that I previously deleted, I will delete it again. If you wish to re-insert it, you will need to prove that it is true with RS. I have provide evidence from a review of in vitro studies that shows that homeopathic medicines have a biologically active effect that this different than water. DanaUllmanTalk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not mean to give any offense. However, let me ask you; do you believe that this is a well established effect and no one in mainstream science or allopathy doubts it? Is it in all the mainstream textbooks in chemistry and biochemistry and medicine? Do you believe that it is completely uncontroversial to say that there is an effect and no one doubts that? Or do you believe that there are some in the mainstream that do not accept this yet? And the material we have found is representative of those in the mainstream who do not accept this effect yet? Over the last 8 months, I have seen mainstream source after mainstream source that expresses extreme doubt, disbelief, skepticism, or worse about the claims of homeopathy float by. We could probably create an article with 100s of negative statements, each with 10 mainstream references. This is what has to be done on the creationism articles. And I guess if you want to fight like this, that is what will happen to this article. There will be 100 references cited in the LEAD alone of mainstream science and medical people making negative statements about homeopathy. Because believe me, fighting will not make us forget NPOV. You might like to think it will, but I am afraid it will not. Sorry. As Jimbo said, NPOV is non-negotiable. And no I do not think you understand what NPOV is. NPOV means including a large chunk of mainstream critical material. As has been explained here 500 times previously. That is what NPOV means. Sorry if that is offensive. But that is what it means in this case.--Filll (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section break 3
Phew! we got there in the end. There is no proof for the statement but I see no good proof against it either (yet). Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- As Filll mentioned before, it's impossible to prove there's no difference between two things. We have to infer it from a failure to find any difference. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(Question re ScienceApologist's recent edit to the article) "Indistinguishable by lab test" was changed to "materially indistinguishable". Is "materially indistinguishable" meant as a stronger statement, e.g., "indistinguishable by any means whatsoever including lab testing"? Or is "materially indistinguishable" intended to carry some other shade of meaning? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- i dont think that they were any interior motives to Scientologist's reacent edit. Materially might mean that the the metaphysical wouldnt not be ruled out. Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had not considered the metaphysical realm. (I didn't mean to imply any particular motives, either interior, exterior, ulterior, or occult.) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My word, some people are ultra-sensitive
I browsed into this article and decided I could improve it by changing one word in a caption, replacing "remedies" with "preparations" because the former is pov. Smith Jones followed and changed "preparations" to "products" which is even better. But the edit summary by Smith Jones is a real doosey. He/she said "seems like an inconsequential and petty change to me". Inconsequential? Can't be, because the consequence of my change was that he felt compelled to change it. Petty? Removal of pov is petty? Gee, people hereabouts are really tetchy. 222.153.79.118 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is tetchiness treated with remedies or preparations? :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - - - - Go to your litter box. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- you misunderstand me. i was refering to MY edit as being inconsequential and petty; the only reaosn i did it was because it was i like hte word products more than preparations. i have no objection to your edit other than my own personal prefrence and if you wanted to revert it i wouldnt try to stop you. Smith Jones (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did misinterpret, so I apologise. But, no I don't see a necessity to revert" 222.153.79.118 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
- you misunderstand me. i was refering to MY edit as being inconsequential and petty; the only reaosn i did it was because it was i like hte word products more than preparations. i have no objection to your edit other than my own personal prefrence and if you wanted to revert it i wouldnt try to stop you. Smith Jones (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello 222.153.79.118: Why pray tell is it POV to label the pictured items as homeopathic remedies? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Wanderer. Tthe definition of "remedies" to some people includes agents that cure something undesirable. Some people believe homeopathic products can and do have remedial properties, whereas other people believe they can not and do not -- two opposed povs. If someone insisted on inclusion of the word "remedies" and someone else insisted on its exclusion we would probably have a long lived thread going nowhere. Replacing the word "remedies" with the word "products" has avoided any hint of non neutrality. Incidentally, I don't say people shouldn't have povs, but we should take the chance to avoid them in wikipedia articles when the opportunity arises, as happened here. 222.153.79.118 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The correct legal words are "homeopathic drugs" (the vast majority of countries recognize homeopathic medicines as "drugs", usually over-the-counter drugs. Therefore, it is totally appropriate and even more accurate to call them drugs or medicines. DanaUllmanTalk 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think 'products' is more neutral. Addhoc (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Legal definitions don't matter. The plain English meaning of medicine is clear. Use that definition as your guide. Jehochman Talk 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"Homeopathic remedies", "homeopathic drugs", and "homeopathic medicines" have always been used to refer to these. There is no reason to invent new terms that no one uses anywhere else. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, although it has completly wrong implications, "homeopathic remedies" does seem to be a term of the art. (Use of "drugs" and "medicines" would be illegal in enough jurisditions that we should avoid using them even if they were the standard terms.) I prefer "preperations", myself, as the use of "product" implies that there is an actual product, which has not really been established. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think some of these fights are sort of nonsense. They are preparations, but they call them homeopathic remedies in most places that I look. We should use the names they use mostly otherwise it will be confusing. We have to express all views, the homeopathic view, the science view, the medical view, and it has to be accessible. And inventing new words and phrases does not help. We will have enough trouble defining the words and phrases that homeopathy uses that are unique to homeopathy. So I think we are just wallowing in nonsense trying to dance around and avoid the common terms that homeopaths use. We should use them, and define them accordingly and make sure the mainstream view is there too. So all views are heard.--Filll (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- fine. all iw ante dto do was to make the article flow better. if you are so attached to the term "remedy" then fine. personally i thinkthat products has a far smaller chance of triggering a flame war from the zealots who occasionally pop in an dfire off a few salvos around here but if the word remedy makes more sense to you then i have no real objections. ive already enforced your concensus by the way; the word remedy is back in the article. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Now look, I'm on the "science" side of this issue, if it matters. But, since "remedies" is what is used, it needs to be in the article unless it is extremely misleading or a WP:BLP violation, even if I would prefer that the only claims made in the article were those which are scientifically verified.
- <sarcasm>Since we seem to have a consensus on this word, shall we get on to other disputes, such as "found" / "claimed" / "reported" / "alleged"?</sarcasm> — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Use of the word 'Remedy'
'Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created by ingesting substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease.'
Given that the usual use of the word 'remedy' by homeopaths is the 'homeopathic product', can I suggest 'remedies for diseases can be created' in the sentence above is inappropriate as it also implies the production of remedies which is confusing. I'd like to suggest: 'diseases can be treated' to replace 'remedies for diseases can be created' [updated Scifuture (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)] Scifuture (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No-one seems to object so I will make the change.Scifuture (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It got reverted back would someone like to explain why?Scifuture (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Scifuture is right I think. The problem is that the sentence opening this section says the act of ingestion creates the remedy. I think the normally understood sequence is that the remedy is created before it is ingested.
- Either of the following wordings would be a distinct improvement, IMO. The first is the one Scifuture suggested.
- 'Homeopathic practitioners contend that diseases can be treated by ingesting substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease.'
- 'Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created from substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease.'
- Wanderer57 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the second even more than my own suggestion.Scifuture (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The standard should be the definition. Only "remedies" can have "remedial" properties. Since the remedial quality of homeopathy preparations and products has not been demonstrated, it would be POV to beg the question of efficacy by using the term "remedy." Naturezak (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This sentence starts with 'Homeopathic practitioners contend'; this is the sentence which SHOULD accurately reflect THE pov of the homeopathic community otherwise it undermines the whole documentScifuture (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
OK so far as it goes except that homeopaths do not treat imputed human fictions called 'diseases,' they treat people, that is a person totality, NOT an alleged 'disease entity.' Peter morrell 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- agreed but can we tackle the sentence structure and start a discussion on the word 'diseases' separately?Scifuture (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Peter - Including both the idea that 'like treats like' and the idea of treating an organic totality seems to me to put an unbearable burden on one sentence. Could not the idea of treating the totality rather than the disease symptoms follow later? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK sorry about that maybe we could paraphrase it to say: 'Homeopathic practitioners contend that a sick person can be treated by ingesting a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the entire sickness.' how does that sound? it replaces 'disease' with 'sick person' or 'sickness,' which is vague enough to suggest a form of totality rather than an alleged entity commonly called a 'disease,' to which homeopathy is opposed rather fundamentally. Peter morrell 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I'll suggest a slightly different version.
- "Homeopathic practitioners contend that a ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, some symptoms similar to those of the illness."
- I suggest illness instead of sickness. I think it sounds better but cannot explain why I think so.
- I would remove "by ingesting" as that wording suggests that it is the act of ingesting that is efficacious rather than the substance. Also, "treated by ingesting" suggests to me at least that the practitioner does the ingesting.
- I would add "some" and leave out "entire". If I show up with symptoms rash, vomiting, incontinence, coughing, hiccoughs, and dizzyness and am treated with a preparation derived from poison ivy, it would not, I think, be correct that "the substance produces symptoms similar to those of the entire sickness." The main similarity in this example would be between the poison ivy and one symptom, the rash. Would it not be more accurate to say "the substance produces some symptoms similar to those of the sickness"? (Or for sake of brevity, leave out the "some".) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK by me too Peter morrell 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll make the change. Thanks both. Scifuture (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Part of the confusion here is that the word "remedy" is a polyseme and has essentially a technical meaning in homeopathy, which is related but not identical to the main meaning in English.--Filll (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
References in lead
Can someone please explain why we need all refs 15, 16, 17 and 18? Ref 18 in particular is not a real article but a short OPINION about CAM in the Nigerian med jnl. why is that even in here or regarded as RS? it adds nothing whatever to the pseudoscience claim in the homeopathy article text. Maybe the abundance of some of these refs in the lead need reviewing? thank you Peter morrell 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are different opinions about the style of the LEAD. Some prefer the LEAD have no references at all. However, in controversial articles like this one, references are vital, and even in the LEAD. For example, almost every negative statement in a controversial articles get challenged, over and over and over. This is even true for the LEAD, and might be especially true for the LEAD. Therefore, we end up with references in the LEAD for controversial, critical or negative statements. See intelligent design for comparison.--Filll (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No probs with any of that Filll but do we really need 4 refs all saying the same thing for a single point? and at least one of which is pretty useless? there seems to be excessive bunching of refs and sometimes overkill on a single point...sledgehammers and nuts spring to mind! all those refs should be carefully reviewed IMO; 2 cents FWIW. Peter morrell 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- In the best of all possible worlds we would not need so many. However, this article is mired in a terrible mess from which it might not recover.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reference 18 is a short abstract, not a paper. Following the link to the paper just led me around in a circle. I don't see enough in the abstract to get a sense of the credibility of the paper. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean?
This is found in the current lead:
The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol similarly prepared but is still claimed to have specific effects.
I have no idea what "similarly prepared but is still claimed to have specific effects" is even supposed to be driving at. I doubt most readers will know what this means either. When I changed the sentence to the more readable and understandable:
The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol.
Martin Chapman changed it back with an edit summary that did not explain what the phrase meant, but rather said that there was discussion of this paritcular phrase on the talk page. Only, I don't see that particular phrase discussed anywhere on this talk page.
ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree...maybe it got spliced in by accident from another para...dunno Peter morrell 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for editing at the same time as you were talking. I have now clarified it, I hope. Martin Chaplin (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, except the lead is still terrible. See the below two sections. You need to explain yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Friends. This sentence needed greater specificity, but once it was provided, it was now shown to be wrong! My reference above to the review of in-vitro studies, most of which were replicated (!), provides this sentence is wrong and should be deleted. DanaUllmanTalk 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that when a solute is diluted to homeopathic dilutions the end result is materially indistinguishable from the pure solvent is not only not wrong, it's really not up for debate. The issue here is how to properly phrase the sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dana has a point. He suggested a change and justified it. (BTW I dont see what kind behavior from Dana's part you find unhelpful. )--70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. What behaviour is being objected to? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, for the last time: this article is under probation. If DanaUllman achieves a consensus between editors on both sides of this dispute, then he can modify the article in accordance with this consensus. However, if there isn't consensus, then he can't change the article. Repeating statements that a particular sentence should be removed or added is tiresome. Either he should work to generate a consensus or stop posting. Addhoc (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, for NPOV, we must include a large dose of critical material. I know that some might not like it, but these are the rules of Wikipedia. How many times does it have to be said? Tendentious argumentation on these points which has gone on for months on end, including spamming the talk page with repeated nonsense just makes things worse here. I am pleading with everyone to try to not be so aggressive in trying to slant the entire article one way or another. It will just end in tragedy I am afraid. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Entirely agree with Fill about tendentious behavior, including spamming the talk page with repeated nonsense. Addhoc (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Redundancy in the lead
The lead now reads:
According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that it is materially indistinguishable from similarly prepared pure water, sugar or alcohol, but is still claimed to have specific effects.
This is redundant. The first sentence explicitly says, "the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent." The second sentence then simply rephrases this by saying, "but is still claimed to have specific effects." Why do we need to have this repetition in two adjacent sentences? It looks very poor from an editorial standpoint.
ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was partially my fault, I'm afraid. I restored "materially indistinguishable" and added a comma. Perhaps the "still claimed" clause should be removed entirely, with the sources (if used in the lead) attached to the first sentence? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would make sense to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Similarly prepared?
The current lead says:
it is materially indistinguishable from similarly prepared pure water, sugar or alcohol
What do we mean by "similarly prepared"? This wording is entirely confusing. There is no "similar preparation" necessary to explain the material composition of the solvents.
ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That may be necessary. The successive mixing and shaking could plausibly change the characteristics of the water or alcohol, although I have doubts about sugar. I've noticed that many of the so-called "blinded" studies leave the control group as pure water, rather than shaken (not stirred) water. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Feh. The sentence says materially indistinguishable. Unless the shaking can somehow change the material composition of the solvents, this is irrelevant to the sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist; you should read the discussion that we had earlier. It is above. Martin Chaplin (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The shaking can, in the case of powders, change the particle size or the amount (and possibly even the composition) of the air between the particles, and in the case of liquids, change the gas content or amount of dissolved glass/plastic. (As an aside, remember polywater? The shaking would have eliminated that effect.) I've noted, in a previous comment (now, apparently archived), the fact the studies mentioned which show an effect use pure water (possibly not from the same source as the water used in the homeopathic "remedy") as a control, rather then "shaken" water. I could create a study with those characteristics which would probably pass review, but would leave a clear taste difference between the tap water used in the control and the purified water used in the homeopathic remedy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, it wasn't me, and it was above. My mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This smacks of an original research justification. Claiming that the "air is different" in shaken water compared to water that hasn't been shaken is far from a material difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, we don't have a reference for the statement as it is in any form. We should really just get that, then go with what that says... --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of reference are you talking about? The basic solution chemistry of the situation is common knowledge among every relevant expert. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet on this page it's constantly debated. On an article like this, we need references even for common knowledge. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not likely to be good enough. See User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur. What we need is a moratorium on referencing common knowledge and an agreement that the lead can fairly summarize points we have later in the article. We can reference this point to one of the dozens of reliable sources which point out this fact. How about using one of these? [1][2][3][4] ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if shaken vs still water has no difference, this is common knowledge? Couldn't the dissolved gases be different? Above, I am surprised to read that the control for homeopathic studies are usually still water as opposed to the accurate control of still water at 30C (or what ever dilution is being tested). David D. (Talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, your skepticism is still original research. In fact, it is a standard intro chemistry experiment to determine whether shaking versus stirring changes the characteristics of liquid solutions. The null result is a famous indication that confirms that randomness is a more driving factor than how randomness is arrived at. Have you taken chemistry? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but not since I forgot it all :) I'm a biologist and it's not uncommon to deal with water that has different concentrations of CO2 or oxygen. The chemistry experiment depends on what you measure of course. Is part of the experiment to titrate for CO2 concentration before and after? And what of the controls which are neither stirred nor shaken (i.e. the before)? David D. (Talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is that homeopathic preparations are left to sit for such a long time after preparation that any extra dissolved gases that end up in them are driven out through their own higher vapor pressure. In sum, the idea that homeopathy works through extra gas dissolved in water is not something I have seen sourced anywhere. The material identities between homeopathic preparations and their solvents is referenced in each of the four references I provide above. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, if we're talking about the remedies themselves they'll equilibrate. I was thinking more along the lines of this so-called data that can distinguish between still water and the 30C remedy. In those experiments do they test immediately after preparation or allow it to equilibrate? I have no idea since I don't generally read such papers. Nevertheless, this sentence is clearly talking about the remedies, I agree they will be the same at equilibrium. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure about this, but I think this is an entirely different issue. A good WP:REDFLAG to raise in the instance of someone trying to cite such a study elsewhere in the article. As it is, I think we have agreement that similar preparations is not something that needs to be mentioned in this sentence of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, if we're talking about the remedies themselves they'll equilibrate. I was thinking more along the lines of this so-called data that can distinguish between still water and the 30C remedy. In those experiments do they test immediately after preparation or allow it to equilibrate? I have no idea since I don't generally read such papers. Nevertheless, this sentence is clearly talking about the remedies, I agree they will be the same at equilibrium. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is that homeopathic preparations are left to sit for such a long time after preparation that any extra dissolved gases that end up in them are driven out through their own higher vapor pressure. In sum, the idea that homeopathy works through extra gas dissolved in water is not something I have seen sourced anywhere. The material identities between homeopathic preparations and their solvents is referenced in each of the four references I provide above. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but not since I forgot it all :) I'm a biologist and it's not uncommon to deal with water that has different concentrations of CO2 or oxygen. The chemistry experiment depends on what you measure of course. Is part of the experiment to titrate for CO2 concentration before and after? And what of the controls which are neither stirred nor shaken (i.e. the before)? David D. (Talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, your skepticism is still original research. In fact, it is a standard intro chemistry experiment to determine whether shaking versus stirring changes the characteristics of liquid solutions. The null result is a famous indication that confirms that randomness is a more driving factor than how randomness is arrived at. Have you taken chemistry? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if shaken vs still water has no difference, this is common knowledge? Couldn't the dissolved gases be different? Above, I am surprised to read that the control for homeopathic studies are usually still water as opposed to the accurate control of still water at 30C (or what ever dilution is being tested). David D. (Talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not likely to be good enough. See User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur. What we need is a moratorium on referencing common knowledge and an agreement that the lead can fairly summarize points we have later in the article. We can reference this point to one of the dozens of reliable sources which point out this fact. How about using one of these? [1][2][3][4] ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet on this page it's constantly debated. On an article like this, we need references even for common knowledge. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of reference are you talking about? The basic solution chemistry of the situation is common knowledge among every relevant expert. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, we don't have a reference for the statement as it is in any form. We should really just get that, then go with what that says... --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This smacks of an original research justification. Claiming that the "air is different" in shaken water compared to water that hasn't been shaken is far from a material difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are again missing the earlier discussion. You have moved off target on to different ground. I disagree with ScienceApologist. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I have not got the hang of linking, but it is Arbitrary section break 2. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like there was any real counter to the points made in this section here. Just a lot of grandstanding. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Where are the papers that prove it is the same?" Is this the point you are making? Gases are not an issue, you would agree, assuming we are talking about remedies that have been on a shelf. Your other claim is silicon dioxide, but this assume the control water is not in a similar container, does it not? With respect to the proof, is this not going to be a problem with respect to publication bias? People who do such experiments are trying to write a paper that shows there is a difference, they are unlikely to publish studies that report the opposite as they'll "assume" their data is flawed (similar to confirmation bias). Or do homeopaths sometimes publish their negative results? What is the chance that a scientist would try and disprove homeopathy by trying to prove the solutions are identical? To prove a negative is not so productive, especially when quantum mechanics and meta physics gets thrown back at you. What is typically done is to determine the efficacy. Are there not several papers that show no statistical difference? What would occam's razor suggest with regard to the differences between the remedies and the still water? David D. (Talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- David, I am glad you are reading the info. The original debate was over whether the homeopathic preparations were different from 'pure water'. That is why eventually it was decided to put in 'indistinguishable from similarly prepared pure water' rather than 'indistinguishable from pure water', as I think we got consensus (at that time) for them not being indistinguishable from 'pure water'. I agree that you may well have expected the controls were the 'similarly prepared' stuff but they often (always?) are not. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is where it started, and where I would have liked it to finish. I believe that the homeopathic preparations differ from the 'pure water' that was used in making them. I do not believe that there is any definitive proof one way or the other that they differ in a chemically analysable way from proper controls. Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- We have reliable sources which show that homeopathic remedies are materially indistinguishable from the solvents. That's good enough for us. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what will happen is that there will end up being many more references than otherwise necessary here because of the environment that has developed on this page. I would remind all editors here that the mainstream, scientific and allopathic viewpoints must be featured prominently in this article. --Filll (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- prominently does not mean exclusion of the minority views the article is about.
it could contain homeopaths views using reliable sources and inform the reader about the current controversy and critisism. This is not difficult. The current lead does not provide this info. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hogwash. This talk page has megabytes of archives of text re-hashing and dealing with this. Make diffs. Make quotes. State problems. These nebulous one-off drive-by complaints about nothing in particular aren't useful to improving the article. I may start removing them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- the administrators who are around would feel that the above comment does not fit in the good faith atmosphere we try to create in the talk page?--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
NPOV -lead.
Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10]
@User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat Look at the references which "support" the above statement.
Besides the "one man" paper the rest state that they have no data to evaluate homeopathy.
There are other views about studies on homeopathy which are not included in the lead. (mainstream)
[11] --70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what or -something like that- someone could use
"Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy." Comments?--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just saw that this is a quote from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97) already cited in the article which is supposed to support the above sentence. Filll?--Area69 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Er, way I look at it, saying there's no data for any of homeopathy's claimed effects is the same thing as saying it's unsupported (no data to support it, you see?). It's impossible to have a study rule out an effect; you'd just expect many to not find an effect. When this happens, you can safely say it's unsupported. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If the article were not such a battleground, we could have a section describing all the ideas that have been advanced to explain why homeopathy might work and counterarguments describing why all these suggestions are pure nonsense. However, the atmosphere here is too nasty to attempt anything like that. But the only way I would suggest anything like our anon friend has written to go into the article is if it is balanced by mainstream rebuttals. So in the net, it will make homeopathy look much worse. So lets not even go there.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments re subsection "Ethical and safety issues"
Two substantive issues, plus suggested minor wording changes.
- Minor wording change - "As homeopathic remedies usually contain
oftenonly water and/or alcohol, they are thought to be generally safe." The word "usually" makes "often" redundant. (I've made this edit - Wanderer57)
- "Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. In one such case, an unusually undiluted (1:100 or "2X") solution of zinc gluconate, marketed as Zicam Nasal Spray, allegedly caused a small percentage of users to lose their sense of smell."
- It seems to me there are credibility and relevance issues with this report.
- The Washington Post side story "The Men Behind Zicam" gives information about their backgrounds. There is no indication that either is trained in homeopathy.
- Was the Zicam stuff truly a homeopathic remedy? It was not ingested. It was sprayed into the nostrils. Quoting the court transcript: "The nasal pump utilized by Defendant Matrixx in delivering the Zicam nasal spray to the user's nose is capable of propelling the Zicam approximately ten feet." (Emphasis added)
- Minor wording change - "Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment for diseases that it is claimed could <BE or HAVE BEEN> diagnosed or cured with conventional medicine." (I've made this edit - ) Wanderer57 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Zicam was legaly a homeopathic remedy. No evidence to suggest it was not prepared according to homeopathic principles.Geni 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Some homeopaths suggest that vaccines be replaced with homeopathically diluted "nosodes", ........modern homeopaths often use them and there is no evidence to...." et cetera.
- There is no indication that the first reference is available on-line. The second apparently is, for a fee of $30 which is outside my research budget. So I can't check if either reference supports the "homeopaths often use" statement. Further, even if they do support it, they are over 15 years old (both 1992) and suspiciously dated as confirmation of what modern homeopathists do.
- Wanderer57 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The amount of misinformation in this article is significant, and sadly, even many people who seem to advocate for homeopathy don't seem to notice. First, a vast amount of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies today have material doses of the medicinal substance in them. By definition, only those medicines that are 24X or 12C and higher are in the sub-molecular range. Because of the significant body of research on [hormesis] (I'm talking about thousands of studies!), there IS a lot of evidence for low-dose effects on a wide variety of biological systems. IF (!) we wish to say that homeopathic medicines usually do not contain any molecules of the original substance, we have to differentiate the LARGE number of OTC homeopathics for which this statement is not accurate. DanaUllmanTalk 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dana. Could you show us the math that indicates "only those medicines that are 24X or 12C and higher are in the sub-molecular range"? That's something that has always puzzled me. Thanks Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI. There is a discussion of this at User:Filll/homeopathyscales#Avogadro's number calculations and in the section immediately after. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The dilution ratios aren't meaningful unless we know the amount of substance that the preparation begins with and the size of the ultimate dose. Does the preparation always begin with a gram-mole of the original substance before the first dilution? And how much is a typical does -- a glassful, a teaspoon...? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I part of the remedy is mixed with 9 parts dilutent. However I think I see the point you are making. You would have to mix 1 mole of the substance with 9 moles of dilutant in order to get 24, 1 to 9 dilutions to get one or no molecules. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it. If the starting ratio is different (say, a couple grams of the remedy in a liter of water) then that effectively counts as another dilution or two. The size of the dose also is relevant. A gram-mole of water is a little over a tablespoon. If the dose is smaller then there's proportionately less likelihood of any of the remedy being in the dose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The simplistic explanations never address the issue of molarity. Since chemist (assume) are involved in these homeopathic labs I would expect that moles are used. I will search for a more formal explanation. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's just not important. Whether you start with concentrated stuff or not, and whether you end up looking at a milligram or a kilogram, the answer just varies by a few points on the C scale (or several points on the X scale). By the time you get to 30C, or even 20C, there's just nothing left no matter how you do the math. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The simplistic explanations never address the issue of molarity. Since chemist (assume) are involved in these homeopathic labs I would expect that moles are used. I will search for a more formal explanation. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of potency in homeopathy is decided by therapeutic indications NOT by the molecular dogmas of chemistry. Your 'question' is thus totally irrelevant to this subject. Peter morrell 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Potencies of dilutions on chemistry are based on experimental facts, not on dogmas. And, for a discussion of how many molecules of the original substance remain on the homeopathic medicine, they are very relevant --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- In reference to the above statement about the "dangers" of seeking homeopathic care, it may be appropriate to acknowledge this risk AS WELL AS the risk of not seeking safer alternative to conventional medications for which there are significant different risks. I suggest that we do not go into this quagmire and that we delete that sentence. DanaUllmanTalk 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The risk levels of real medicine are not relivant to this article.Geni 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In reference to the above statement about the "dangers" of seeking homeopathic care, it may be appropriate to acknowledge this risk AS WELL AS the risk of not seeking safer alternative to conventional medications for which there are significant different risks. I suggest that we do not go into this quagmire and that we delete that sentence. DanaUllmanTalk 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Peter morrell 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately under the current environment, it is probably too dangerous to explain.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Random idea
Why don't we remove the references section to the top of the page? That should save us the headache of having to constantly move it down (or it keeping us from using the + tab to add sections). We'll just have to be careful not to archive it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- ^ National Science Board (April 2002) Science and Engineering Indicators, Chapter 7, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding" - "Science Fiction and Pseudoscience" (Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences)
- ^ Wahlberg, A. (2007) "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine 65(11) pp. 2307-2316: PMID 18080586
- ^ Atwood, K.C. (2003) "Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative," Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 129(12) pp. 1356-1357: PMID 14676179
- ^ Ndububa, V.I. (2007) "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?" Nigerian Journal of Medicine 16(4) pp. 312-317: PMID 18080586