Talk:Potassium dichromate

electrolysis

What reaction will occur at anode in the electrolysis of potassium dichromate? What product will be formed?Superdvd 10:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why is Potassium dichromate used as a preservative for artifacts when it is highly corrosive?

Glassware cleaning

Acidified potassium dichromate (with sulphuric acid) is used for cleaning glassware - and not just potassium dichromate

Someone's added poorly-spelled gibberish to the end. Anyone know what's useful there and what's not?

The above posts are unsigned.

Acidified potassium dichromate was used for cleaning laboratory glassware but not any more, at least in the UK, because of health concerns. It has been replaced by detergents, such as "Decon 90". Biscuittin 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Length?

Erm, just wondering why this article is being tagged as too lengthy....If I don't get a response in a few days, I'll take off the tag, it looks horrendous. : ) Delta 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those tags are ridiculous - they just appear on talk pages, perhaps with a tiny little icon hidden somewhere discrete in the article.

I do, however, think that parts of this article are excessively verbose. The section on ethanol titration is unnecessarily detailed − the exact method is not required, since Wikipedia is not a how-to manual.

I'm going to attempt a clean up.

Ben 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made it even more brief. It needs context - is it used industrially, etc? If not, we might as well do away with the section because it can be adapted to many contexts, and it is no longer significant. --Rifleman 82 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic use

Why should homeopathic use be deleted? [1] Whig 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is notable as an ingredient of HeadOn and this text was already present under the Hazards section before I moved it into its own section and fleshed it out. [2] According to the HeadOn article it is a headache remedy and not only for migraines. When used in homeopathic medicine, potassium dichromate is also called kalium bichromicum.[3]

Can this text be reinserted without objection? Whig 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, is this actually used outside of HeadOn, as a homeopathic treatment, in any significant amount? Secondly, this is probably the least notable thing about this chemical that we'd be mentioning: if it goes in, it should go in at the end of the article, not before important chemical uses. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kali bich is most certainly a very important remedy in homeopathy and its use should be included. It is in very frequent use for sinusitis, catarrh and hayfever especially were there is much thick sticky mucus or sputum difficult to dislodge or hard, tightly adherent crusts in the nasal passages difficult and painful to remove. These are its strongest features. See:[4] cheers Peter morrell 12:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've put it back more or less as it was but below other uses. We could also add something along the lines of the uses Peter lists. As far as this being a "non-notable use" there are probably more people who come into awareness or contact with it as homeopathic medicine than the chemical in its raw state. Whig 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning glassware

I've removed this chunk, because this procedure uses chromic acid, not dichromate: --Rifleman 82 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

K₂Cr₂O₇ is used as an oxidizing agent in many chemical applications, and is often used for cleaning laboratory glassware of organic contaminants, usually in a solution with concentrated sulfuric acid. This solution must not be used to clean the glass tubes used in NMR spectroscopy, as residual contamination of the glass by the paramagnetic Chromium disrupts the NMR procedure.

Google books gives many hits for "potassium dichromate" cleaning glassware. I think either of them could be used, since the effective active ingredient is the same, Cr(VI). Do you know of any reason why potassium dichromate should not be used? I'm not an experimentalist, so I don't know firsthand. --Itub 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy section

This is surely wholly trivial. I completely fail to see the relevance. Only here to push the usual POV, IMO. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The only person POV pushing is you and cuerden. It is a major remedy in homeopathy period. If you knew anything about the subject you would know this. Peter morrell 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be a major remedy in homeopathy. Is that relevant? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely it is relevant; it is an actual use of potassium dichromate in the real world. A short paragraph on that does no harm whatever in this article EXCEPT to someone obsessed with deleting all mention of homeopathy in this WP, which he has all but admitted to in the past. Peter morrell 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess one sentence, perhaps two, wouldn't hurt. Curiously however, the paragraph as written and deleted made it look as though the homeopathic use of this chemical was responsible and wise - it was completely uncritical, except by very vague implication. My point is that the paragraph should have made the point that this is an actual misuse of potassium dichromate in the real world - not that you would agree, but scientific consensus does. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it restored by you in an edited NPOV form, then. Peter morrell 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the use of very much potassium dichromate, though, is it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It should probably get a mention though. A lot of consumers apparently believe that it's a remedy when diluted to practically nil. That's notable. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged into the safety section with a rename and rewrite. Since the homeopathic use depends on the effects produced by large doses this seemed the best section. Tim Vickers 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an inappropriate section. It's pretty clear that potassium dichromate remedies don't work because of any properties of potassium dichromate. It's contained in vanishingly small doses. It would be dishonest to imply that homeopathic sugar pills might give one cancer. Perhaps it's less dishonest than those who peddle these remedies, but it still doesn't belong in the safety section. Cool Hand Luke 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Safety and biological effects" is not a good section IMO. Whatever you may think of it, this is a use! Merging "biological effects" with "safety" and putting a use there does not fit the chemical style guidelines well IMO. Also, be careful with the overuse of words such as "claim", which tend to be POV-loaded, as discussed in WP:WTA. You don't need to repeat the criticism of homeopathy every time it is mentioned in passing on Wikipedia--there's a lot of room for that in the main article. --Itub 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes we do need to mention the criticism where we're talking about homeopathic uses - otherwise, it amounts to saying that this was a correct and scientifically-based use, like all the talk surrounding it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You can just say "potassium dichromate is used for homeopathy" and let the readers think for themselves. Inserting a discussion of the validity of homeopathy into this article is like inserting a discussion about the validity of prayer therapy into the article about candles. :-) Note: I don't think this article needs a section about the homeopathic use, just a sentence or two under uses. --Itub 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what can we say? In homeopathy, poassium dichromate is claimed (ref to lancet article here for claim) to be useful for headaches? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you POV quibbling about now? Tim has already edited this back in. It does not need a whole section, a sentence or two will suffice. In fact Kali bich has a broad spectrum of uses within homeopathy (check the link) primarily for glutinous mucus conditions of nose and respiratory passages but including headaches. The ref to headaches is merely a proprietory use of it in the US NOT a strictly homeopathic formulation per se. Peter morrell 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct to say this has been resolved? Why not remove the request on the admin board?--FR Soliloquy 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the following has been added. "(in many cases to the point where it is extremely unlikely that there is even one ion left in the final remedy)". Doesn't this belabor the point a bit? I had added a link to the appropriate section in homeopathy with makes the point adequately. This section should be informative and to the point. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it a bit - the English was starting to get awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points that were now being made three sentences prior, and other such things. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, you didn't revert my edits "a bit". You reverted all my changes. The reason I changed it is that the whole thing read like a typical anti-homeopathic editorial. Words like "purported" should not be in this article, just report the uses of sodium dichromate by homeopaths and the facts, there is no good reason to judge homeopathy. Here is the version I had written:

"Homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to suppress symptoms of irritation and inflammation and is more familiar as kalium bichromicum. Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute, or undetectable quantities, although meta-analysis of homeopathic treatments shows that these low concentrations are unlikely to do any better than a placebo treatment. One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."

You say it is ".....awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points.......". First, where are these "however's" you mention? Second, please improve the version above not just reverting to a flawed version. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleviate might be better wording than suppresses. It's potassium not sodium dichromate BTW. And BTW 1 ppm is NOT an 'undetectable amount'...thanks Peter morrell 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are good points, when I rewrote the section a lot of the baggage from the previous version got brought over. Basically the previous version was more of a critique of homeopathy rather than a description of the use of sodium dichromate. How about the following?

"Due its irritant properties (ref for this?), homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to alleviate symptoms of irritation and inflammation, although it is more familiar as kalium bichromicum. Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute quantities and one notable product is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."

Here I have even removed the meta analysis quote. Why is it necessary to be critiquing homeopathy every time the word is mentioned? The link to the homeopathy section on dilutions contains those critiques and is the appropriate place for such information. This article is about sodium dichromate and its uses not homeopathy itself. It could do with a sentence on why it is used as a pain remedy. Previously there was a mention of its symptoms but a reference might be good too. David D. (Talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I added back the part about the irritant properties. Is there a good general reference for this? David D. (Talk) 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revised para is now fine; please implement it; its irritant properties are listed in the next paragraph on safety, so no need to ref that unless you want an actual cite for that specific point. Peter morrell 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here [5] is a generic cite for its irritant properties. Peter morrell 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

COPD

Friends, yesterday I added a NPOV reference and link to a study that was published in CHEST (a highly respected medical journal) and that was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. This study tested homeopathic doses of potassium dichromate (THE subject of this article) vs. placebo. The clinical results were substantially significant. An anonymous editor took out this reference, and for unknown reasons, called it POV. Although this edit seems to be this person's "first" edit, it is more likely one of the many antagonists to homeopathy who is vandalizing this article anonymously. My NPOV reference should be kept, though if others have a better way to describe it (or improve grammar), I'm open. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference is a primary source about one small study that has a few obvious flaws. (I have to question if the results can be explained simply by the approaching-significant difference in the overall health of the two groups: the placebo group was worse in COPD level, FEV1,PaCO2, and BMI, p between 0.140 and 0.178 for each, while every other measure was well-matched with the verum group.) This paper, cited seven times elsewhere according to Google Scholar--and only once that wasn't a paper or commentary by the same authors or a criticism of this paper, and that single example is something in Russian that I cannot access--has not been replicated and so stands as only a single observation and the only published study to date regarding homeopathy and COPD. Additionally, PubMed searches for "Kalium bichromicum" and "'potassium dichromate' homeopathy" gives three relevant hits (1 on sinusitis and 2 involving the same study on otitis media, plus the aforementioned criticism of this study by David Colquhoun). In total, nothing much can be reliably said about this study, nor the state of potassium dichromate as conventionally-studied homeopathic remedy. To follow WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE, I think there's an argument that presenting a single study on a topic that has received no other scientific attention is potentially over-representing this chemical as a plausible disease treatment option rather than the known carcinogen that causes dermatitis and worse. As such, I'll change the current wording of the appropriate section from

Due its irritant properties,[2] potassium dichromate is used as a purported anti-pain remedy in homeopathy, where it is also called Kalium bichromicum.[3] However, in these remedies the substance is used in specially prepared non-toxic doses, with repeated dilution and succession leaving either only traces of the chemical, or even beyond the limt of there being any of the chemical remaining. Because this preparation is believed to be useful in treating people who suffer from extremely tenacious mucus in the bronchials, researchers at the University of Vienna Hospital tested it in the treatment of a small number of people suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This double-blind trial gave half of the COPD patients a placebo and the other half were given the 30C potency of Kali bichromicum (potassium dichromate). This small pilot study found evidence for a beneficial effect from the homeopathic group as compared with those given a placebo.[4] One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million.

to something like this:

Due its irritant properties,[2] potassium dichromate is used as a purported anti-pain remedy in homeopathy, where it is also called Kalium bichromicum.[3] A small study at the University of Vienna Hospital explored the effects of homeopathic potassium dichromate on the tracheal mucous secretions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), reporting decreased tracheal secretions compared with those given a placebo.[4] One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million.

— Scientizzle 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it is worth mentioning this study. Wasn't it a pilot study? If so, isn't it premature for it to be in an encyclopedia? David D. (Talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your succinctly stated reasons. — Scientizzle 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scientizzle & David D...just a couple of comments: Rather than saying "small study" (because that is relative in each disease), I'm changing it to "a study of 50 patients" (also, nowhere does it state that this was a "pilot study"). As for the control and treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Colquhoun's published critique of this paper didn't mention this as a problem. As for the results, they are not simply significant; they were substantial, and not just the tracheal secretions but also the rate of extubation and (importantly) the length of the hospital stay. Because this study was published in such a prestigious journal, this information is important. Let's avoid making the subject of homeopathy the issue in THIS article. Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, a few points..."a study of 50 patients" is perfectly reasonable versus the subjective "small", though "25 patients given ___ performed better than placebo group" better frames the issue for the lay person, I think. The control & treatment groups didn't have a stat/sig. difference, but, as I pointed out, as a reviewer I would have had a major issue with the almost significant differences between the groups (and the real possibility that there is an associated trend of poorer health). I agree that Chest is a perfectly good journal.[6] Whether this study was "technically" a pilot, there's probably no way of knowing, but the fact that it's the first and only study, and used a small number of patients for two days each, it sure sounds like one. (That, of course, is my own WP:OR.) Finally, this isn't really about homeopathy for me, it's more about a single study standing alone in an empty field: there's no other literature on the subject, so I am uncomfortable having it discussed in an encyclopedia; I would be similarly uncomfortable about any other treatment for any other disease that had a similar paucity of medical literature. It's questionably giving undue weight to the view that this compound is in any way useful as a therepeutic, particularly since 895 PubMed articles on potassium dichromate are overwhelmingly about its dangers as a toxic irritant. — Scientizzle 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you ever have a significant result with only 50 patients in the trial? By the way this article did say "pilot study" at one point. This section of the article should not be about the efficacy of potassium dichromate as a drug but just about the usage. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistically significant--yes. Medically significant--no. I think it would be more proper to forgo the reporting of the p values and the peacock words of "substantially" to state as simply as possible: there was one small study that showed a signifcant difference in a single use of this compound as a treatment. — Scientizzle 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is what I mean, medically significant. One cannot assume that all patients are the same and fifty is no where near enough to distinguish from the chance of a skewed distribution in the randomised patient sample. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable man, and you've made some reasonable edits. Glad we can dance together. As for David's comment about medical significance, the average hospital stay in the homeopathic group was 4.20 days, and in the placebo group it was 7.68. This difference suggests medical significance. Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad we could come to a reasonable compromise on the text. — Scientizzle 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If all the patients were identical in the study, yes. Were they? A larger study will be the test. Fifty is too small to be sure. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Page 938 of the article shows the two groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. Please note that the journal in which this study was published is the leading journal in respiratory medicine. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No statitical differences in the measured parameters does not mean no difference. There are plenty of medical studies where initial studies show encouraging results while the larger studies show insignificant differences. This is the initial study that leads to the next step. As I suggested above, too soon to be encyclopedic, and possibly not that relevant to this article anyway. David D. (Talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's starting to move beyond the realm of this talk page, allow me to clarify what I mean by "medically significant." A study can be statistically significant without being medically so if the conclusions that flow forth from the study are insufficient to warrant any change in clinical practice. This can be due to methodological flaws within the study, limited scope of corroborating evidence within the relevant literature, negligible real gain in cost-benefit analysis of treatment, small study sizes, and better-established practices being "entrenched" (for better or worse); usually some combination of these factors limits the clinical significance of any one study, instead helping to shape the current medical literature and informing future studies with larger samples and more careful controls. What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter. — Scientizzle 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: We'll see soon enough, I imagine, whether this holds up. — Scientizzle 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle...I appreciate the homework that you've done here...and our dialogue as well. What is interesting is that these two forthcoming trials have 56 and 40 patients in them. I assume that no one (!) should call the previous CHEST study to be a "pilot" just because it had "only" 50 patients. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[Quote]

Clinical trials are conducted in phases. The trials at each phase have a different purpose and help scientists answer different questions:

In Phase I trials, researchers test an experimental drug or treatment in a small group of people (20-80) for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.

In Phase II trials, the experimental study drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.

In Phase III trials, the experimental study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people (1,000-3,000) to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the experimental drug or treatment to be used safely.

In Phase IV trials, post marketing studies delineate additional information including the drug's risks, benefits, and optimal use.

[End Quote] Source http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand

So if these are phase III trials why would they only be using 56? Are you sure that is not how many they have enrolled to date? And if that is the final number why so small? Re: Pilot study (it was an IP that added that not me), what would you call phase I trials then? David D. (Talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was curious about that, too. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the two "phase III" trials are actually to be held in Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Israel? Maybe ICU-ridden COPD patients are in short supply? Dunno, just speculating. — Scientizzle 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Those of you who are anti-homeopathy feel perfectly OK about including a reference to a commercial product, Head-on, of which you can make fun, and yet, you want to delete out any reference to controlled clinical studies published in peer-review journals? If this isn't chutzpah, what is? And then, you assert that an encyclopedia like wikipedia should not include every use of a substance/medicine!? What happened to NPOV and reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.24.23 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are asking for trouble with such a comment. The anti-homeopathy editors are wanting the whole reference to homeopathy out of this article. For example. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of COPD

The study was returned and described with the edit summary of "This study is notable. See talk page.", but is it? Why is it notable, I see no discussion on this talk page about notability. David D. (Talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be notable to homeopathy (I'd say not), but it isn't notable here. It's a small study that suggests further research may be necessary, but also has some problems that have been discussed on the homeopathy talk page. When studies with these results are the norm rather than the exception they may become more interesting. It does smack of cherry picking too; have there been other studies of this particular preparation? --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be removed --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This study is notable for several reasons: 1) its source of publication (the most respected medical journal on respiratory medicine); 2) its place of study (University of Vienna Hospital); 3) its substantially signficiant results on three important and clinically relevant measures; 4) its worthiness as recognized by the fact that two other research groups are seeking to replicate it and are using a similar subject size; 5) this is not consider a small subject size for this specific ailment, as is noted by the planned replication trials. Let's have someone other than the typical anti-homeopathy people comment here, preferrably an admin. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As the (phase I or II?) study was performed in 2005 and has not achieved a place in standard practice, has had no as-yet published follow-up research, and has received no citations that I have yet found, I don't see this as particularly important. Not yet. Now, that doesn't preclude some mention of it. What type of wording would you suggest? Antelan ^talk 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, leave it out. This isn't Potassium dichromate in homeopathy, this is a general article. Using a pilot study to promote homeopathy here, after lengthy discussion rejected its inclusion in Homeopathy, pointing out serious flaws, is just a WP:COATRACK Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The study has not been rejected for inclusion in Homeopathy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If that article existed, we would merge it here. Nothing wrong with including homeopathic uses, but—as others have said—this study is not notable. Cool Hand Luke 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above points...It's really not the place of an enyclopedia article to catalogue every manner in which a substance has ever been utilized. As there's only been a single primary source about this topic and no completed follow-up, it's really premature to consider this a significant utilization of potassium dichromate. If the further studies pan out, then the issue should be certainly revisisted. — Scientizzle 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The COPD study was referenced by the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA This should end our discussion on the notability of this study. It IS notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than a tad confused that some people here would consider a study published in a major medical journal that was conducted at the University of Vienna and that was cited by the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA to be "non notable," and yet, the HeadOn product is somehow notable. This is silly scholarship, POV pushing, and plain-ole-chutzpah.Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. We could easily cut the HeadOn reference as well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

HeadOn's more a part of culture due to the relentless mocking it's attracted. The "pilot study" is a half page of garbage, however. Delete and destroy. Jefffire (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Friends...Antelan above said that the study in CHEST was not notable because there were no citations to this research, but I corrected him by noting the citations to the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA (I could have included many more citations). RDOLivaw said that this study is not notable because it was a "small" study and Adam C & Jefffire referred to it as a "pilot." And yet, Scientizzle's link to replications studies show that one of them is a smaller study of 40 patients and another is of 56 patients (a similar size as the original study of 50 patients). Clearly, many scientists consider 50 patients with COPD to be a reasonable number to evaluate efficacy of treatment. It is therefore inappropriate and inaccurate to refer to the original trial of 50 patients to be "small" and nowhere in the article does it reference that this original study was a "pilot." I will not revert the editing now myself, though I hope and expect that one of the editors (perhaps even one of the anti-homeopathic ones) will do so.Dana Ullman ^Talk 12:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling a COPD research study that was cited by the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA "garbage" is an example of POV pushing at its worst. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you are incorrect about the NEJM and JAMA. They list this paper as having cited one of their papers, not the other way around NEJM JAMA. Now, moving on to papers that actually cite the one in question: A search netted 7 results. One is 2007 a correspondence to Chest in which an author questions this study, and the study authors reply, pleading for funding.[7] Two are largely discussions of the Lancet meta-analysis. One is an article written in a Cyrillic script that I cannot read. One is an actual research study. Two are discussions that you wrote: a conference report [8] and a letter of correspondence [9] that cited the article in question. None of this is encyclopedia-worthy. Antelan ^talk 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All that matters is that this is a single weak study, not a conclusive report, and not something which has any scientific or medical weight. Reporting on it is undue weight, and not encyclopedic. It goes, and it stays gone, unless it can be justified that this has any weighting in scientific and medical circles. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is NO preset onesizefits all "size" for a medical study. The appropriate size for a study depends on the effect being studied. If the difference between the placebo group and the intervention group is expected to be small, investigators need a larger sample size, etc See Statistical power. Anyway, we are not in the business of peer reviewing this article here; this was done by peer reviewers before it was published in CHEST. Abridged ^talk 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. On the one hand, this paper is peer-reviewed. On the other hand, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers that don't receive mention in Wikipedia. Surely, just because a paper has been published in an archival journal doesn't mean that it deserves mention on Wikipedia. How should we evaluate which ones do? Jefffire has mentioned one (size of study); others include journal quality, impact of the article on the field, citations to the article itself, and follow-up research. I'm with those who don't think this paper passes muster yet; I've documented in detail all of the articles which cite it. Perhaps as more research is done, this paper will grow in importance, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Antelan ^talk 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sample size doesn't cut it as a criteria, please see my comments on sample size above. Chest is a major mainstream medical journal and publication in this journal certainly is notable by wikipedia standards. The reason that this bit is in the article is that a wikipedia editor has put it here. The fact that other peer reviewed papers are not mentioned in the encyclopedia is not a reason not to take this bit out. Abridged ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing homeopathy from mainstream science articles

While the makers of head-on believe this compound to be of note for use in their product, it is my belief that mere mention of homeopathic pseudoscience is probably too much weight in this article. I propose removing the section entirely. I will leave this notice here for comment. Please argue why, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT homeopathy should be mentioned at this article. All other comments will be relegated to their own section. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It may actually be notable for the volume of mockery directed at the silly ads they ran. Just food for thought. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I only found out about those ads via this article, and headon too. I visit EU countries regularly (and live in two), and visit the US/Canada occasionally, and have never heard of this company, product, or ads. I think that although headOn ads may be notable to a US audience, they aren't to the rest of us. They are mentioned on the headOn page, but I see no reason to mention it here. (I realise your suggestion was half in jest though :) )--88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this is an important point. Head-on is notable enough for its own article. But why mention it here in an article on a chemical? Do we mention oscillococcinum in our article on Muscovy ducks? No. And rightly so. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the HeadOn section as it is currently (very short) as it seems to be a major commercial/industrial use of this compound. If it turns out that it is really only a minor commercial/industrial use then drop it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's fairly minor use. If I calculate correctly, the amount of potassium dichromate that this company uses each year could probably be purchased for less than 100 American dollars. There is probably more of the stuff in most academic chemistry department stock rooms than there is in the entire stock of the product. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried by the treatment in Asthma. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of potassium dichromate there. ???ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But a lot of Homeopathy-pushing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As a general principle I agree that mentions of homeopathy should not be inserted into mainstream science articles. I believe this article on potassium dichromate, however, should mention the homeopathic uses since the homeopathic remedy made from this chemical compound is widely used. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think that this makes sense otherwise we would have a mention of homeopathy in the muscovy duck article as I mentioned above. Fringe links should be one-way per WP:FRINGE. We can certainly discuss the claimed "use" of potassium dichromate on the head-on page and link here. But to mention head-on in this page seems is a direct violation of Wikipedia protocol. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant quote from WP:FRINGE: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects." ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a small section, esp since there is a cite from a major mainstream journal (Chest). It is INTERESTING. I do not think there should be mention of any particular brand or propriately formula. The phrase "because of irritant properties" should be removed since there is no mechanism of action that is known. Abridged ^talk 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a journal on chemicals, it's a journal on medicine. As such, it is iteratively irrelevant to this article. Just because something is INTERESTING doesn't mean it deserves to be included. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collect of information after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a section in an article on a chemical compound describing some of the uses of the chemical compound. For a medicinal use, there is a cite from a medical journal. I am not sure why you have a problem with that. I also don't know why you removed my section head as I had three points to make about the section, and only one is relevant to your section head above. This is why I created a new section. Abridged ^talk 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main question is, should the section exist. You are arguing that it should exist, but have failed to deal substantively with the rationales provided why it shouldn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a chemical compound that is also used medicinally in homeopathy. There is every logical reason to include such a section. Repeatedly referring to WP:FRINGE is irrelevant here, except for certain editors' personal POV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd call a content guideline irrelevant here. Can you explain your thinking on this issue? Antelan ^talk 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When something is the subject of a study published in Chest, wp:fringe does not apply. Abridged ^talk 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE should always apply. On some articles, say an article on art, it will be irrelevant (so its application will have no impact). On other articles, its application will have the impact that it is intended to have. Antelan ^talk 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it doesn't apply to this particular case. There is a reasonable cite here. Abridged ^talk 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is in a peer-reviewed article doesn't automatically make it sacrosanct. Pseudoscience does appear in peer-reviewed articles. Fringe applies when the subject is pseudoscience and has nothing to do with the status of the journal in which it appears. In this case, of course, homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the article is published in a reputable journal makes it worthy of consideration for inclusion in this article. Whether or not it should actually be included should be determined on its merits. Again, I've outlined some criteria for determining a study's merits, and I think this one fails here. Antelan ^talk 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps you could outline the criteria you have left after we've eliminted some based on peer review and statistical power, along with the fact that every other paper ever published in a peer reviewed journal is not included in Wikipedia so why should this one be??? HOw is this particular cite from a Chest paper in Wikipedia not notable? THANKS. Abridged ^talk 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained this above, as have others. Antelan ^talk 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've replied to many of them, so perhaps you could nail down what you have left???? Abridged ^talk 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple: there's no verifiable source about potassium dichromate that mentions homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an absurd remark given the Chest cite. Abridged ^talk 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Chest is not a journal about chemicals. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The effects of many chemicals on various chest diseases are subjects of articles in Chest. Abridged ^talk 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But since the chemical isn't found in the homeopathic dilutions, this particular article isn't about the chemical. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is made FROM the chemical. Abridged ^talk 14:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. Jefffire (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent). Yes, actually it is made from the chemical. Read any homeopathy textbook for materials and methods. I agree that flaky fringy stuff should not be cited in Wikipedia, and have never put anything in from a bad source (look at my contrib history if you want to look at the quality of my work; I stand behind it.) But, comeON, this is CHEST. This is as mainstream as you can get and the level of peer review on that journal is OUTSTANDING. YOur objections here are categorical rather than evidence-based. Abridged ^talk 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a weak study, and a crappy piece of science. End of story. Jefffire (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of it's pros or cons, it is a single, small, study and a primary source. This page is not about homeopathy and uses no other primary sources; especially not ones that go against current scientific knowledge. This study is interesting, but it is not scientifically notable; it is only notable in that it is anomalous (and hence warrants further study, probably by a different team). It should not be included here. The whole homeopathic section is a bit weak, a wikilink from remedies that use it to here would be more useful - but it is not notable that homeopaths use this chemical. They use millions of others too --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just chemicals: I've seen reports of homoeopathic provings of everything from antimatter or light from Venus to a shipwreck or the Great Wall of China. If we're going to be consistent we probably need to add a section on homoeopathic use to most of the pages on Wikipedia. Or maybe just remove this one. Brunton (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

these provings were not the subjects of publications in major mainstream journals. I'm giving up here. Abridged ^talk 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where have you seen such riduculous "reports of homoeopathic provings"? It appears you do not even know what provings are. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A "proving" of a homoeopathic remedy is the recording of symptoms reported by healthy volunteers given the remedy in question. What makes you think I don't know this? As for the provings I mentioned, they are all reports from homoeopaths who include the letters "RSHom" after their names, or who can be found in the Society of Homeopaths' list of registered homoeopaths. This makes them pretty much mainstream as far as homeopathy in the UK is concerned and, according to the society's website, means that they have "a thorough understanding and knowledge of homeopathic materia medica and repertory". Brunton (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "science article". It is just an article about a substance, which like any other substance can have scientific and non-scientific aspects to it. Perhaps the technical-sounding name of this substance makes it seem completely different, but just go and take a look at articles on better-known substances for comparison. Silver mentions the fabled use of silver against werewolves, diamond the politics of diamond mining and its use in engagement rings, and salt mentions its use in purification rituals. None of these aspects have anything to do with the chemistry or physics of the substances, but yet they are aspects of human interest that should be included in a comprehensive general encyclopedia. If potassium dichromate is used (or even allegedly used) in homeopathic products that are sold in the real world and used by real people, I see no reason not to mention the use. Briefly, however. Adding an entire section discussing the pros and cons of homeopathy and the recent primary literature could certainly become undue weight. --Itub (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Homeopathic remedies

{{editprotected}} I think this cat should be removed, as this is a chemical not a homeopathic remedy. It may be used in homeopathic remedies (at least in the initial stages), but this chemical is not of itself a homeopathic remedy. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I note it is the only chemical rather than remedy in this category too, hence should be removed. --88.172.132.94 (talk)

Agreed, but the article is currently protected. Jefffire (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the tag for an edit, hope I've done it right --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's that urgent, really. It'll wait for the block to clear. Also, have you considered registering? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not urgent, but since it has nothing to do with the reason of the protection, and is probably uncontroversial, I've done it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate article kalium bichromicum regarding the homeopathic remedy prepared from potassium dichromate. That should remove the confusion. —Whig (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this suggestion. I think such an article would amount to a content fork, and would incorrectly imply that homeopathy uses some specialized form of matter unlike anything known to science. I continue to believe that homeopathic uses should be mentioned here, but that the article should follow reliable sources to state that there's no evidence that potassium bichromate itself does anything when diluted in homeopathic remedies. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. A section of this article can be on the remedy kalium bichromicum, and therefore this article can be relisted in Category: Homeopathic remedies. I don't agree with your POV being necessary to incorporate here, we can link to the Homeopathy article. —Whig (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of Category:Homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy uses a dizzying array of notable compounds and extracts as remedies. Is it really a good idea to have separate articles on Magnesium Phosphoricum and Magnesium phosphate? Should we really create Natrum muriaticum as the homeopathy equivalent of sodium chloride? I think not.

At the same time, would it make sense to tag sodium chloride as a homeopathic remedy (along with countless other compounds and extracts)? No. Let's create a list, with a nice table showing the substance's name, its homeopathy name, and the symptoms the remedy is supposed to cure. This would be many times more helpful than the current category and sorry stubs like Magnesium Phosphoricum. That way, we don't have to have this discussion on umpteen other articles. Cool Hand Luke 07:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the list/chart idea is very good. I think a user had a prototype list that could be used on their talk page. It was linked from the category but has gone now. Maybe this should be discussed on the talk page of that cat or in the homeopathy cat? --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the list would further have the advantage of being an example of the principle of one-way linking in action. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it'd have to be better than that list - easter-egg links as the only way of identifying what the terminology means?! Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it would have to have a good introduction that explains that most of the remedies don't actually contain any of the substances, that there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy, that various homoepaths have wildly differing methods for preparing similarly named remedies and so forth. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a table with headings such as: Scientific name, Homeopathic name, Potency/Dilution (using C/X and ppm or something), Used for (what the homeopaths use it for). This is just a quick idea, better names can be suggested I'm sure. Maybe Homeopathic name should be Homeopathic remedy (in which this substance is used in the preparation of, as a footnote), and then it could be a list of Homeopathic remedies --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "scientific name" we would need a heading like "substance" because sometimes the substance involved is not necessarily "scientific" (like duck liver, for example). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Every dilution below (above??) 12C could be in red with a footnote marker saying that there is none of the substance remaining in the 'dilution', with a link to homeopathy or a short explanation --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I like that idea of listing dilutions, but most preparations are used at all sorts of dilutions. It would be hard to even find a reliable range. I was searching Google books to try to find a list of remedies, and An Introduction to Homeopathic Medicine in Primary Care shows that even a single homeopath picks nil concentrations off by a factor of more than one googol: Author recommends 15 substances be stocked for patient use, "(1) Arnica montana, 30C, 200C; (2) Arsenicum album, 30C..."

Any ideas where we can find a large list? Cool Hand Luke 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cool Hand...I'm a tad confused. Above, you wrote that "there's no evidence that potassium bichromate itself does anything when diluted in homeopathic remedies." How can you say that when this entire discussion is in light of an important study published in the leading pulmonary journal in which this specific chemical in homeopathic doses was used in the treatment of people with COPD? My question to others here: why should there not be a reference to this chemical's use in medicine (whether it be homeopathic or not) and when a leading medical journal has confirmed its effects. At the least, one could say that one double-blind, placebo controlled trial found...and two replication trials are presently in process. Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps you would be less confused if you noted my repeated comments that homeopathic uses should be covered in this and comparable articles. The use is notable, but we should also follow reliable sources and note that the use has never been proven efficacious, ect.

That brings me to your first point. A scarcely-cited preliminary study is undue weight without sources putting it into context. Moreover, even it it were proved, we can be certain that potassium dichromate itself is not responsible. It was diluted as 30C. That means it's absurdly unlikely that any dose contained even a single molecule of the original K2Cr2O7. According to drinking water guidelines, 0.05 mg/L Cr(VI) is allowable. We therefore drink more dichromate every day than we could by consuming all the 30C pills in the world. Whatever the homeopathic remedy purports to do must rely on some mechanism (magic?) beyond the chemical properties of this compound. In other words, "there's no evidence that potassium bichromate itself does anything when diluted in homeopathic remedies." Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can preempt an argument against this: It isn't the dilution that makes it effective. Dilution alone does nothing. You have to shake it while you're diluting to do anything (succussion). Why this makes a difference I don't know. I've never seen any evidence that shaking something while diluting it does anything other than ensure it's mixed up a bit more. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that a good solution would be to state: "one double-blind, placebo controlled trial found...and two replication trials are presently in process." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this is simply one rare study which slipped through the cracks of the peer-review system. The study was low-population, possibly insufficiently randomized (a quick look at the patients showed that the control group was in general worse off prior to the study), and had contradictory information in the subject summary. It's a wonder how it got past the peer-review system, but this just goes to show that nothing's perfect.

But anyways, that's just my analysis of it. What's relevant in the end is the fact that Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source. We report what reliable secondary sources say and sum it up. This study (and any leading off of it) is a primary source. We can't go in and judge its notability or quality ourselves. We have to let secondary sources do that for it. So far, nothing has shown up. The only notable thing we can say about how others judge it is in its citation rate. This has been discussed before on this page, and all we've found are other papers by the same authors, automatic backlinks, and refutations. Net result: We don't have enough reliable, secondary information to judge that this is a worthy study. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First, stop the theorizing about whether there is or isn't molecules of the original substance. Wikipedia is not the place for theorizing. You must provide veriable information...show me your studies published in peer-review journals. And please do not say that this study "slipped through the peer-review" process unless the editors have written a letter of apology acknowledging that it was an error of publication. If you do not understand how the homeopathic process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking) may be different than simple dilution, this ignorance does not change the FACT that the homeopathically prepared dose of potassium dichromate in the 30C potency had a "substantially significant" effect on three clinically relevant measures. That said, Arion's suggestion above is a good compromise. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a study of 50 people. That makes it a Pilot study. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about creating a new list of homeopathic remedies should be centralized at Talk:Homeopathy#List of homeopathic remedies.

Feel free to continue discussing potassium dicromate as a homeopathic remedy in another section. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam...hello there...please reference your definition of a "pilot" study, and make certain to provide a reference to a pilot study of COPD. If you cannot do this, please stop saying this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a phase one study, with few participants, often called a "pilot study". References for such things are not required on talk pages. Please sign your edits. To continue an off-topic discussion, please start a new section as asked above (edit conflict) --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Study?

Adam C. is one of the kings of editors who demands verifiability. Therefore, it is essential that he (or someone) verify how he (or anyone) can call the CHEST study a "pilot" trial. In fact, one of the replication trials is a "Phase III" study Further, here's another citation to this important study...this one is from the journal, Critical Care. Does it work for you if we add to the article here: According to the authors in the journal Critical Care, "Homeopathy, in the form of potassium dichromate, shows promise as a new treatment for excessive tracheal secretions" in COPD patients. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, you do like Pubmed crawls. A few points:

1. A pilot study means a study done with a few people. 50 is a small number. There are also strong questions as to the reliability, as they have treated everyone who was removed from the trial under a Last Observation carried forward scheme, and the vast majority of the control group were - meaning, that, as I understand it - it is in German, after all - they were comparing a control group that had fewer days to recover. That alone raises great doubts about the article's validity.
2. The Critical Care piece is a chatty puff piece, discussing a few trials out of context, and noot written at all like a standard review paper, but more like an upgraded newspaper report. Frankly bizarre-looking.
3. There's something called Cherry-picking. Have a read up on it.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, where in the article does it say pilot study? Has anyone attempted to put this back into the article? It doesn't need a source or verification until someone puts it into the article. I don't know why you object so much to standard nomenclature of a small, preliminary, study being called a pilot study. "Pilot" doesn't mean it's bad, in fact it means it may be providing illumination or showing the way forward. To describe this study as important is over egging things quite a bit, but we can call it what we like on this talk page (without providing citations). Adam is right above, and your obsession with this one study is going a bit far. If you wanted to add the statement that this is a very important study to the article then people would demand citations to back that up, and then debate it. Just having a citation doesn't mean it must be included. Why is it essential that someone respond to your asinine and vexatious requests? Especially since RDOliver already has replied --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First, 88.172, I will not nor should anyone on wikipedia tolerate your offensive remarks above. You may not agree with my point of view (obviously), but I have a legitimate proposed inclusion into this article, and I have made a strong case for its inclusion. Let's make an effort to be respectful. You've been warned. An apology is in order. How can the CHEST study be considered a "pilot" if a replication trial is a "phase 3" trial? Please explain. Further, Adam C, it would be nice if you read the trial. Contrary to your above statement, it is not in German. This is a part of the problem: several of the editors here are viciously against homeopathy and seek to delete reference to it anywhere. Adam, you're an admin, you should maintain high standards on wikipedia. I still insist that you reference why you say that a COPD trial of 50 people is a "pilot" trial. Actually, for this condition, it is a common number, as is evidenced by the two replication trials. This trial is notable because it is in a notable journal, it was conducted in a notable institution, and it has "substantially significant" clinical results in three important measures. Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok Dana, no need to apologise. I'm afraid the trial still isn't notable. Notability isn't transitive, associative, or reflexive --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound dumb here but the paper continually refers to the experiment as a study. So if the paper is not reporting data from a clinical trial how could it be anything but a pilot study for the subsequent clinical trials? I have no idea why anyone would take offense to such a description. As mentioned above pilot does not mean bad, it is a description of its place in the sequence leading to approval. As an aside, do German homeopathic remedies need to go through clinical trials before they go to the market? Or is this being done to prove the efficacy of the remedy? David D. (Talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the article refer to itself as a pilot study, or does another V/RS source describe it as such? —Whig (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the only person who referred to it as a pilot study, as mentioned way above, was an IP. I made the mistake of using with that terminology, as I read in the article, despite the fact it never stayed in the article for long. Dana has been critical of it ever since. Needless to say this has caused some confusion. Firstly, since no one is trying to put the terminology into the article, and secondly, because it is not actually an inaccurate description. Originally I had asked "if it is a pilot study, is this notable?". Whether it is called a pilot study or not, this question is still valid. The study was an early study, possibly the first?, with a low number of participants and preceded clinical trials that are currently recruiting patients. David D. (Talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be stated clearly in the article that this study had the limitations you have described, but it seems to me to meet inclusion criteria. —Whig (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Adam C has asserted that this was a "pilot" trial, even though he seems to have not read the trial (he thinks that it is in German), and his references above to "Last Observation" suggests that he is not reading the study in CHEST. Adam C is a smart guy, but I think that he is too busy on too many subjects that he is not doing justice to this one. For the record, the authors of THIS CHEST article do not refer to it as a "pilot" trial. While large trials are common for certain ailments, they are not common for others. As such, it is not always appropriate or accurate to refer to this COPD trial as a "small trial." Also, this drug, Kali bichromicum (its Latin name) is already a legal homeopathic drug in European, American, and virtually all international markets (I actually do not know a country that doesn't recognize it as a legal homeopathic drug). Yeah...this drug is notable, and the study is too. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got my trials confused, and have scanned and caught up.

First off, the 2005 study says "This is the first scientific study of the effect of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions." It also has a major problem in that the control is at a significantly higher stage of COPD at the start of the trial (1.20, sd .5 vs. 1.08 sd .4) - not good.

There's also a reply to it. Why don't we read it.

doi:10.1378/chest.06-2402 (Chest. 2007; 131:635-636) Treating Critically Ill Patients With Sugar Pills, David Colquhoun, FRS

It surprises me that CHEST would publish an article (March 2005)1 on the effect of a therapeutic agent when in fact the patients received none of the agent mentioned in the title of the article. It is not mentioned in the title, but reading the article reveals that the "potassium dichromate" was a homeopathic C30 dilution. That is a dilution by a factor of 1060, and for those of us who believe in the Avogadro number, that means there would be one molecule in a sphere with a diameter of approximately 1.46 x 1011 m. That is close to the distance from the earth to the sun. To describe this as "diluted and well shaken," as the authors do, is the understatement of the century. The fact of the matter is that the medicine contained no medicine.

The authors1 will doubtless claim some magic effect of shaking that causes the water to remember for years that it once had some dichromate in it. The memory of water has been studied quite a lot. The estimate of the duration of this memory has been revised2 downwards from a few picoseconds to approximately 50 femtoseconds (50 x 10-15 s). That is not a very good shelf life.

It is one thing to tolerate homeopathy as a harmless 19th century eccentricity for its placebo effect in minor self-limiting conditions like colds. It is quite another to have it recommended for seriously ill patients. That is downright dangerous.

(Quoted under fair use)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, It's normal for such a letter to be rebutted by the authors of the original paper, why not in this case? Is there any mention that they refused to comment, or if they did comment, can you post that too. Thanks David D. (Talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record below is the response from Michael Frass, MD; Helmut Friehs, MD and Ilse Muchitsch, PhD David D. (Talk) 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"To the Editor:

We want to thank Dr. Colquhoun for his interest in our study.1 First, the terms used should be defined precisely. Homeopathy is a science based on applied toxicology. Using digitalis either as a conventional or as a homeopathic physician makes no difference; both rely on observations (William Withering 1785) from pharmacology or on homeopathic proof. We are happy that toxicology as well as homeopathic proof have been shown to be reliable and consistent for centuries.

Before I refer to the dilutions beyond the Loschmidt number, it is important to state that homeopathy doses that are equivalent to those of conventional medicine can be administered without any dilution. However, toxic effects should be avoided. If one refuses to use potencies beyond this number, they should simply not be used. Since Dr. Colquhoun assumes that high potencies exhibit no effect at all, then we cannot understand why it should be dangerous to treat critically ill patients additively if there is "nothing" in it. We are also concerned that Dr. Colquhoun questions the value of randomized controlled trials. This opinion appears to be inconsistent with the current position of conventional science.

It is correct that "the medicine contains no medicine"; however, "ultrafast memory loss" in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O implies that at least some sort of memory exists. However, contrary to the study cited,2 potentized drugs are not stored in water, but in an alcohol-water mixture.

I invite Dr. Colquhoun to join our efforts in studying the effects of high potencies on physical properties. We are always open to tolerant, academic-driven scientific cooperation. Let us make a common effort to reveal the riddle for the sake of millions of patients by supporting the Institute for Homeopathic Research, at Interuniversity College. Financial help is appreciated: Account No. 92,178,414, bank code 60,000, IBAN: AT95 6000 0000 92178414, BIC: OPSKATWW."

Also, here's another study on COPD

Rennard et al. Extended Therapy With Ipratropium Is Associated With Improved Lung Function in Patients With COPD, A Retrospective Analysis of Data From Seven Clinical Trials Chest 110 (1): 62. (1996)

"Data were obtained from seven clinical trials in which ipratropium was compared with a Beta-agonist over a 90-day treatment interval. This comprised all the available data from clinical trials performed for registration of ipratropium and included 1,445 evaluable patients. Results of pulmonary function tests were evaluated prior to and after short-term administration of bronchodilator both before and after the 90-day treatment period."

So, seven trials here included 1445 patients. That's over 200 patients per trial. Funny, though, given you claim 50 is normal for COPD trials. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, 50 is small. David D. (Talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam...you're losing your touch and your NPOV...but sadly, with the subject of homeopathy, you seemed to lose your NPOV a long time ago. You purposefully overlooked the response by the authors to that silly letter by David Colquoun that says that homeopathy can't work, so everyone should ignore the statistics and ignore the double-blind, placebo controlled part of the experiment...and heck, ignore science too. The authors were wonderfully diplomatic in blowing David C's shallowness out of the water. As for the differences in the treatment and the control group, there is no (!) statistically significant differences prior to starting...and there were "substantially significant" differences upon completion. As for Adam's reference to this study or that study with 200 subjects, the FACT of the matter is that two replication trials are with 40 subjects and 56 subject respectfully. THAT speaks volumes. Listen and learn. The fact that several strong anti-homeopathy are doing their damnest to keep people from learning about this CHEST study is additional evidence that this study is notable, therefore, it is very scary to them. I say that we should let the reader decide if they consider 50 people small or reasonably sized, and we should describe the study as it was. By the way, the above study with 200 patients is not even listed on the wiki page for that drug; only a study in Japanese on dogs is referenced. Dana Ullman ^Talk 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The above was added with the edit summary, "your POV is showing" Last time I looked there is no rule about not having a POV, I have never hidden my POV. As one of the very few here who supports the inclusion why would you make such a sarcastic comment? Ever heard of the phrase "bites the hand that feeds you"? David D. (Talk) 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has a known anti-Homeopathy POV. However, we shouldn't let reality get in the way of letting each side have its fair say. So what if homeopathy contradicts known chemistry, biology, and (when they're forced to try to explain things) quantum mechanics? That just means you don't understand it well enough! We should just throw it all out anyways, now that we have a small sample-sized, poorly randomized, poorly conducted and reported study which managed to get published. So what if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? There's nothing extraordinary at all about overthrowing large swaths of well-tested science and replacing them with magical thinking. Even if there were, this study certainly is extraordinary. It was published in Chest! Therefore, it must be absolutely perfect, as nothing even the slightest bit bad ever gets by their peer-reviewers. (I apologize for any blown sarcasmeters.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the papers with thorough reviews are not necessarily notable. Being published in a high impact journal does not by definition make a paper notable. It does look good on a resume though (especially to bean counters). Any paper that gets cited a lot starts to move into the realm of notable, including those published in low impact journals. David D. (Talk) 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

David D...my reference to the POV was to Adam C...re-read what I wrote. Now that you are asserting that we should include a summary of this study in CHEST, what do you suggest that we say? My comment to Infophile is simply: I do not think that homeopathy contradicts known chemistry or biology, just as quantum physics doesn't contradict Newtonian physics. Instead, quantum physics extends are understanding of Newtonian physics, especially in extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathic pharmacology helps us understand and benefit from specially prepared extremely small doses (it is not enough to make "small" doses; dilution and vigorous succussion are required...and in glass bottles). Dana Ullman ^Talk 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a mathematical physicist working in the area of QM, I'd have to say your analogy is invalid. Homeopathy does contradict our current understanding of chemical interactions and basic physics. No analogy is required. Newtonian mechanics is a model, which is more or less accurate for describing things around us. QM is a much more accurate model. And Archimedes' model is a much less accurate one. QM helps us to understand things for which NM can't help, but if you model a Newtonian process with QM you get the same answers. There is no contradiction, just limits of validity for the model. Homeopathic dilutions above 12C, including succession (in vitro, if you prefer), are the same as no substance ever being in, according to our present understanding, and should have the same effect (ie the homeopathic effect should be the same as taking nothing). If this is not the case then it does contradict the foundations of chemical physics. I have no problem with you calling it a homeopathic preparation, or even homeopathic dose, but to say it is a small dose is misleading. It is no dose in the standard sense, and has nothing to do with nanopharmocology. I'm glad you are at least using the term homeopathic pharmocology instead now. Also, I don't see where David says that this small, preliminary, study should be included - and I see no concensus for it's inclusion --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who watches the news on TV is probably familiar with their stories reporting "New study shows that X is good for you!" soon followed by another one saying "New study shows that X is bad for you!" X can be anything from fat or protein to chocolate or wine or a certain drug. This is a familiar example of why you cannot trust just one single study, especially if it was small. It can take up to decades of multiple studies and meta-analyses to really be sure, especially for controversial topics. Therefore I understand the worry about discussing in a tertiary source such as Wikipedia a recent small study that has not been replicated. It does look like undue weight to me. --Itub (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, consensus seems to be clearly against including mention of this study. Can we drop it now? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS. This looks like a good study to me. I can just see the abstract on my university's on line system, but am going to get a printed copy over the next few days. The trial looks like it was powered to see a difference, did see a differnce in outcomes commonly examined in pulmonary studies. It was published in a Major mainstream journal. There is no reason to say this can't be cited. Abridged ^talk 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is perfectly true if you ignore all the reasons that have already been given ad nauseum. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS, concurring with Abridged. It may be a small study, and if so should be characterized accordingly, but it meets inclusion criteria and notability is obvious since it is noted in major journals. WP:NOTABILITY doesn't even seem to be applicable, as that pertains to suitability of TOPICS for inclusion. —Whig (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the usual uncritcal homeopathy-promoters want it included, everyone else thinks it has major problems, and, as just one study, should be left out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• reply to INFOPHILE: Which ones? That it is a "crappy" study? Not a scientific term. That it is "too small" or a "pilot" study? I believe Adam was incorrect to use that terminology. There is no such thing as "One size fits all" for a clinical trial. It depends on the endpoints being looked at and the expected differences between groups. The study is not a "primary source"---that would be the data themselves used to generate the results. The study is a "secondary source" and there is nothing wrong with using it in an encyopedia. We should couch the language appropriately, but no one has given any valid reason for not including this. Please let me know exactly what you are talking about if I have not covered it above. The point about the groups being different at baseline could be valid; I haven't seen the paper yet (have it on order), but suspect it would not have passed peer review if there were significant differences between the intervention and placebo groups at baseline. Abridged ^talk 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a long post on this over at Talk:Homeopathy, where we're having much the same discussion. Couldn't recall at first whether it was here or there, but I'll just go ahead and repost it now:

Okay, here's the problem with using scientific papers as primary sources: Even though you can easily report what the study says, what you can't judge is what it means. Scientific studies are done and come out by the barrelfull. By chance alone, 1 in 20 studies will show a statistically significant effect even when there is none (and another 1 in the 20 will show a significant effect in the other direction). Publication bias then leads to these significant studies being significantly more likely to appear in journals. Add on top of that that for subjects like this, the proponents are notoriously sloppy with design, and in the end you end up with a number of studies that show positive effects rivaling those that show no effect (the exact ratio depends on many factors, including what quality of journal you look at).

What this means is that you can't look at a single study to judge whether something like Homeopathy works. Even if the study seems to have been designed perfectly, shows a large effect, and has a large sample size, you still can't judge from one alone. You have to allow other, independent scientists to attempt to replicate the results. Remember cold fusion? Seemed awesome at first, but failed replicability.

Over the history of homeopathy, there have been hundreds of studies performed. It would be idiotic for us to discuss all of them. What makes sense is for us to go one level up, to look at reliable summaries of these studies. So instead of relying on individual studies, we look at meta-analyses and reviews. That is, rather than discussing what every single primary source says, we go to the secondary sources and discuss what they say. When the discussion leads us to want to zoom into specifics, we cite primary sources that argue a particular point, granted, but this does not mean that every primary source is automatically deserving of a mention. There is nothing in particular about the study you're putting forward that merits it particular mention - save perhaps as a notable failure of the peer-review process (though we can't put that in until it's notable and some secondary source has reported on it).

Also, studies like this are considered primary sources according to Wikipedia policy:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

--Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The results section (ie presentation of data) is a primary source, but when you have an introduction conclussions and discussion it becomes a seconary source because that includes ANALYSIS. I don't think there is any claim here that homeopathy in general works. We are just citing one study on a remdy made from this compound. it is interesting and encyclopedic. I don't have a problem with including it. Abridged ^talk 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. The policy is quite clear that the whole thing is a primary study. You need an entity separate from the author to comment on it to make it a secondary source. Also, take note of what else I said about including mention of individual studies. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is NO CONSENSUS to include this pilot study. Get over it. Reply to the points raised or go away. Don't just say "I think it should go in" and repeat the same flawed "reasons". Saying the same thing over and over isn't engaging in debate, it's just childish and annoying (3 edit conflicts) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the policy is crystal clear, but it is just semantics. I've read what you said above, and am backing off because I'm tired of fighting a losing battle, but I don't agree. Abridged ^talk 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary source in FASEB J.

<added a break here for clarity>

Infophile has now insisted upon a secondary source for this article. Now, let's see what he does with what he has requested. The FASEB Journal is a high-impact science journal...and here's that secondard source. [10]. Good, now, can we move on. I propose the following statement: One study with 50 patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were given a 30th potency of potassium dichromate (in Latin, Kali bichromicum) or a placebo. This study was published in a highly respected medical journal and conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. It found substantially significant clinical effects in tracheal discharges, intubation rates, and length of stay in the hospital, though replication studies by independent parties are necessary before truly definitive statements can be made (such replication trials are presently in process). Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We were already aware of that rather pathetic "right to reply" piece. It should be left out, per all the arguments above that haven't been answered and wikipedia policy. Dana, please stop pushing stuff you've written - it makes you look arrogent and egotistical (and goes close to CoI) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this appears to be a response by Dana Ullman to this, the last page of which does portray him in a highly negative manner. This would give him a right to reply, which they would duly publish, but does not, presumably, mean Ullman's letter should be considered peer reviewed or supported by FASEB. It is responded to here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this falls under original research, Dana. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I purposefully chose to not defend or respond to the FASEB editor's reference to me from a popular magazine because of the misinformation that this non-academic publication provided. My reference to my writings in FASEB on the TALK page is not COI...and in fact, my writing in FASEB provided evidence of a secondary source in a high-impact journal. Whether it went through the peer-review process or was simply worthy enough to be accepted by the editor, it is noteworthy. I am careful to not reference them in any article. It is interesting that my response provided reference to several clinical trials, while the editor's response to me was embarrassing for it ignored the research and instead only made reference to the "experience" of homeopaths. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some context is important here. While the letter was published in a high impact journal, your commentary was also dismissed by the same high impact journal. What is your response to that? David D. (Talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A right-to-reply letter is not held to the same standards as articles and editorials. If I have a letter published in The Times I can't go around saying I'm a journalist and The Times agrees with my opinions just because they published my letter. It's just a letter! It is in no way noteworthy (except that you got a rather funny rebuttal). --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I also think you can get into trouble for saying your a published author in a journal when you have only written letters. This is called misrepresentation, and if you were to put such a claim in your CV and then got a job based on that CV, you would be guilty of fraud. I'm not accusing you, just informing you with a hypothetical --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Frass/CHEST paper notability

Regarding the quality of this paper published in CHEST, I did a quick look on Web of Science and found that it currently shows no citations for this paper. This is actually strange since according to the discussion above at least three letters to the editor in various journals do cite this paper. I then looked at all the papers by M Frass in 2005 (a total of 15) and found that nine others of these had not been cited and the other five had twenty citations between them. The most cited has had nine citations to date:

Schaumann N, Lorenz V, Schellongowski P, Staudinger T, Locker GJ, Burgmann H, Pikula B, Hofbauer R, Schuster E, Frass M: Evaluation of Seldinger technique emergency cricothyroidotomy versus standard cricothyroidotomy in 200 cadavers. Anesthesiology 102. 7-11.2005;

However, of those nine citations, two were correspondence to Anesthesiology criticising the paper and one a reply from Frass. Below is a flavor of the letters that appeared in Anesthesiology to criticise the paper.

Cricothyroidotomy: Do Not Compare Small Apples to Big Oranges

Anesthesiology - Volume 103(3), September 2005, p 667

Dulguerov, Pavel M.D., P.D.*; Gysin, Claudine M.D.

• Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. pavel.dulguerov@hcuge.ch

To the Editor:— ............ Finally, it is surprising that in a randomized study, the cadavers were significantly heavier and with larger necks in the surgical group. Stating that “the differences in weight and circumference of the neck were not clinically relevant” is either frivolous or represent a misunderstanding of the risk factors for this operation.

In conclusion, this study, which seems exemplary at first glance, suffers from major methodologic flaws. Doubling of the failure rates should be an obvious reason to prefer a procedure, especially when a failure for cricothyroidotomy means a probable death for the patient. Overlooking these data and basing the conclusion on the duration of the procedure seems bewildering. Furthermore, these delays (time to tube insertion and time to first ventilation), although seeming objective, are somewhat subjective because they were performed by an unblinded and hopefully unbiased observer.

Surgical Cricothyroidotomy Technique

Anesthesiology - Volume 103(3), September 2005, pp 667-668

Richard J. Price, F.R.C.A.

Schaumann et al. are to be congratulated on their large and detailed study on cricothyroidotomy techniques.[1] However, the suggestion that their results favor the Seldinger technique as a method of inserting a surgical airway is misleading. The control technique used was inappropriate; the airways used were not comparable, and uncuffed narrow bore tubes may not be suitable as emergency airways. The clinical applicability of the study is therefore limited. The authors did not discuss these deficiencies in their article.

............

Surgical Cricothyroidotomy Technique

Anesthesiology - Volume 103(3), September 2005, p 668

Frass, Michael M.D.*; Schaumann, Nikolaus M.D.; Lorenz, Veit M.D.

• Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. michael.frass@meduniwien.ac.at

In Reply:— ....... We are concerned about the authors' use of the aggressive terms of “frivolous” and “misunderstanding.” Having performed more than 500 cricothyroidotomies in corpses ourselves, we are sure that a mean difference of 1.6 cm in neck circumference is not clinically relevant. If someone has performed more cricothyroidotomies in corpses, we are ready for discussion. ........

Again, we thank both readers for their valuable comments and helpful criticism. However, we cannot agree that the clinical applicability of our study is limited.

Not all papers published in notable journals are notable. Of those that are notable, it could be due to the break through science or more for its notoriety. Even Frass, who has a prolific publication record, does not appear to attract much attention from his peers. And the little he does get appears to be from critical letters to the editor. To have most of your papers with zero citations would suggest his research is not particularly notable in his own field. At present this potassium dichromate article in CHEST does not appear to be very notable. This may change when the results from an independent phase III clinical trial are finished.

In summary, I think it is premature for wikipedia to be citing this paper as it is currently uncited and from an author who does not appear to be notable within his own field. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the fact of being published in Chest does not immediately make an article notable. According to medline there are at least 27,000 other articles that Chest has published; should they all be quoted in Wikipedia articles that are relevant to them? The article in Chest clearly has some methodological deficiencies, including an imbalance between the control and treatment group at baseline. Whilst this was not statistically significant that is not the same as saying it could not have influenced the outcome. I think a rational argument to determine a papers "notability" would be if it has had an influence on clinical practice. No Intensive Care Unit I am aware of uses homoepathic potassium dichromate to manage secretions in intubated patients; there is no reference to it in any published ICU guidelines; I have never heard the paper mentioned in any discussion of the literature. It has had no discernible impact upon clinical practice and cannot therefore be considered "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.23.100 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Frass/CHEST paper notability (2)

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references on wikipedia to studies in peer-review journals that are a lot less respected that CHEST. The official publication of the American College of Chest Physicians. This study was conducted at the University of Vienna. This study is so notable that TWO separate groups of researchers are presently planning to replicate it...and despite some editors asserting that this study was "small," the two replication trials are planning to use a similar number of patients (obviously, using 50 COPD patients is a reasonable number) This study is further notable due to the substantially significant results that were observed in the treatment of a condition that is the #4 reason that people in the US die today. This study is notable and should be a part of this article. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The journal is notable, yes. Why does having two groups replicate it make this study notable? I note you're using replicate in it's correct scientific sense here, unlike in your poor criticisms of notable TV experiments. Anyway, back to the point: this is one study, we don't know yet why it found as it did. Was it due to some unknown homeopathic effect, methodological flaws, inherent bias, small sampling, or just one of those random flukes that you often get? This is why in clinical studies like this need replication, by different groups, using similar or even very different methodologies, is so important. As yet, there is no external support for this study. Let's wait until there is. Occam's razor is again an important principle here. Note that this is an inherent problem with this kind of clinical study, especially where no mechanism of action is known, and that is why meta-analysis are so important. You should read up about it, it's very interesting. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[response to dana] I'd say we have come full circle. Above I wrote: "Being published in a high impact journal does not by definition make a paper notable. It does look good on a resume though (especially to bean counters). Any paper that gets cited a lot starts to move into the realm of notable, including those published in low impact journals.". Asserting it is notable does not make it so, however, this does not stop it becoming notable in the future. When that time comes it will be appropriate for wikipedia. Currently you need to realise that wikipedia is not a crystal ball and your reasoning for this paper being notable is original research. David D. (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Dana, did you miss the section you copied the title of? Have a look, it makes good points that you fail to address in your assertion that isn't backed by evidence --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We've already thoroughly discussed this. You've made no new arguments here that bear responding to. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, go back and address arguments already made against your position - or even possibly consider that in this one case, your position might be wrong. The fact that you seem to be arguing against consensus is a good indicator of that possibilit. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the other views expressed here: you haven't shown why this study should be included, and you haven't answered any of the arguments raised against inclusion. Do you think these objections will just go away if you start a new section and ignore them? --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If and when people review the above dialogue, it may be helpful to know that DrEightyEight, RDOlivvaw, and 88.172.132.94 are all found to be socks of user:Unprovoked. The "chorus" against this COPD study only seemed to be a chorus. DanaUllman^Talk 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana has of course forgotten David D and Infophile, so that would be a chorus of three. Add Baegis and me and it's five. Add also that Dana did not address David D concerns at all, and that he is now using the socks as excuse for continuing to not address them, and we have a user that will still continue to push is currently pushing the same non-notable study at the first opportunity right now, probably on another talk page where the study was never mentioned on a talk page where it has been discussed on 5 different sections above this one, without mentioning these problems totally ignoring all the comments pointing at these problems and now pointing to sock posts to still avoid to address the valid points by other editors, just like he did with Cazin and Linde studies god, this actually almost qualifies as worse than that.

P.D.:This is just civil POV-pushing and avoiding consensus, discussion and compliance of source's notability requirements --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that six - I'm still waiting for Dana to adequately respond to some perfectly valid criticisms of the Frass study that he refused to consider on the grounds that they'd originally been published on a blog, and that the authors of the paper had responded to an entirely different criticism.[11] Brunton (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for including the Frass/CHEST study appear to be sound. I would appreciate anyone explaining the rationale for excluding this study. Anyone? Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, thats a bad Dana and Arion. At this point, it doesn't matter if they are socks. Other editors clearly have a problem with including the study. Until those are addressed, attacking these since blocked editors really isn't helping your position. And Arion, please let's not go following Dana around blindly and agreeing to changes he is advocating. It is not a flattering trait. Baegis (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of something being "not a flattering trait" - that charge that I am following Dana around is not only wrong - but very unconstructive. I currently have 227 articles on my watchlist. When there is a change on any one of those, I take note of it. I await your apology. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, it seems that you too suffer from following me around. Please remember that pendulums swing both ways. And why do you say that Arion is "blind"? That is not AGF, especially in the light of the STRONG evidence that this study is significant, notable, and with substantial results:

Reasons that the CHEST study should be included:

--published in the leading journal on pulmonary medicine in the world conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital;

--substantially significant results in several objective clinical measures: 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]).

--the number of patients used in the study is a common number for treating patients with COPD (the two studies that will replicate this trial are using very similar numbers of patients).

--this study is notable enough that two different groups of university researchers are planning to replicate this important study [12]

--critics assert that the treatment group and the control group were not similar, though the table that compares the groups notes no statistically significant differences between the groups; while there were some differences between the groups, such differences do not explain the substantial improvements in the homeopathic treatment group or the lack of improvement in the placebo group.

--the only published critique of this study [13] did not question the quality of the design nor questions the minor differences between the treatment and the control groups. Unless critics can provide RS and secondary sources of why this study isn't notable, the evidence above suggests that it is. DanaUllman^Talk 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did you just restate arguments from over three months ago, ignoring all the discussion on them in the meantime? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(to Dana)I refuse to rehash old details with you Dana. Absolutely refuse to do it again. That being said, I will quote use a quote from Infophile for my only response to this:

We've already thoroughly discussed this. You've made no new arguments here that bear responding to. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, go back and address arguments already made against your position - or even possibly consider that in this one case, your position might be wrong (from 30 January, 2008)

'Nuff said. Baegis (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, I have read the weak critiques of this study, and I do not consider them adequate. For instance, the critique that this study is not "notable" is a joke because two universities are presently planning to replicate it (how could it NOT be notable if THAT is happening?). Based on my summary of the RS and notability of this study (and its substantial results), I think that you are stonewalling...and you are giving the Arb Committee good evidence that you will not accept any positive evidence on homeopathy. I would think that you would want to show good faith now. Let's work towards consensus on what should be said about this important study. DanaUllman^Talk 05:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(to Dana)I refuse to rehash old details with you Dana. Absolutely refuse to do it again. That being said, I will quote use a quote from Infophile for my only response to this:

We've already thoroughly discussed this. You've made no new arguments here that bear responding to. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, go back and address arguments already made against your position - or even possibly consider that in this one case, your position might be wrong (from 30 January, 2008)

'Nuff said, again. Baegis (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana wrote, "Unless critics can provide RS and secondary sources of why this study isn't notable..."(my emphasis). I hope that this doesn't mean that you are still refusing to consider the perfectly valid criticisms of the article that were raised on Respectful Insolence[14]. May I remind you that this is a talk page, not an article, and also draw your attention to WP:IAR? We need to be considering criticisms of a paper that is proposed for inclusion on their merits, not on where they were published, if we are to properly assess the paper Brunton (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very interesting how the best response to the serious question I posed is reference to a known "skeptic" who enjoys skewering alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine. The level of his comments can be seen in his "Holy homeopathy, Batman! Does this study mean that homeopathy actually works for critically ill patients in the ICU? Not so fast there, Robin. Let's take a look." Very serious evaluation of the study, indeed!! Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not look at the actual criticisms of the paper, in particular about the small numbers and the apparent differences between the groups, rather than the editorialising? Brunton (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at his so-called "criticisms" and disagree. Anyone can look at any research study on any subject in existence and use the argument: "If only there were more participants in the study, the results would be different." What a profound analysis! What can you expect from someone who starts their discussion with ""Holy homeopathy, Batman!" Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion, at this point, I'm seriously starting to think you're a troll, and that we should all stop feeding you and just ignore you. I've poked around your studies. You seem to be considered annoying and trollish. On pretty much Every. Single. Page. you edit, from Intelligent design to Potassium dichromate to Francis Bacon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack against another editor does not constitute constructive discussion to improve an article. How does this help improve the Potassium dichromate article? Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument is still going on? Unbelievable. A single study that showed a possible effect of one treatment in a narrow treatment group with no as-yet-even-started follow-up trials merits mention in an encyclopedia article? No. Not if it's homeopathy or an experimental evidence-based medical treatment, doesn't matter. This treatment modality will have no effect upon medical consensus until it is validated by future prospective trials with greater controls and larger treatment groups--apparently coming. Furthermore, while CHEST is a perfectly good specialized journal, the fact that this publication has not been cited by any other research papers (citations do include several editorials & letters, including criticisms from David Colquhoun and the familiar fare from Dana Ullman, and self-citation from the study authors) means that this publication has had no noticable impact on the field. Until then, K₂Cr₂O₇ as a medical treatment for COPD-ventilator symptoms is decidedly fringe.

Finally, it's clear that consensus is decidedly against inclusion, so can we all drop this? I will be willing to consider changing my position if/when future research validates the results and it becomes medically relevant. — Scientizzle 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more than a tad ironic that Shoemaker criticizes Arion for having wide interests and for editing on various articles, while at other times, he criticizes pro-homeopathy editors as a "single-purpose account." Shoemaker is not AGF, and worse, he is being offensive to an editor who is wanting to discuss issues, not make personal attacks. And isn't it interesting that Brunton points to a "website" for criticisms of the CHEST article!? Are we now allowing non-peer-review websites of skeptics to be considered RS? Eeeeks, what has this world come to? Brunton also erroneously criticizes the "small numbers" in this trial, and yet, if these numbers for a COPD trial are small, then, why are the two follow-up trials using similar numbers of patients? Why are editors here thinking that they are a more reliable source and NPOV than the leading pulmonary medicine journal in the world? My only additional comment is that this dialogue will show the Arb Committee how some editors stonewall information. To achieve consensus, we can link to Colquhoun's letter...as well as Frass' reply to it. Both letters are online. Finally, while discussion of this study may not be appropriate for the article on homeopathy, it is totally appropriate for THIS article on THIS homeopathic medicine. DanaUllman^Talk 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I have several comments...

• CHEST is a good journal. Its stats, though clearly don't make it the "the leading pulmonary medicine journal in the world", just a very good pulmonary medicine journal. Overstating the case for research is one of the things you've been criticized for doing, so please cut the hyperbole.
• WP:RS isn't relevant for talk page discussions. I could link to my own personal website or catsthatlooklikehitler.com in the talk page if I felt it was germane to the discussion. The link that you're criticizing is clearly germane to the discussion of this study, even if there's no way I'd allow it to be used as a source in this article.
• Criticizing others for stonewalling/anti-NPOV/non-AGF whilst continually hammering away at including this study, when there is a clear consensus against, is precisely what the current ArbCom thing is all about. Is it not stonewalling to refuse to give in on a lost point?
• Many valid criticisms of the paper have been presented in this forum and elsewhere, but they only inform the actual reality: this treatment is not a current medical reality because it has only passed step one of process towards becoming a useful modality. Science and medicine absolutely require controlled replication of results in order to move beyond the speculative and intriguing into the relevant and applicable. The forthcoming replications (even if they don't improve on the numbers issue) are necessary, as I wrote above, before this is taken out of the fringe realm. Until then, in my opinion, this is not a notable use for this compound. — Scientizzle 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, "Chest" is the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians, and I'm glad that we both agree that it is at the very least one of the leading pulmonary medicine journals in the world. And thanx for telling that I am allowed to reference websites and non-RS sources on the Talk pages. Your comments are ironic in the light of the fact that some other editors assert that I am referencing unreliable sources, such as peer-review journals, when you recommend that I simply source websites of individuals. As for the NOTABILITY of this medicine, the chemical about which THIS article is focused, is also a homeopathic medicine (we all agree upon this point). As such, it is totally appropriate to mention that homeopathic physicians use this medicine as a treatment for COPD and that one study published in a major medical journal has shown efficacy of treatment using this medicine. I do not propose saying that this is a regular treatment used in conventional hospitals (thus, I agree with your statement about this "treatment is not a current medical reality"...though personally, this is not the best way to say what you mean...but I think we both know what you mean). I am simply recommending that we make reference to the fact that homeopathic physicians use this chemical for patients with COPD and there is at least one study that shows that it is effective in reducing tracheal secretions from the throat and reducing the length of stay in a hospital. Does THAT work? DanaUllman^Talk 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, just to clarify: non- or quasi-RS sources are in no way prohibited from use in talk page discussions as long as they're sufficently relevant; I don't recommend using them, particularly if there are better alternatives, I just note that there's rule against it--frankly, it's a case-by-case deal (Orac actually approaches the lower levels of WP:RS, in my opinion, but not quite there). Understandably, there's often a greater burden on the side of those who whish to include something, thus a corresponding necessity of more, higher-quality supporting evidence, too.

As for CHEST, I'm glad we can all agree that it's a good journal, and I hope we can leave the overselling behind. It's still only a single study, and I would be similarly conservative if it was published in Nature and had nothing to do with homeopathy.

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.^[ref]" statement). — Scientizzle 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Scientizzle for making this effort. However, I just did some random searches on other health topics, and I found that it was COMMONPLACE (!) for other articles on wikipedia to describe the results of a SINGLE study and to reference to it. For instance:

-- Single studies on the use of an herb, butterbur, in the treatment of migraines and in the treatment of hayfever:[[15]] (only 1 study for each condition is referenced)

Reference to a single study by Ernst on adverse events from the treatment of acupuncture: [[16]] (only 1 study is referenced)

Reference to single studies on the use of calendula to speed wound healing and to prevent rashes from radiation therapy: [[17]] (only 1 study for each condition is referenced)

My point here is why is it that you and other editors here are requiring multiple studies on a single medicine, when editors at many other articles consider it notable enough if a single study was published in a peer-review journal. By the way, if you haven't read the CHEST study yet, it is available here [18]. I would think that saying this homeopathic drug has been "investigated to treat COPD symptoms" would be appropriate if the results were somewhat minor or insignificant, but in this study, the results were substantially different between the treatment and the placebo group. That said, I think that we should make it clear that this was the result of one study and that two other studies are presently planned to confirm these surprising results. DanaUllman^Talk 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I don't edit those other articles. (Perhaps I should.) If I did, I assure you that I would be similarly conservative in claims of medical efficacy. Secondly, the results of this study are "somewhat minor or insignificant" because it's a single publication with no impact on relevant literature investigating a small treatment group using an implausible treatment with major methodological issues. (Woah. Deja vu.) A great P value does not overcome the need for external verification. As I said, I am okay with a mention of the use of this compound in homeopathic remedies. However, it is, IMO, a violation of WP:UNDUE (and scientifically irresponsible) to give this study any substantive attention before its time, which will follow after independent replication.

And this is the last time I'll say this: It's 100% clear that consensus is against inclusion. If you continue harping on this, you're doing exactly what others want you to stop doing. — Scientizzle 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, when those studies are finished, and if they back up this anomoly that a homeopathic drug worked, then everything will be properly referenced. Bring it back up after they are finished. Any timeline on that? And again Dana, I have to remind you that the consensus is that the study, as it stands, is not notable for inclusion. It would show great personal growth if you were able to concede, if but only this one time. Baegis (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Look, Dana. Your examples fall into two groups. The first is Butterbur andCaledula, and can simply be dealt with: Finding that a couple of fairly awful articles are poorly sourced doesn't mean that this rather good one should get just as badly sourced.

As for acupuncture: The acupuncture study was not a medical trial to study effectiveness of a treatment: it was a survey to discover common minor side effects of acupuncture. Even then, it was done with eight times more patients than the study you sought to look at - sixteen if you include that this type of study doesn't need a control group (and what WOULD you use for a control, anyway?), and with about 9 complete repetitions of the full study procedure (that is, being given acupuncture) on each patient. This is a FAR BETTER study than the one you propose. It is also directly relevant to the topic - side effects of acupuncture are things that would normally be included in an article on acupuncture by default, and this survey helps put approximate percentages on the side effects.

You, however, want to add a homeopathic study to an article - not on homeopathy, but on a chemical compound. Unlike the Ernst acupuncture study, it is therefore not immediately relevant - if you looked up acupuncture in an encyclopedia, you might expect to find side-effects briefly described. If you looked up potassium dichromate, you would probably not expect to find preliminary studies on homeopathic uses. The acupuncture study reaches definite conclusions which are not surprising, and in line with what would be expected. The study you suggest makes claims which, to be true, would overthrow standard medical thinking - which we are specifically warned to watch out for by wikipedia policy. As it is a preliminary study, done with only a smallish number of people, it is not the extraordinary source that Wikipedia requires for an extraordinary claim. Your comparison is invalid. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a large (!) number of herbs mentioned here [19] give reference to the efficacy of an herb in treating a condition and to which only one reference is provided. I think that we should avoid a double standard for evidence. Please note that some people assert that homeopathic claims, if true, would "overthrow" standard medical thinking, while a larger number of people (including myself) simply assert that homeopathy, if true, would do to medicine what quantum physics did for Newtonian physics: quantum physics didn't disprove Newtonian physics but extended our knowledge and our ability to predict extremely small and extremely large system. Likewise, homeopathy would not necessary disprove conventional medicine; it would simply extend our knowledge of the application of extremely small doses. (please excuse this over-simplification of these more complex issues) DanaUllman^Talk 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so articles are in varying states of completion. That a poorly-sourced article exists is a reason to fix or challenge the sourcing of that one, not to lower standards in a separate article. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - it isn't our place to speculate here about the complete rewriting of medicine, chemistry, and physics in favour of homeopathy, and analyse policy in that light: as science stands now, Homeopathy comes under WP:REDFLAG, and will until the major scientific revolution starts to happen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to have pointed out one rather important thing. The Frass paper was not really a trial in COPD. It is a very strange paper to have chosen if you want to show that homeopathy has been found to treat COPD. In the Frass paper, and yes Dana I have read it before we head off down another detour, studied patients in an ICU for reasons that are not specified in the paper. Let me illustrate this by asking you, Dana, one question- Tell me why Frass's were patients in the ICU and how were their main clinical problems distributed between the treatment groups? The presence of COPD in some of those patients was just a co-factor of unknowable importance. COPD is not even in the title of the paper, just a mention of a proxy end-point. The proxy end-points to their study are rather remotely connected to the actual clinical problem of COPD. If you want to discuss K Dichromate as a treatment for COPD, find us a well-designed study where COPD is the main clinical problem being addressed. Can we put away the execrable Frass paper once and for all? OffTheFence (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised, even shocked, that you and some other editors are stonewalling this important study. The "Inclusion criteria" for this study was "a documented history of tobacco use and COPD for at least 10 years before acute deterioration" at which time they were admitted to the University of Vienna Hospital's ICU. Based on this inclusion criteria, your above statement is mute. Further, these patients were so sick that extubation was impossible due to the profuse tenacious string tracheal secretions, and yet, this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found that those patients given this homeopathic medicine experienced substantially significant improvements in various parameters. In addition, their hospital stay reduced by over 45% (7.68 days vs. 4.20 days). When you consider that COPD is the #4 reason that people in the US die, this is a serious ailment. Why editors wish to block this potentially useful information from others is a serious problem. I sincerely hope that you show good faith and finally admit that this information is notable and worthy of reference in the article. DanaUllman^Talk 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, the assertion that I have not been showing "good faith" by failing to "finally admit that this information is notable and worthy of reference in the article" is completely inappropriate. — Scientizzle 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, first, I didn't mention you as having bad faith. In fact, YOU have been open to including it (thank you). Previously, you wrote that you wanted to include reference to this trial but didn't want to include any description of the results of the study. Please clarify your objection to including these results. Please note that some editors have described this study as "small," and yet, I have shown that this study was not "small" for a trial on patients with COPD (as is evidenced by the two follow-up studies having similar numbers). Also, can you express your reasons why you think that this study is notable? Perhaps, some of the other editors can hear you better than they hear me. DanaUllman^Talk 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made my replies to Dana here. I've also made this change to the article, which everyone should review. If you've any comments about this change, please start a new topic. — Scientizzle 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow...now I'm really confused. Did I miss something? Where was the consensus here on adding the Head-on product? By the way, Scientizzle, you and I previously developed consensus on the Chest paper here [20]. And more recently, you agreed to make reference to the fact that a study was conducted on patients with COPD.[21] Your position seems to ebbing and flowing and is getting confusing. You also previously asserting that the Chest study didn't verify "medical relevance." I'm not totally clear what you mean by that, though one would assume that a 45% reduction in the hospital stay of patients with this extremely common and extremely serious disease would be very medically relevant. Is there some wiki-policy about which I don't know that references "medical relevance" or is this primarily your own definition for a requirement here. I hope you realize that this dialogue is evidence for the Arb committee of the difficulties that homeopathic articles experience. DanaUllman^Talk 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Sweet Jesus. The study is NOT GOING TO BE INCLUDED!!! Why can't this sink in? You have done this on every single freakin' article you ever edit. It is not going to go in. If you insist on continuing down this line of argument, I am going to archive this discussion, because it is past the point of discussion and now toeing on the line of blatant disruption of the WP:Point variety. Period, full stop. Baegis (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone needs it to be clarified, Dana is insisting that we consider a paper which gave unconscious patients a single remedy. There was no opportunity for the homeopath to ask the patients how much they loved their pony when they were eight years old or whether they liked vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce or strawberry sauce, or whether their left ear itched when they sneezed or any of the other elements of the history-taking ritual that they are meant to go through. This will be relevant should we ever come across a certain editor objecting to the inclusion of the high-quality trials of homeopathy that are negative but which also have often prescribed only one remedy variety to the participants. As a separate issue, it is quite fascinating to see the ways that the Frass paper ellides the fact that the remedy under consideration is homeopathic and contains no actual molecules. The title neglects to say that the test material was homeopathic. It says that "Potassium dichromate is a drug that is commonly used in homeopathy for treatment of profuse, stringy, tenacious tracheal secretions." Now that's a bit tricky. I think in some jursidictions it would actually be illegal to describe a homeopathic preparation as a drug, but by calling it a "drug" here the facts are gently smothered. "The aim of this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the influence of potassium dichromate". Well, no. it was to evaluate the effect of sugar pills onto which had been evaporated some solvent that at a prior stage in its processing had once met some Potassium Dichromate moieties. I'm sure this is all accidental and not at all intended to give the paper a sheen of pharmacological normality. Perish the thought. It is a moot point (that's 'moot' not 'mute', Dana) whether the scrutineers of this paper would have held it to slightly different standards of quality had they been better reminded of what was being tested. Perish that thought as well, scrutineers of major journals never do a half-assed job on a trivial paper. I shall AGF of them and infer that they must have been drunk when they read it. OffTheFence (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Head On

I have no problem with Scientizzle adding that little bit about homeopathy into the article. I think it's a little much, per WP:UNDUE but if it will keep the piece, I am all aboard. Referencing Head On is a good idea because I am sure we are all familiar with the product and their commercials. Baegis (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)