Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Homeopathy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

National Council Against Health Fraud

How notable are they? Whig 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears this is an organization run by Stephen Barrett, MD. His credentials have already been questioned above. Would someone please verify that he is a reliable source. Whig 18:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of this organisation have been cited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Tim Vickers 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jarvis WT (1999). "Quackery: the National Council Against Health Fraud perspective". Rheum. Dis. Clin. North Am. 25 (4): 805–14. PMID 10573757.

Prominent members of the council have also published studies on alternative medicine in JAMA, a highly-prestigious medical journal.

Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S (1998). "A close look at therapeutic touch". JAMA. 279 (13): 1005–10. PMID 9533499.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I don't think that's relevant. Just because members of an organization have published, does not mean all of the organization's writings are publication quality. Whig 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly notable though. I was answering your question. As a question for you, why have you added a note identifying just one of the co-founders of this organisation? No other organisation in this article has that level of detail about its membership. Tim Vickers 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we need to make clear to our readers that Stephen Barrett is really the source we are relying on for that opinion, as he has made his opinion known throughout the article. I don't think his organization can serve as his proxy without disclosure. Whig 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of an organisation are not the same as the opinions of its vice-president. Should we attribute US government opinions to Dick Cheney? Unless you have a better reason than that I'll remove your aside. Tim Vickers 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but this is not an organization in which Stephen Barrett is merely a member, he is a founder of the organization, so his voice is presumably predominant in its views. Whig 18:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase my aside, or move it to somewhere more appropriate, or redo the sentence in some other way. The point is we can't have one source speaking with different voices without it being noted. And I don't think this organization is necessarily a reliable source, nor even whether Stephen Barrett, MD is a reliable source, as his credentials have been challenged and not supported yet. Whig 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is your presumption about this organisation backed by any reliable sources? Or is this a personal opinion? The organisation is not used here as a reliable source about facts, it is used as an example of a set of prominent critics and cited to show that this is their opinion. Read WP:V and WP:NPOV again, you might have missed the sections discussing attribution of opinions. I'll remove this addition for now, until you can find a better reason for listing one of its members but not the others. Tim Vickers 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a statement upon which reliance is being made, it must be a reliable source. The sentence now reads, "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why..." and proceeds to cite to this source. That is reliance. Rephrase to say that they have an opinion, and it is fine if they are notable. Whig 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just awkwardly phrased. I will take a break for awhile and come back to look at it fresh. Whig 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I could add back the citations in the sentences above that deal with lack of efficacy. These were the original references for this sentence. I've also removed a later quotation of Barrett in the high-dilution section, we have better refs than his opinion for dose-response. Tim Vickers 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the same sort of problem we've gotten at other pages when people try to cite things involving Barrett. Proponents of fringe and pseudoscience really don't like him and see him as sort of the center of all evil. We've even had an ArbCom case over it. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. That ArbCom however only referred to Quackwatch as possibly problematic and even then the problem existed only when Quackwatch was used a source without attribution in the text (i.e. Saying "X" and referencing quackwatch rather than something like "According Quackwatch, X"). So in this case since we are dealing with an even more reliable organizatoin than Quackwatch there shouldn't be any problem. At worst simply saying, "According to the [[National Council Against Health Fraud" and then continuing would be acceptable, and even that seems unnecessary. In any event, I agree with Tim that we have better refs than his opinion for the dose-response matter. JoshuaZ 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! A very simple remedy, I just changed it to "This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, to make it clear that the first part of this sentence is a summary of the material discussed in the previous sentences. Tim Vickers 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is actually little to no difference between NCAHF and Quackwatch. All one has to do is look at their respective articles here on Wikipedia. They are both the voices of Barrett. NCAHF tries to give itself an air of national recognizability with it's slick name, but it is just another operation which Barrett started up to push his opinions. (Read the Quackwatch article here and see that it was started off originally by Barrett calling it the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, then he renamed it to Quackwatch and concurrently started the National Council Against Health Fraud. Same-same.) My issue here is not so much that we are using an unreliable source (unreliable and partisan; as the ArbCom above describes), but that we are giving a lot of page space to Barrett's various soapboxes - we mention and link to Homeowatch, NCAHF, and Quackwatch - all of which are Barrett's sites and represents his POV. (Look at the three sites, they are all templates of each others and are all hosted on the same server, and all have the same webmaster - namely Barrett). Anyhow, isn't this exactly what WP:Weight warns us against. Having this much (internal citations and external links) from essentially one source most certainly presents a Weight issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is much better now. The second reference (Loudon) is still a bit sticky, though, since it is not a free site. Could we leave it out, or at least quote the relevant passage from the full text? (And we don't seem to be done discussing the notability of NCAHF yet.) --Art Carlson 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought you were referring to the Devils of Loudon. Somehow fits the homeopathatic mindset, no? Jim62sch 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for your insightful and timely sense of humour! which lightens this dreary talk-page up, not for the first time. Loudon is a retired GP self-appointed medical historian and he knows nothing about the history of homeopathy; it is in truth the most outrageous nothing of a so-called article. Please do not use it as a source. In simple terms, it is crap. thanks Peter morrell 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to paraphrase this entirely reliable source - Efficacy of Homeopathic Arnica A Systematic Review of Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials" E. Ernst, MD, PhD, FRCP(Edin); M. H. Pittler, MD Arch Surg. 1998;133:1187-1190. which states in the introduction:

"It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science and has caused homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

As "This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why homeopathy is often regarded in conventional medicine as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery."

Hope a paraphrasing of the Archives of Surgery will be acceptable to everybody. Tim Vickers 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back in passive voice. Whig 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm an academic you grammar Nazi. :) I've swapped it to active voice:

This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why conventional medicine regards homeopathy as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery.

Better? Tim Vickers 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But you can't cite "conventional medicine" as your source, state the source. Whig 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, this is a paraphrasing of the sentence quoted above, the source is the citation. What do you mean? Tim Vickers 02:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reader is not expected to click the reference to know who is making the statement. By making the statement in the active voice you are attributing the statement to "conventional medicine" now, in spite of the reference which is a specific source. Whig 04:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another interpretation might be that the reference backs up the statement as such, which is to say it is authoritative on what conventional medicine believes and why. Whig 04:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm treating this just as other sources are treated:

Such measures often made symptoms worse or proved fatal.[29]

This later became known as the "Law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[1]

Hahnemann found as early as 1816 that his patients who he treated through homeopathy still suffered from chronic diseases that he was unable to cure.[49]

For this purpose, Hahnemann had a saddle maker construct a special wooden striking board covered in leather on one side and stuffed with horsehair.[59]

This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why conventional medicine regards homeopathy as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery.[22][23]

This is just like the remainder of the article now. A source makes a statement that is cited to support the statements in the text. Do you wish to add specific attributions throughout the text identifying every one of the citations as parts of the text? Tim Vickers 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to X, such measures often made symptoms worse or proved fatal.[29]

According to X, this later became known as the "Law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[1]

According to X, Hahnemann found as early as 1816 that his patients who he treated through homeopathy still suffered from chronic diseases that he was unable to cure.[49]

According to X, For this purpose, Hahnemann had a saddle maker construct a special wooden striking board covered in leather on one side and stuffed with horsehair.[59]

According to X, This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why conventional medicine regards homeopathy as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery.[22][23]

I see your point, but this is different, because the fact assertion being made is what conventional medicine believes. Is your source authoritative on that? Whig 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you had a statement from the American Medical Association, you could substitute that for "conventional medicine" and it would be pretty convincing. Whig 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's tough to paraphrase a source using active voice when the statement in the source is passive voice. "We" believe that lots of people, at least from the establishment, consider homeopathy to be quakery, and it's good to have a source that backs up this generalization. On the other hand, I also think it is a good idea to back up the generalization with two or three well-chosen references in the footnotes. Jarvis is good, AMA would be better. I rummaged around and found some interesting hints. The AMA created a "Committee on Quackery" in 1963 and published info on CAM in 1993 that "portrays many CAM therapies as being quackery". This publication is apparently

Zwicky JF, Hafner AW, Barrett S, et al.
Reader's Guide to Alternative Health Methods: Scientific Perspective.
Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1993:3-13.

Can anybody track it down? --Art Carlson 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Barrett S cited in the AMA reference above the same Stephen Barrett, MD? Whig 08:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be assured. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant question is whether this book represents an official position of the AMA, whether it is in some weaker sense sanctioned by the AMA, or whether they have published it but disclaimed responsibility for its contents. --Art Carlson 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a "Reader's Guide to Alternative Health Methods" from 1993 written by Stephen Barrett, MD, likely represents an official position of the AMA. Whig 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The FDA says this about what other groups say:

The American Medical Association does not accept homeopathy, but it doesn't reject it either. "The AMA encourages doctors to become aware of alternative therapies and use them when and where appropriate," says AMA spokesman Jim Fox. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has no specific policy on homeopathy.

--Art Carlson 11:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal precedents

Tracking down legal precedents of health fraud claims against homeopathy, I have not been able to find any ruling against homeopathy claims, by the contrary I found this: [1] ℒibrarian2 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Quackpotwatch. I do believe it doesn't qualify as an RS. Shot info 11:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of those so-called 'homeopathic organizations' listed at the end of the article are in fact just anti-homeopathy blogs. Why are they listed, what function do they serve, should they be discussed or even deleted? thank you Peter morrell 11:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the blog links twice now. While they flatter my point of view, they are not acceptable external links. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The source (Quackpotwatch) is not presented by its opinions or research but because of the html copy of a Court ruling, the same copy can be found at other websites for ratification or a copy can be requested through library request and uploaded eventually ℒibrarian2 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This court ruling is unacceptable as a reference for a number of reasons. In a general sense, legal venues have recognized that they are exceedingly poor at interpreting scientific evidence, thus the reason for the US Supreme Court's creation of the Daubert test. We cannot and will not allow a court ruling to trump peer-reviewed science. Specifically, the ruling holds that the plantiffs (NCAHF) did not meet the burden of proof in this specific case. It does not hold that homeopathy somehow works. Furthermore, it says that the plaintiffs failed to show that King Bio's products were not safe and effective. This is true on its face, until you realize that the FDA does not require that manufacturers of homeopathic drugs prove that they are either safe or effective - since they are invariably composed of water and only water, they are inherently safe as far as the FDA is concerned. In summary, a court of law could rule that the law of gravity has not been proven true - this would make no difference at all in your local acceleration. I will be reverting a second time after this, please discuss your reasons for including this material. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, WTF is up with WP:TIMETRACE? I've noted a number of pseudoscience articles where members have been tag-team reverting. Skinwalker 12:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was called the attention to your comment here. Please keep any edit war or disagreement to the participants. Do not extend it to unrelated WikiProjects and please read WP:CIV, WTF is not a welcomed expression. WikiProjects members are free to review each other contributions as they see fit and that doesn't involve any WikiProject they pertain to, please refrain from this line of action, thank you for your understanding Daoken 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

that's pure dodging of the issue. The real question is: is there any substance to Skinwalker's impression? If there isn't, so much the better; if there is, the solution is hardly telling Skinwalker off for making the observation. I can make out that Librarian2 and Profbrumby at least are project members who also push quackery, and that Daoken isn't above shouting "admin abuse" when people clean up after them. dab (𒁳) 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. This needs discussing. But in the interests of neutrality and balance, readers of this article SHOULD know of this ruling and so it should appear somewhere in it, yes? thanks Peter morrell 12:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be useable somewhere, but definitely not in the lead and most certainly not as a vindication of homeopathy. That can only come from scientific studies. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting content based exclusively on POV. This is a court ruling and must be available to readers, expose your opinion and reasons if you disagree but do not warr the contributions ☤'ProfBrumby 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please address my specific concerns above. You, in fact, are edit warring, as you are insisting on adding this material without a consensus. I'm willing to listen to your objections, and I won't revert again, but the usual contributors to this page are not going to look favorably on this material. Skinwalker 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The obvious place for a discussion of a legal ruling on safety is in the "Safety issues" section, which could be renamed "Legal and safety issues". However, as a note there is no point in adding an entire paragraph on one ruling in America to an article that is supposed to address this subject from a worldwide view. Tim Vickers 13:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

look at that ruling again--it seems not to be judges ruling, it is what the defendants are proposing the judge ruling should be. Atthe very least, we need to get the exact ruling. DGG (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone look at Lexis Nexis (sp?)?--Filll 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy practitioner regulation depends on the state. Three states have actually authorize separate homeopathy boards for certifying practitioners: Connecticut, Arizona, and Nevada. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 20-8; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 32-2902 to 32-2912; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 630A.155. Texas and Oklahoma apparently debated bills to create boards. Other states sanction the practice as part of a more general medical board.

Other states do not recognize homeopathy as legitimate at all. In re Guess, 327 N.C. 46, 393 S.E.2d 833 (1990), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of North Carolina that affirmed a medical doctor could be stripped of his license by the state medical board for practicing homeopathy. The court based the ruling on the state's police power, which the U.S. Supreme Court says empowers the state to regulate "against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud." New York made a similar finding in Metzler v. New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, 203 A.D.2d 617 (1994). Here's a law review article that covers some of the issues. Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

from the very title of the article, it seems to be written from a strong POV.DGG (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is, no doubt. There are some other law review articles, but they are not freely available online. At any rate, In re Guess and 'Metzler are recognized by secondary sources as standing for the proposition that a state may bar homeopaths from practicing medicine under their police power. Cool Hand Luke 07:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about how we assess US legal rulings. While interesting, they in no way always reflect truth. Take, for example, the debacle of silicon breast implants and the judgement against doctors, which was in no way medically justified, but legal opinion held sway. Bear also in mind the FDA and the shenanigans on display in - for example - the manner in which they tried to suppress (in front of a Congressional panel for goodness' sake!) the information about a correlation between cox-2 inhibitors and increased deaths from cardiovascular events. docboat 08:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. Court rulings are no scientific authority. I think they're only useful for covering what the state of law is. For that reason, the originally-suggested link is utterly useless—it mostly just condemns expert witnesses in a particular case—but I think it might be interesting to note that three states license homeopaths while several other states forbid them from practicing medicine. Cool Hand Luke 08:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism own section

As it was proposed, I removed the legal ruling and the criticisms of fraud it was related to, away from the introduction and into a new section of its own ☤'ProfBrumby 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's... way against consensus, not to mention WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Cuerden, you surely know who I refer to when I say that I have seen that editor war editing and reverting based on his own POV in many articles, all related with an obvious agenda, and also acting when one of his tag-warriors have exhausted his reverts for the day, so which should be the purpose to discuss? I hope that the editor I am talking about do as he always do, to use his admin privileges to sustain his agenda and make commas and small changes after a revert for difficulting other reverts, that is what I have seen him doing all around, so by all means, please let him do, the eyes of others more experient than me are on him already, so please let him enjoy as long as he can, all the best ☤'ProfBrumby 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, you are edit warring, man, please let's get a moderate and sound consensus on this new material. It has to go into the article somewhere. Why do you just delete delete delete and tinker about with anything new? go steady; please desist until it has been discussed. thank you Peter morrell 13:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Adam is sufficiently experienced that he can do without the lecture. Raymond Arritt 14:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for linking to critical blogs. Squid87 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy votes otherwise. Raymond Arritt 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the blogs again. They fail WP:SPS/WP:EL. JoshuaZ 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs do not belong in this article. Tim Vickers 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags and RS

In the totality of references, 87 are from clear criticism and from sources opposing homeopathy even some are used as citations about descriptions of homeopathy just because of their secondary content influence. So, first of all:

In descriptions of homeopathy must be used homeopathic practice sourcing, and not sources that oppose that practice as obviously cannot claim exactitude or inside knowledge and less than all NPOV.
In criticism may be used opposition sources of course. However, among those 87 sources many are from activists websites and some are direct attack from title to bottom, showing no scientific or other evidence more than their own saying. A clean up is needed ℒibrarian2 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

None of what you're saying coincides with WP:RS or WP:VERIFY. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I might understand some of what you are trying to say. However, please be specific. Please list below the citations that you believe do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. Tim Vickers 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In descriptions of homeopathy must be used homeopathic practice sourcing, and not sources that oppose that practice as obviously cannot claim exactitude or inside knowledge and less than all NPOV. -- Outrageous. A reliable source is a reliable source. Just because someone is a critic doesn't make them unreliable to describe a subject. ScienceApologist 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

activists websites and some are direct attack from title to bottom, showing no scientific or other evidence more than their own saying. -- Really? Which ones are those? ScienceApologist 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In descriptions of homeopathy must be used homeopathic practice sourcing, and not sources that oppose that practice as obviously cannot claim exactitude or inside knowledge and less than all NPOV. - this is simply rubbish. It is a lie. Fringe pseudoscientifical theories are treated on Wikipedia as exactly that. Moreschi ^Talk 17:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your point of view, homeopathy is accepted and even regulated in more countries than those where it is considered by private persons as you a fringe theory.

First of all must be addressed the issue of homeopathic procedures or explanations which should be sourced from homeopathic sources and not from conventional medical sources or similar. Who may be able to do that can substitute those citations for the correct ones at the lead and in many other parragraphs ℒibrarian2 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So, why not let's get this absolutely clear. We're planning to remove reliable sources and replace them with unreliable ones. Ignoring mainstream scientific consensus, which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, on the way. Moreschi ^Talk 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Appeals to popularity aren't considered good arguments in debates and they especially aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. The fact that most scientific sources say something about a subject means that is how we must report it, not how a government agency or popular opinion view it. Moreover, As has been said above, Reliable sources are reliable sources, regardless of their stances. If a comprehensive meta-analysis says something about Homeopathy then that's a reliable source, period. See WP:RS or WP:VERIFY. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To see if I understand your argument Librarian, you think we should regard The Lancet as an unreliable source in the homeopathy article because it is not written by homeopaths? I think we're done here. Tim Vickers 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if you realize that I am talking about homeopathic procedures to be described by homeopaths and not by non-homeopaths? A RS must have knowledge and authority over the subject, not outside view, that's all that I am saying, citations of procedures must be to homeopathic books, everything else can go to a variety of sources as far as those are RS and balanced.ℒibrarian 2 17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that non-homeopathic scientists aren't reliable sources for how homeopathy is supposed to work, it's history, etc? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Knock, knock... procedures? ℒibrarian2 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Procedures? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

DFTT. Moreschi ^Talk 17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How things are done...? not why, for what, before, after, good, bad, true, untrue, etc? Just how is done? ie dilluting? assessing the patient? shaking? choosing what? The mechanics of it? by who does it? ℒibrarian2 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the sources that debunk homeopathy do not describe this correctly? ScienceApologist 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ROFL!!! Skinwalker 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As you have not provided any specific instances of citations that you believe do not meet the criteria for WP:RS I will regard this discussion as closed. Tim Vickers 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Debunking sources should not be presumed reliable for describing the thing they are attempting to debunk. Whig 07:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

By definition, to be a debunking source requires a bias, which should be properly contextualized and balanced with other views. Whig 07:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Third para, first sentence

"The theories of homeopathy are contradicted by modern biology, physics, and medicine.[8][9][10]"

This should be attributed within the sentence, so that we know who is making the statement. Whig 07:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the first ref appears to be the same source as used for the final sentence of this paragraph, attributed there to a recent medical review. Maybe a different source here would be better so we aren't beginning and ending with the same voice. Whig 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is improving. A couple of days ago, the only sources we had were studies showing that homeopathic remedies are not medically effective. There are lots of things that are not medically effective that do not contradict biology, physics, or medicin. The third source - Ernst E (2005). "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?". Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 26 (11): 547–8. PMID 16165225. - still seems to fit in this category, so I am removing it. The first source - Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998). "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials". Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 133 (11): 1187–90. PMID 9820349. - doesn't have any relevant statements in the abstract, but TimVickers has above quoted out of the text as follows: "It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science", which I suppose can be considered as supporting the statement. The second source - Teixeira J (2007). "Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 96 (3): 158–162. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.001. - "stresses the fact that this idea [memory of water] is not compatible with our knowledge of pure water."

Nevertheless, I am not very happy with this statement. The sources are not wholy convincing. The second one, for example, doesn't deal with homeopathy as a whole but with one particular proposed mechanism, and even then makes suggestions about how homeopathy might nevertheless be explained within the framework of conventional science. (You don't have to think the idea makes sense, but it is clear that we are giving the author's statements in a meaning he did not intend.) Additionally, if "the theories of homeopathy are contradicted by modern biology, physics, and medicine", what exactly do they contradict? If homeopathy turns out to actually work, what law of physics would we have to give up? Newton's laws of motion? Einstin's general relativity? The quantum theory of the atom? I would say, if homeopathy works, it must be on the basis of a totally unknown mechanism that would be added to the known laws of science, not replace them. Can't we just say that, one way or another, without talking about a contradiction to unspecified laws?

--Art Carlson 08:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Art, FWIW I think that is an extremely fair appraisal of the situation. Peter morrell —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think two things are being confused: "whether or not homeopathy works" and "the mechanism by which homeopathists claim homeopathy works": it is the latter which is in conflict with the known facts of biology, physicas, and medicine. If homeopathy were ever demonstrated to work, an actual mechanism would be amenable to further study. Since it has not been demonstrated, no scientific explanation is possible. - Nunh-huh 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that most homeopaths don't have any theory at all about how it works, and don't really care. ("Wer heilt hat recht.") Then there is a sizeable minority that believe in some kind of "vital force" that is not in conficlt with known science because it postulates additional (supernatural) forces. How about, Most advocates of homeopathy admit that they cannot explain how it works^{[citation needed]}, and the few naturalistic mechanisms that have been proposed are not compatible with well-established scientific observations. At any rate, Nunh-huh is right that the questions of efficacy and mechanism need to be clearly separated. --Art Carlson 10:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about homeopathy, not homeopaths. Homeopathy certainly propounds specific theories of mechanisms of action, and it is proper to address those. As to what "most" advocates of homeopathy think - I suspect that's unknowable - certainly in a rigorously cited way. - Nunh-huh 10:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy certainly does not propound theories. I don't know any any even semi-official explanation of the mechanism of homeopathy. I have the impression Hahnemann himself waffles, and I have never seen a pronouncement by a professional organization. Just tell me why we shouldn't drop this sentence entirely. Where it fits, we can say things like "Every medication whose mechanism has been rigorously established acts through molecules." or "Measurements indicate that structures formed by molecules in pure water have a lifetime of picoseconds." --Art Carlson 11:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The full quotation of the Ernst and Pittler review you keep removing states:

"HOMEOPATHY IS a system of medicine that was developed about 200 years ago and has remained highly controversial ever since. Essentially it is based on the "law of similars" and on the assumption that even nonmaterial dilutions ("potentiations") can be clinically effective. The law of similars claims that if a given remedy causes a certain symptom in a healthy person, the remedy should then be useful for treating that symptom in a patient who suffers from it. Homeopathic potentiations are prepared by serial dilutions and "succussions" (vigorous shaking) and often are so dilute that the likelihood of them containing a single molecule from the mother tincture is nil. Homeopaths believe that "potentizing" in this way will not reduce but rather increase the activity of the resulting remedy. It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science and has caused homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Please do not remove this reference again. Tim Vickers 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a citation from Ernst E (2005). "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?". Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 26 (11): 547–8. PMID 16165225., as you claim here, or from Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998). "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials". Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 133 (11): 1187–90. PMID 9820349., as you claim above? Or did Ernst plagiarize himself? --Art Carlson 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernst and Pittler, it is the full paragraph that I quoted above. If you want the Pdf just e-mail me. Tim Vickers 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this paragraph in its entirety should be considered for inclusion into the article, properly attributed and balanced with other perspectives. Whig 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On my own reconsideration, all but the last paragraph are tendentiously written in my opinion, it is not neutral voice and therefore a better source would be appropriate for describing homeopathy. The last sentence is appropriate for inclusion as his scientific opinion, per his qualifications. Whig 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The homeopathic ideas that are contradicted by modern science are:

Like cures like
Water memory
Smaller doses give greater effects
Existence of a vital force

This is not just a discussion about water memory, pretty much all of this practice's ideas fly in the face of modern science. Perhaps it would be best to list the ideas referred to in this sentence? It would get a bit long though. Tim Vickers 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to be more specific, though we will have to work on a concise formulation. I'm not sure you're keeping efficacy and mechanism separate in this list. There is no evidence that like really cures like, but it wouldn't be embarassing for physics, chemistry, or medicine if it did, so I don't see any "contradiction". Same with small doses. There are cases, even if they are rare, where the effects of small doses are larger or different from the effects of large doses (hormesis), so there cannot really be a contradiction here. Water memory and vital force are two different and incompatible proposed mechanisms, and each is rejected by a significant number of homeopaths. There are good reasons to claim that water memory is incompatible with known science, but vital force claims to be outside of physical effects. There is no indication that a vital force actually exists, but if it did, it would be non-physical, so how could it contradict physics? --Art Carlson 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "Homeopathic ideas such as water memory and the law of similars are contradicted by modern biology, physics, and medicine.[8][9][10]" - The sources deal with water memory and small doses always having larger effects. If we are to include the vital force we would need a source dealing with this directly. My personal interpretation is that physics currently explains all energy and matter through a small set of particles, a non-physical "vital force" would contradict this fundamental explanation. Tim Vickers 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the source (Ernst) authoritative as to the fact that homeopathic ideas contradict modern science, or is this an opinion of a scientist? I believe attribution is still very necessary in any rephrasing which goes beyond the specific conclusions of the medical review or the expertise of the source. Whig 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a factual statement made in a reliable source. Tim Vickers 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology.

My question is whether the source (Ernst) is authoritative as to the fact being asserted, or is this an opinion. In the way it is now stated, as a naked assertion, the implication seems to be that this is a final and incontrovertible determination by some authoritative source on the ideas of homeopathy and the laws of three branches of science. Whig 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW the works of Edzard Ernst can in no sense be regarded as an authoritative statement about homeopathy. Most of his numerous articles dis alt med and he repeatedly cites himself and his co-workers in his own papers. Significantly FEW others in the field of alt med cite him or his co-workers. I would therefore suggest that the citation in question states nothing more than an opinion, and a very biased one at that. Peter morrell 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So you think the only authoritative sources on alternative medicine are ones that are supportive of alternative medicine? I don't agree with that. Tim Vickers 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Morrell. Ernst does tend to cite himself as a source. He is also an outspoken journalist against Alternative Medicine. He is hardly what is called an acceptable "neutral observer" and he tends to be selective in his reporting of results often times rendering him a victim of confirmation bias. I am a tad hesitant to use him as a source to represent "modern biology, physics, and medicine". I believe there must be better, less biased sources out there to support the statement which we are currently using Ernst as a source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have some alternative and even more reliable sources than a review article in the highly-reputable peer-reviewed journal Archives of Surgery then by all means list them here on the talk page. Tim Vickers 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have such a source immediately on hand, but I am sure with a small amount of research anyone of us here can find it. (Let me know what you or anyone else here comes up with.) Again, I am just leery about using Ernst as source of such a factual sounding statement. Considering his known bias in the world of science, his should only be used as a statement of opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: The Archives of Surgery is the publication, not the source. Whig 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Edzard Ernst a physicist? Whig 18:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A few notable names to look for on PubMed are George Lewith, Peter Fisher, David Taylor Reilly, Andrew Vickers and Bob Leckridge. Not sure about Vickers but the others are all MDs with research track records in this field. Why not search for their work and find some suitable material? Tim? If I can think of any more names I will post them here. thanks Peter morrell 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernst is an MD from Vienna now professor at Exeter in Complem Medicine but rumour has it he is gonna lose that post soon. Peter morrell 18:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your rumor and raise you by some hearsay. Call me if you dare. :) People appear to be calling this author "biased" because they do not agree with his views. This is not a good way of looking at the source. However, relying on one author is unnecessary, since this is an uncontroversial statement from a scientific viewpoint and similar statements are made in a large number of reliable sources. I have therefore added a fourth source that states:

"Homeopathy has been the cause of much debate in the scientific literature with respect to the plausibility and efficacy of homeopathic preparations and practice. This is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories." (link)

The source is Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education. 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507. and is a free-access journal, which should deal with some of the access concerns raised earlier. Tim Vickers 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Side note to TimVickers, please note that I am not calling this author "biased" because I don't agree with his views. The truth is, I don't know how I feel about Homeopathy. I have had no direct experience with it that I can remember. What I was pointing out is that there are people within the scientific community who have criticized Ernst for succumbing to confirmation bias. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I don't think we can regard unfounded suggestions and rumors as appropriate for discussion. Whig 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well no, that was just an aside. I'm sure Peter wasn't suggesting we disregard a reliable source on the basis of a rumor. Tim Vickers 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the Johnson quote. Can we include that as well? Properly attributed, of course. Whig 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't quote everybody! Articles are supposed to be summaries backed by citations, not long strings of quotes. I stole their phrase though, now the sentence reads "Homeopathic ideas are diametrically opposed to the laws of modern biology, physics, and medicine." Tim Vickers 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "American journal of pharmaceutical education" source seems to be sufficient to make such a statement in terms of phamacology (as it outright makes this statement). Good source. But what about "modern biology" and "physics". Is that expressly stated in one of the sources? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The Teixeira reference deals with physics (water memory), perhaps we should merge "biology" and "medicine" into "pharmacology", since this is the specific field that deals with the overlap of these fields? Tim Vickers 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

After a fairly close look at the Johnson & Boon paper, I would say it does not give any strong opinion about the value of homeopathy one way or another. It is pretty much fence-sitting in that respect. It deals with the question, what do pharmacists need to know about homeopathy? The conclusions in full are:

"Pharmacists must be aware of the scientific literature and decide for themselves if the data are sufficient for them to endorse the use of homeopathic preparations in their practices. To fulfill their obligations to their patients and their profession, pharmacists should at least have a basic understanding of homeopathic principles and the nature of remedies. The fact that homeopathic medicines are regulated as drugs in both Canada and the United States underscores the importance of this.63,64 As accessible, critical, science-based health care professionals, pharmacists should evaluate the research on homeopathy without bias, and then convey the facts to their patients and other health professionals."

Wanderer57 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re this sentence: "Homeopathic ideas are diametrically opposed to the laws of modern biology, physics, and medicine." I'm wondering about the term "laws of". From my experience, the term "laws of physics" is common, the term "laws of biology" is not. I googled this and found:

laws of biology - 33,900 times
law of biology - 906 times
laws of physics - 1,820,000 times
law of physics - 208,000 times.

My point - is "laws of biology" a meaningful term to most people? Wanderer57 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Google tells you nothing about what is correct, only about what is common. I could wikilink the term if you think readers will find it unfamiliar. Tim Vickers 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree about Google, Tim. My point is that "law(s) of biology" is relatively unfamiliar. A link is a good idea, I think. Wanderer57 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made the gnat even smaller by simply removing these words. Tim Vickers 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to be curious about why we have an apparently endless discussion of a sentence that has four separate reliable sources but no interest at all in a sentence in the paragraph above that has a "citation needed" tag. Has the plank in the eye of the paragraph above slipped people's notice? Tim Vickers 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed this out and put it in a new section because it is about paragraph two and it interrupts the conversation in this section. If someone wants to delete it entirely, please do so. Wanderer57 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

~~I raised my sights far enough to take in the previous para. and went looking for a citation for "homeopathists regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness."~~
I found the website of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy. I have no idea what their reputation is among homeopathists. Based on their website, I would say the Dean of the Academy is committed to homeopathy. (He is Dr. André Saine. a graduate of National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon and has been the Dean of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy since 1986. He has taught homeopathy extensively in North America and Europe for over 15 years to health care professionals. ) according to the bio. on the website.
He has several articles about homeopathy posted. In one of them, "What is Homeopathy?", this appears:
" Which conditions are outside the scope of homeopathy? If the person has a problem that necessitates a surgical intervention, the homeopathic physician will be the first to refer this patient to a surgeon. But as surgical interventions are a shock to the organism, homeopathic treatment will be ideal to prepare patients for surgery and to help them recover from the operation. Similarly, cases of dislocation and fracture will be dealt with by an orthopedist but homeopathy will be of great assistance to diminish pain and enhance recovery. For less serious physical problems, patients will be referred to chiropractors, osteopaths, massage therapists or other appropriate therapists. Generally, people afflicted with genetic, congenital, metabolic or very advanced degenerative diseases cannot always expect to be cured with homeopathy, but are likely to receive effective palliative relief, free of the side effects usually associated with modern drugs". (emphasis added. At http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/what_is.html)
I would interpret the bolded words to mean that not all homeopathists think homeopathy can treat all types of human sickness, and that the sentence in question ("homeopathists regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness.") should be more qualified.
~~Some people may interpret it differently because of the part about effective palliative relief.~~
~~There is other interesting material on the website, including a discussion of different schools of thought within homeopathy. Wanderer57 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)~~

The sentence currently reads: "Homeopathic ideas are diametrically opposed to modern biology, physics, and medicine.[8][9][10][11]" It is still a fact assertion backed by an MD, not a physicist, and it should still be attributed. Whig 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "an MD"? There are multiple references by multiple different authors, one of whom is a physicist. Tim Vickers 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you performing independent synthesis of their statements or did one of them actually say the thing that you are paraphrasing directly? Whig 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:OR: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. Whig 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read the references. If you need Pdfs e-mail me. Tim Vickers 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If one of them made the statement, you can quote or paraphrase and attribute accordingly. You can't synthesize, even if it's a good synthesis, without crossing WP:OR. Whig 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We could excerpt from multiple sources, of course, as long as we properly attribute and cite each. Whig 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement currently reads, "Homeopathic ideas are antithetical to modern biology, physics, and medicine.[8]" Still the same problem despite rewording, still a fact assertion backed by an MD about biology and physics, for which he cannot be regarded as a reliable source, and it still should be attributed if not simply quoted in the words that he actually used. Whig 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since he is already quoted below (attributed to a recent medical review) perhaps this is simply redundancy and the sentence here should be deleted. Whig 03:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the discussion at all Whig. This statement is backed by three different sources with a total of four separate authors. Who is this "he" you keep talking about? Tim Vickers 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm following the discussion just fine. I checked the article again, and there is just the one source now. Whig 04:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Only at first appearances. It's a formatting thing, try clicking on the link. Tim Vickers 04:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can combine and synthesize citations like that without going against WP:OR, and hiding multiple citations like that seems really confusing for the reader as well. Whig 04:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses. Whig 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the references? Tim Vickers 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but that isn't relevant in my opinion. Even if the references can be combined and synthesized to support the statement, this violates WP:OR. Since the references can only be checked by having someone send the PDFs, it is also problematic for readers who could not be expected to have access to them. Whig 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not even be bothered to click on the link and see that one of the citations is a free-full text reference included exactly so that everybody could read it. That's pretty lazy. If you wish to read the references look at the quotes above or click on the link to read the full-text reference. Once you have done this you make informed comments on how the references support the text. Unfortunately, until you actually read the references your opinions on what they might say will be of little interest to anybody. Tim Vickers 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the sentence and references have changed again, I think I'll move on to another section. Whig 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging the third paragraph

While waiting for consensus about the final sentences of the third parapgraph, I have provisionally rearranged these sentences, as their order seeemed a bit random and self-interrupting. For instance, "this lack of evidence" was widely separated from the claim that evidence was lacking. Of course I understand that the rearrangement may be shortlived, if the sentences themselves get rephrased. Note also a few changes of tense that I've made. They're small changes meant to improve the style, but they do also carry (slightly) different implications, so please take a look. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Looks good to me. Thank you. Tim Vickers 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

Due to the edits of Librarian2, we now have an uncited sentence in the lead.

"Homeopaths regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness.[citation needed]"

Peter added this wording during one of the recent re-writing. Is there a reliable source available that makes this claim? I think the original source was the Materia Medica, which would require a reader to do quite a lot of research to see if it backs the statement. Can we find a better source? Tim Vickers 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose deleting it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

References stacked

The lead seems to have a long stack of references for a single sentence. I think that we should format it in a way that all of those references can be accessed just by clicking on a single link. something like this. Does anyone know how this is done? If so, Please format it that way as I think having 5 or 6 references for a single sentence is quite annoying for the reader. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough for single refs but I'll have to fiddle a bit to see if this is possible for multiple refs ge <ref name=xxx/> Tim Vickers 01:37, 18 October 200 (UTC)

What you could do is simply not use the "<ref>" format for the inside references and simply format them as they would normally appear on the references page, but bullet each one. Then add a <ref></ref> around all of it. I just don't know how to get them to format as if they were actual references but without the "<ref>" code. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is done routinely at places like intelligent design where we are forced to have multiple references but giving each a separate number starts to look ugly.--Filll 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you deal with the problem of citing a ref in one of these multiple ref citations in a different place in the text? Tim Vickers 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the first set, but had to cite in full references that are also cited elsewhere. If anybody can find a better way, go ahead. Tim Vickers 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This [2] is quite an interesting and wide-ranging open-access pdf article that also addresses some of the core conceptual issues mentioned above. Maybe it can be cited? thanks Peter morrell 06:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got it working. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

(The following was moved from a discussion of paragraph 3.)

I went looking for a citation to support "homeopathists regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness."

I found the website of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy. I have no idea what their reputation is among homeopathists. Based on their website, I would say the Dean of the Academy is committed to homeopathy. (He is Dr. André Saine, a graduate of National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon and has been the Dean of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy since 1986. He has taught homeopathy extensively in North America and Europe for over 15 years to health care professionals. ) according to the bio. on the website.

He has several articles about homeopathy posted. In one of them, "What is Homeopathy?", this appears:

" Which conditions are outside the scope of homeopathy? If the person has a problem that necessitates a surgical intervention, the homeopathic physician will be the first to refer this patient to a surgeon. But as surgical interventions are a shock to the organism, homeopathic treatment will be ideal to prepare patients for surgery and to help them recover from the operation. Similarly, cases of dislocation and fracture will be dealt with by an orthopedist but homeopathy will be of great assistance to diminish pain and enhance recovery. For less serious physical problems, patients will be referred to chiropractors, osteopaths, massage therapists or other appropriate therapists. Generally, people afflicted with genetic, congenital, metabolic or very advanced degenerative diseases cannot always expect to be cured with homeopathy, but are likely to receive effective palliative relief, free of the side effects usually associated with modern drugs". (emphasis added. At http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/what_is.html)

I would interpret the bolded words to mean that not all homeopathists think homeopathy can treat all types of human sickness, and that the sentence in question ("homeopathists regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness.") should be more qualified.

Some people may interpret it differently because of the part about effective palliative relief.

There is other interesting material on the website, including a discussion of different schools of thought within homeopathy. Wanderer57 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that many MDs prescribe homeopathic remedies, but not exclusively, I don't see any way we can say "(all) homeopaths ... all sicknesses". Unless somebody thinks there is a danger that the reader will think that (or wonder whether) homeopathy is applied to only a small range of diseases, there is no need for the sentence at all, especially in an introduction that several editors feel to be a bit long already. Let's delete it. --Art Carlson 08:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas, I believe, has asserted that homeopathic remedies are appropriate for all human maladies. Let me know if you can't find a good citation and I'll dig it up. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he probably has BUT ideally we need a cite for that...please. thanks Peter morrell 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we can say "Vithoulkas says" or "Some homeopaths say". We still cannot say simply "Homeopaths say". --Art Carlson 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Art Carlson. Unattributed assertions should be attributed unless they are uncontested statements of fact. Whig 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of quotes that come CLOSE to saying all human sickness:

"Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness...is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race."James T Kent, The Art & Science of Homeopathic Medicine, p.126

"Some like Lilienthal's monumental Therapeutics were more ambitious and attempted to deal with the whole of human sickness in one volume." review of Robin Logan's The Homeopathic Treatment of Eczema

Will look for more tomorrow. cheers Peter morrell 16:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On the basis that homeopathy contends that psora is the basis of all human sickness and that it also contends that homeopathic treatment alone can remove the psoric miasm, then yes indeed homeopathy implicitly claims to be capable of curing all human sickness. Not sure if we can find an actual quote on that, however. I will try. thanks Peter morrell 06:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote and attribution of the above Kent quote was wrong it should be this:

"Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness...all the diseases of man are built upon psora; hence it is the foundation of sickness; all other sickness came afterwards." J T Kent, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, 1900, p.126

Maybe a useful cite can be built from the above? thanks Peter morrell 08:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Art Carlson. As long as there are examples of homeopaths who do not believe that homeopathy is a cure-all, we can't say: "homeopathists regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness", even though some homeopathists do believe this.

Dr. André Saine, whom I quoted at the start of this section, seems to be such an example.

This is speculation on my part, but since homeopathy is controversial, I expect some modern homeopathists would confine their practise to what might be called less controversial areas of treatment. Wanderer57 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Directly opposed to what?

Can someone please explain why/how homeopathy, even if it were to be proved to work, is directly opposed to the laws of biology, physics and medicine? In what sense is it directly opposed? and to what specific so-called 'laws?' this doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Please clarify. thanks Peter morrell 12:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll have a shot. If water had a memory, wouldn;t it also remember the fact that it was once sewage? If water remembers the alcohol content it has (wine), how can it be distilled to a higher alcohol level (cognac)? You say (below) that there is more to substance than we think, which I, as a chemist, will admit immediately, but the substance needs to be present, no? You talk about properties that are rubbed off, but which properties then? There is such overwhelming theoretical and clinical evidence against the function of homeopathy that we shouldn't even be having this discussion.Sikkema 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If Homeopathy works then it works via a mechanism directly contradictory to the basic laws of physics, I.E. the idea that diluting a substance makes less of the actual substance present as well as our basic laws of molecular chemistry, I.E. the idea that molecules in drugs are responsible for their effects. If a homeopathic remedy were effective beyond a placebo then all of our knowledge of chemistry and physics would simply be wrong. Hundreds of years of knowledge. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah well that's not strictly true. It would simply mean that there is more to substance than we think. Also Tim, says above (last night) that the law of similars does not work and that similars cannot cure...how so? how is that some kind of affront to medical science? I think these claims are wildly exaggerated and the text moderated accordingly. thanks Peter morrell 12:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well basic laws of chemistry say that any chemical properties of a substance are due to the molecules in that substance. For instance the properties of Penicillin are due to the molecular structure of it. If we take dilute Penicillin into water to the point that no molecules of Penicillin exist, then we have just water, H20. H20 doesn't have the same molecular properties as Penicillin. Any "rubbing off" of properties of Penicillin to H20 via "dynamization" would not be possible according to our laws of molecular science. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to work a bit harder than that. The properties of a substance also depend on the arrangement of molecules, not just on the molecules themselves. Happens in solids all the time. "Rubbing off" of properties sometimes works, too. Take Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. And anyway, the remedy doesn't have to have the same properties as the mother tincture, it just has to have its properties affected by those of the mother tincture. --Art Carlson 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One could probably make a huge list, but dose-response curves disagree with Homeopathy. The atomic and molecular theories disagree with Homeopathy. The germ theory disagrees with homeopathy. And these are cornerstones of a lot of other stuff, so if you remove them, you probably have to throw out more than 50% of all chemistry, physics and medicine and a good chunk of microbiology as well. --Filll 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dose-response curves? What about hormesis and the Arndt-Schulz rule? Germ theory? Lots of diseases, from cancer to the common cold, don't have a simple relationship to germs, if they have any at all. It would not contradict germ theory if homeopathy could cure those diseases. --Art Carlson 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Though depending on what it purports to cure, it could contradict a lot of various sciences. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The common cold is caused by rhinovirus, and hormesis is a rare effect that occurs in a few instances, rather than a general rule. However all this is besides the point. The references say homeopathy "flies in the face of science" and is "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories". Our opinions are irrelevant, this is what the sources say. Tim Vickers 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories"? Which source are you quoting? Whoever said it should be attributed, at any rate. Whig 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is, if we can't figure out which laws of which sciences are supposedly contradicted by which ideas of homeopathy, then we have stong reason to suspect that our sources are not reliable. The fact is that people are often exposed to rhinoviruses or are even full of them without developing symptoms. And don't forget Mary Mallon. So if homeopathy thinks its can cure disease without directly attacking germs, how exactly is that a priori in direct contradiction to germ theory? And since you concede that hormesis occurs in a few instances, that is sufficient proof that non-linear and even non-monotonic dose relationships are not in contradiction to the known laws of pharmacology. I think that homeopathy is just as silly as you do, but I'd like to get the story straight. --Art Carlson 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, checkout that UTMJ ref I posted earlier and see what he says in his discussion about the science of it all. He disagrees with what you have said and with what your sources say. He is an MD and a pharmacist. check it. thanks Peter morrell 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Welcome to the University of Toronto Medical Journal (UTMJ). UTMJ was established in 1923, and is a student-run scientific publication." - however although this isn't really a reliable source it still makes the same point on p167, "Homeopathy follows a clearly distinct paradigm from modern medicine,". This is not a controversial statement, all our sources agree homeopathy is directly opposed to modern science and medicine. Tim Vickers 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim but you are clearly making VERY selective use of quotes and sources and this lacks balance. Not all microbiologists agree that a virus is the CAUSE of a sickness like the cold, indeed we are surrounded by 'germs' of all types every single day so to say they cause a condition is ludicrous, sure they are 'associated factors' but strictly speaking it is absurd to say they act as causes. I repeat my question, what precious laws of science are conradicted by homeopathy? you have still not successfully answered this basic question. thank you Peter morrell 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to engage in a general debate, that will get us nowhere, let's just focus on sources. Can you provide any reliable sources that state clearly that homeopathy is consistent with modern science and medicine? Tim Vickers 15:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim, we don't need to debate the underlying issues here, only the text and the present lack of balance in the article. If you have a reliable source that says homeopathy is inconsistent with modern science and medicine, that reliable source should be included and quoted or paraphrased and attributed. Placing a citation is insufficient especially when the source (or sources) is not authoritative as to the fact statement being asserted. Multiple sources should not be combined and synthesized, as this violates WP:OR. Whig 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather throw in a pinch of common sense, but if you want to stick strictly to the sources, let's have a closer look. Take Teixeira (Teixeira J (2007). "Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 96 (3): 158–162. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.001.). One relevant statement is this: "The paper stresses the fact that this idea [memory of water] is not compatible with our knowledge of pure water." First, this refers to one particular proposal, not homeopathy as a whole, second it refers to physcis, but not biology or medicine, so it can only support the statement in question in a very limited way. But go on. It also says this: "If an explanation on physical grounds is to be found, research must focus in other aspects of the preparation, such as the presence of other molecules and dissolved gases." That sounds like he thinks there is still a chance to find a mechanism of homeopathy that is consistent with the laws of physics. Furthermore, he concludes thus:

This is why any interpretation calling for ‘memory’ effects in pure water must be totally excluded. In contrast, there is great variety of behaviour of solutes depending on many parameters. Even in small quantities, some solutes can modify substantially some properties of pure water. Special attention should be given to surfactants, sugars and polymeric substances. Since homeopathic medicines are prepared in ‘extremely high dilutions’ but following a procedure that does not produce necessarily extremely pure water, experiments should address the problem of the presence of minute amounts of solutes as has recently been done recently, with striking results.

Again, Teixeira clearly believes that the theory of homeopathy can be made consistent with known physics. To use his paper in support of the statement in the article requires very selective reading. Either the wording in the article has to change or this source has to go. I am taking the latter course of action. --Art Carlson 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he says clearly that the idea of "water memory" is not consistent with our current knowledge of water. Therapeutic effects from water in homeopathy depend on specific effects, not the general differences between shaken and stored water and pure water outlined there. Read the source more carefully "If an explanation on physical grounds is to be found...", i.e. there is no explanation at present that fits known physics. Tim Vickers 17:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this paper support the statement "Homeopathic ideas are directly opposed by modern biology, physics, and medicine."? No. It supports, "The idea of some/many homeopaths that the therapeutic effects of remedies are due to the memory of water are inconsistent with modern physics." It is true but irrelevant that he has not found an explanation that is consistent with physics, but he clearly believes that such an explanation is possible, i.e. not "directly opposed by modern physics". --Art Carlson 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Once such an explanation has been found, it can be added to the article. There is none at present. Would it solve your concerns to make this sentence more specific - "Homeopathic ideas, such as water memory and a vital force, are directly opposed to modern biology, physics and medicine." Alternatively, we could use the wording of the third source and simply say that "The ideas of homeopathy are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories." What do you think? Tim Vickers 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put this in, since we have two specifically pharmaceutical references for this, one of which we are paraphrasing. Tim Vickers 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you want to use the Ernst and Pittler Review rather than the Ernst opinion piece? It's the other one now. (As for the rest, I like your suggestions, but let me sleep on them.) --Art Carlson 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't mind which we use. All three publications are highly reliable sources and all three support the statement, so it doesn't matter what other ones we include as long as the one we are paraphrasing remains. Tim Vickers 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The only relevant statement I can find in the opinion piece is that the axioms of homeopathy are "scientifically implausible". Is that what you mean? I like that phrase. It's a bit more sober than "directly opposed" (or "flies in the face of"). --Art Carlson 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I like the other phrasing, I added both as a compromise, since we have both sources. This is also exactly the words used in the 1997 Linde Lancet review - "Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible" so if anybody wants even more sources we can add this as well. Tim Vickers 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Tim, I am happy with that too. It's a better phrasing all round. cheers Peter morrell 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! :) Tim Vickers 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me this study please

If anyone has access to the full text of this study, Please E-mail it to me ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Skinwalker 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

potentization

potentization "is claimed to remove any negative side-effects of the treatment". Is there a citation for this? Whig 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought dilution was to reduce toxicity of the treatment. I could probably find a Hahnemann cite to back that up if someone wants. Whig 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is easy to confuse. What Hahnemann claimed to discover was that the most similar remedy has a very peculiar power to excite the disease/patient to which it corresponds. This might be said to be his primary therapeutic discovery. The reason he had to dilute the drug is because of this extreme sensitivity the patient manifests to the remedy that most closely matches their sickness totality. Only one drug has this power of resonance and correspondence for the patient's totality. As soon as it is given, even in small dose, he found that the right remedy stirs up a great commotion, an aggravation of the symptoms. He found this primary aggravation soon subsides into a seconday more curative phase. However, he wanted to get the secondary curative phase but without the commotion. That is how he started down the path of potentisation. And from 1798-9 until his death in 1843 he never stopped refining and fine-tuning his dosage/potency methods in order to reduce the aggravation to a gentle method but to keep the secondary curative phase. Clearly this phenomenon only applies to a drug when it is given to the most similar sickness totality. It has no power to induce symptoms universally in all people; only in those sensitive to it. Perhaps this clarifies this sentence about 'side-effect' and 'toxicity?' It is really a mixture of both. Peter morrell 08:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really clarify for me here, because according to Hahnemann the remedy may very well produce undesirable effects (a new symptom or exacerbation of some previously mild symptom). Whig 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reword: "is claimed to remove any negative toxicity of the treatment" Whig 09:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If we want to put this in a better context, Section 51 of the Organon [3] has this, "the dose of which he can diminish to such a degree that they shall remain only slightly stronger than the similar natural disease they are employed to cure; so that in this incomparable method of cure, there is no necessity for any violent attack upon the organism for the eradication of even an inveterate disease of old standing; the cure by this method takes place by only a gentle, imperceptible and yet often rapid transition from the tormenting natural disease to the desired state of permanent health."

That's pretty much what you were saying above, Peter, but I think I understand Hahnemann here to be saying that the dose is diminished to have no more strength than the disease, and that's what this sentence really should say. I'm not sure what point it's actually trying to make now, but it isn't backed by any citation at all and doesn't seem consistent with Hahnemann's writing. Whig 09:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Two good sources re this are: [4] and [5] also see [6] aphorisms 156-158 where the aggravation is discussed. Please choose wording carefully to include a quote from one of these sources. thanks Peter morrell 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Section 159 [7] is perfectly on point:

"The smaller the dose of the homoeopathic remedy is in the treatment of acute diseases so much the slighter and shorter is the apparent increase of the disease during the first hours."

I'll work on wording a bit later. Whig 09:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Organon, sec. 269, 5th vs. 6th editions

The article currently cites Hahnemann from the fifth edition:

"Hahnemann claimed the process of dilution and shaking enhanced the "spirit-like medicinal powers" imbued within minerals and botanical substances,[10]"

However, the sixth edition does not contain this language. Here are the two versions for comparison.

5th ed: The homoeopathic system of medicine develops for its use, to a hitherto unheard-of degree, the spirit-like medicinal powers of the crude substances by means of a process peculiar to it and which has hitherto never been tried, whereby only they all become penetratingly efficacious1 and remedial, even those that in the crude state give no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body.

6th ed: The homoeopathic system of medicine develops for its special use, to a hitherto unheard-of degree, the inner medicinal powers of the crude substances by means of a process peculiar to it and which has hitherto never been tried, whereby only they all become immeasurably and penetratingly efficacious1 and remedial, even those that in the crude state give no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body.

Note the absence of "spirit-like" powers. Moreover, the 6th edition goes on to clarify his intention in great detail. I won't reproduce the whole thing here unless requested. Whig 08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see here that what he is saying, however, is that the potentization is due to the effects of friction, and not due to the mere attenuation of the substance. Whig 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not that big a deal. 99% of modern homeopathy is built on the 5th Organon. When people refer to the Organon they generally mean the 5th edition. The 6th did not appear until 1922 and so by then homeopathy was in decline. The 6th was never published during his lifetime. It was cobbled together from an edition he had in Feb 1842 with numerous in-margin notes. It was his own revisions in French to a copy of the 5th edition. It is most highly regarded by pedants, but the essence of homeopathy has not changed between those two editions. The point about 'spirit-like medicine powers' therefore remains valid. Peter morrell 09:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that you can exclude the 6th. I think to attribute homeopathic views to the 5th and not the corrections of the 6th is to make it a straw man, because Hahnemann himself made those corrections. Whig 09:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No-one is excluding the 6th Organon, it is just being placed into its true context. Suggest then the wording you would prefer to see changed? Its completely immaterial to me, to be honest. Peter morrell 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also he makes the friction argument quite explicit here:

“

Long before this discovery of mine, experience had taught several changes which could be brought about in different natural substances by means of friction, for instance, warmth, heat, fire, development of odor in odorless bodies, magnetization of steel, and so forth. But all these properties produced by friction were related only to physical and inanimate things, whereas it is a law of nature according to which physiological and pathogenic changes take place in the body’s condition by means of forces capable of changing the crude material of drugs, even in such as had never shown any medicinal properties.

”

Whig 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here would be my suggested wording:

Hahnemann claimed the process of dilution and shaking enhanced the "inner medicinal powers" imbued within minerals and botanical substances,[10]"

and change the citation to the 6th edition. Whig 09:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. What about the word friction? don't you want to include that too? Peter morrell 09:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Friction's a good word, he used it himself, so if you can work that in, great. Whig 09:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The source I am using is [8] this has both 5th and 6th editions right next to one another by section. Whig 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Right I will do that...presently. Peter morrell 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. Whig 09:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Friction, etc

I'm not keen on the parenthetical phrasing (what he often called friction). I think the friction discussion might contrast with the following part of the sentence that claims a violation of ~~three~~ two branches of science. This should probably be broken into two sentences and reworked a bit, and I don't know if Texeira is a reliable source in both of those branches of science either. Whig 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Friction is merely the word he used to describe what happens during succussion or trituration a rubbing and shaking action. Think about it and see how it might be improved further. I shall leave it for now. Others might chip in on this matter. thanks Peter morrell 09:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A major problem with this addition is that friction has a precise and defined modern meaning, I think mentioning an archaic usage in passing is guaranteed to confuse a reader. Tim Vickers 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an exaggeration to call this a MAJOR PROBLEM, but I have removed that word now seeing that it confuses some! hope that is better, thanks Peter morrell 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit better, however another problem is that these medicinal properties are not thought to be a physical property as defined by modern science, this point is made far more clearly by the previous quotation from the more important edition of the Organon. Tim Vickers 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You really think so? "The dynamic force of minerals magnets, electricity and galvanism act no less powerfully upon our life principle and they are not less homoeopathic than the properly so-called medicines which neutralize disease by taking them through the mouth, or by rubbing them on the skin or by olfaction. There may be diseases, especially diseases of sensibility and irritability, abnormal sensations, and involuntary muscular movements which may be cured by those means. aph 286 Sixth edition." [9] Hahnemann clearly disagrees with you. Peter morrell 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Do homeopaths use magnets and electricity as part of their treatments? The article does not cover this if it is true. Tim Vickers 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. It's safe to say that they don't, but the point was that Hahnemann was fascinated by such stuff and he approved of Mesmerism. Read sections 293-295 of his ORganon: [10] Apart from which he decided that succussion and trituratioin induced/imparted the medicinal action to the drug by a rubbing action. He again alludes to this in the preparation of medicinal Gold by Arab physicians: The preparation of such a gold powder is first described in the beginning of the twelfth century by ABULKASEM (ALBUCASIS) (in libro servitoris de præp. med., p. 242): "The gold must be rubbed on rough linen in a basin full of water, and the fine powder that settles at the bottom of the water must be used." JOHANN VON ST. AMAND (in the thirteenth century) teaches the preparation in the same manner, in the apendix to MESUE, Opera, Venet., 1561, p. 245, 4 E....This may be seen at once on comparing the medicinal powers of the corrosive sublimate with those of the blackish protoxid of mercury. It was, therefore, to me a welcome fact to find a series of Arabic physicians who unanimously extolled the virtues of gold used in a fine powder, and this in states of disease which sorely need help, and in which the solution of gold had already in part done wonderful service ; a circumstance which was bound to give me confidence in the asseverations of the Arabs. The first trace of this use of gold we find as early as the eighth century, where GEBER (de Alchimia traditio, Argent. ap. ZETZNER, 1698, Lib. II., P. III., Cap. 32) praises gold as a "materia laetificans et in juventute corpus conservans" (a substance that gladdens and preserves the body in youth). At the end of the tenth century SERAPION the younger (De simplicibus comment. Venet. fol. ap. Junt. 1550, Cap. 415, p. 192) says : "Powdered gold serves in melancholy and in weakness of the heart."[11] Does this clarify? Peter morrell 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, Hahnemann's writing never fails to confuse me! So since homeopaths do not use magnets or electricity, what relevance do magnets and electricity have to our discussion about if the "medicinal powers" homeopaths believe are transmitted during dilution and shaking are physical properties or not? You have me completely confused Peter. Tim Vickers 19:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's more! "Hahnemann discovered that specific methods of dilution and vigorous shaking res. stroking reduced the toxicological characteristics of materials on the one hand; on the other hand this also reinforced - potencized the effectiveness in the healing process in accordance with the Law of Similars. Some substances will not become active until they are subjected to potencizing."[12] Through his work with drugs, you see, he developed a theory that physical rubbing as well as shaking (a liquid) induces new previously unknown energies in a medicinal (or even a previously non-medicinal, inert) substance and so heightens and makes manifest their innate but previously dormant and invisible powers. He regarded the stroking of iron with a magnet to induce fresh magnetism into a previously non-magnetic piece of iron as a kind of proof of his ideas. Does that clarify any of this? thanks Peter morrell 19:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit, also if you look at the footnote of the sixth edition it says: "In the same way will triturating a medicinal substance and shaking of its solution (dynamization, potentation) develop the medicinal powers hidden within and manifest them more and more or if one may say so, spiritualizes the material substance itself." and also in the next section "By means of this mechanical procedure, provided it is carried out regularly according to the above teaching, a change is effected in the given drug, which in its crude state shows itself only as material, at times as unmedicinal material but by means of such higher and higher dynamization, it is changed and subtlized at last into spirit-like medicinal power, which, indeed, in itself does not fall within our senses but for which the medicinally prepared globule, dry, but more so when dissolved in water, becomes the carrier, and in this condition, manifests the healing power of this invisible force in the sick body." So he still thinks this is a non-physical process involving some spirit-like property or process. The earlier quote seems to fit this idea of an invisible and undefined non-material property better than the current one. Tim Vickers 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I agree, Tim. So do you want to change the quote? I did prefer the old quote about spiritual powers but Whig seemed to prefer the 6th edition, so I changed it this morning for that reason. No reason why we can't discuss this or cogitate on the idea until we can agree. The problem is if you wish to include some of the above stuff on friction, rubbing etc then it is going to add to the length...maybe you can suggest a new wording? No-one else seems too bothered. Feel free to go ahead. thanks Peter morrell 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here is a clear statement - Footnote 7 "It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence." So Hahnemann was not talking about material, physical properties but a spirit-like essence. The reason why I think it is best to make it clear that this is not a physical property is that otherwise the difference between this and the scientific viewpoint is unclear. Tim Vickers 19:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Although that is partly true yet he certainly regarded there to be a connection between some physical processes and the induction of spirit like powers in medicines or healing. So you cannot divorce his ideas completely from physical actions. He is never absolute or unequivocal in his belief of spirit. As in so many ways he lived exactly at the interface between the old sciences of magic and superstition on the one side and the new science of empiricism and experimentation on the other, and he straddles both worlds beautifully, as does homeopathy in a sense. How does this affect the wording of the article, Tim? over to you! Peter morrell 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A difficult question for you Peter, should it be "a spirit-like medicinal power" or "spirit-like medicinal powers", ie are these separate properties for each substance or did he believe that these were all different forms of the one power, akin to the "vital force"? Tim Vickers 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to the "spirit-like" language being used because I don't think it's critical to his point at all, he is speaking of some inner medicinal property which is brought about by agitation, similar to the way friction and magnetism work. He is not being unscientific here. Whig 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I don't object to the spirit-like language being used in context. Whig 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on will come back to that in a mo! Peter morrell 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stay out of this for now then. Whig 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's OK. Yes I agree with Whig he was being sufficiently scientific for his time but insufficienlty scientific by modern standards. How does that sound? I think he was speaking both general and specific. He believed in spirit-like medicinal powers general and spirit-like medicinal powers plural and specific. Not one universal force but myriad forces each specific to each drug BUT all capable of inducing healing in the right person. So each drug has a spirit-like power specific to istelf but all drugs are similar in that they all possess some type of spirit-like power innate to each. Is that any clearer? Peter morrell 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I replaced the "spirit" quote but removed the "claimed", which always sounds like Jeremy Paxman interrogating a politician! (did you threaten to overrule her?) :) Tim Vickers 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

can we change imbued then as well? it should be hidden or lying dormant? arouses dormant powers or something like that huh? Peter morrell 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, we should always use simple words - I changed it to "held within", better? Tim Vickers 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I prefer Hahnemann believed the process of dilution and shaking aroused and enhanced "spirit-like medicinal powers" held dormant within minerals and botanical substances, any good? Peter morrell 19:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take part of each, it is verging on having too many adjectives, but looks pretty good to me. Tim Vickers 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, I think the later revision is fine, cheers Peter morrell 20:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Vitalism is dead. Long live vitalism?

The Wikipedia article vitalism mentions that the new fields of emergence, complexity and dissipative structure are considered by some to be a modern, scientifically respectable form of vitalism. Living systems operate withiin the law of chemistry but also within another level of laws. The book "Into the Cool" explores some of these ideas and comes to the conclusion that living systems are highly efficient at energy gradient reduction.

For the record I don't intend to go to bat for homeopathy that I find preposterous. But for the sake of accuracy perhaps we should add a caveat to the disproof of vitalism. Cayte 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that. Since the two definitions of vitalism quoted in the lead of that article don't apply to thermodynamics, which are part of the laws of physics, I don't think the observation that living organisms obey the laws of thermodynamics can be described in any way as "vitalism". Tim Vickers 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Complexity theory is math, not chemistry or physics. It can be applied to physics and chemistry but also to traffic patterns, the stock market and historical trends.Cayte 21:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Just to say that for my oral exams I read widely in the history of German Romantic Biology, French Philosophical vitalist theory and evolutionary theory Lamarck/Darwinism to present. At some point I did come across a few things that said that the current life sciences were beginning to entertain certain discounted vitalist theories. So something is stirring out there. Everything I read was academic and peer-reviewed, although in the history of science and/or primary sources and not in medicine. I don't for the life of me remember anything more than this. I don't believe in Homeopathy. Good luck. Saudade7 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

This article is much improved. I just thought I'd mention it, because I've been very critical for a few weeks, but I think the changes that have been made have at least resolved my principal NPOV objections for now. Whig 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I'm surprised to see the nomination listed under "Philosophers and philosophy" in the nominations list. Wanderer57 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well homeopathy isn't a natural science, so either it is classified as a system of thought, or it goes under "Misc." Tim Vickers 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim: There is a "health and medicine" category. It seems to me homeopathy is about health much more than it is about philosophy, regardless of any dispute about whether it has positive or negative effects on health. Also, a significant part of the article is about "conventional" science in opposition to homeopathy. Wanderer57 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Homeopathy is a system of medicine, not an abstract philosophy. Whig 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That category is a sub-section of "Natural science", so classifying homeopathy there is problematic, since we all agree it is not a science, instead a system of thought and practice. Another non-contentious alternative would be to place it under "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures". On a more specific note, reference 69 isn't a reliable source. Perhaps one of Peter's historical essays would be a better citation for this non-controversial statement. Tim Vickers 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be incorrect, but I do think it's scientific. Whig 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know of any such article. But feel free to take a look. thanks Peter morrell 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If Peter's essays are appropriate for cited inclusion, would it be also appropriate to find other essays by other writers? What are the qualifications we require for such essays? Whig 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

here is [13] a possible such article... cheers Peter morrell —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to re-categorize it. It's not that big of a deal as it is only a temporary category used for the nomination listings and will be gone once it's reviewed and listed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures" as a non-contentious classification? At a basic level, homeopathy is a cultural phenomenon, if nothing else. Tim Vickers 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes why not? if you can't squeeze it stealthily and unnoticed by night under 'science' then yes I agree with Tim. Better than misc. Peter morrell 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, won't putting the GA nomination in the health category make it more likely to be noticed and responded to by people with interests in health matters? Also, can a nomination be listed under more than one heading? Thanks, Wanderer57 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It might not a good idea to list it more than once, since that could lead to multiple people reviewing at one, with attendant confusion! I'll put a note on the Good Article Nominations talk page, most reviewers have that on their watchlists. Tim Vickers 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not list it more than once. Also, note that the top level of the category stays with the article in the form of the topic parameter, so it is important to decide whether the article is best placed under "Philosophy and religion", "Social sciences and society" or "Natural sciences". Then pick the best subheading of your choice. Geometry guy 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into the semantics of "science" it seems most logical to list this under health and medicine. I'm sure the topic has been debated ad infinitum here, but I'm sure most "outsiders" would consider the GA nomination proper in that category. --Bloodzombie 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put it under Health and medicine. Homeopathy is a medicinal practice inarguably, and please remember that the category its placed under at the GA noms page has zero impact on the neutrality of the content of the article. This is quibbling over nothing. VanTucky ^Talk 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this is where it belongs. Whig 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Inarguably a medicinal practice? WTF? VanTucky, you are flatly wrong. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources check

PS. While I am here, ref 6 seems to me to be insufficiently reliable (it is not peer-reviewed) to support the startling and imprecise claim that 25-50% of Europeans have used homeopathic medicine, especially as this is in the lead.

I have re-written this to fit two reliable sources. We still need a better source for the 25-50% statement later in the article. I think the sources might not contradict so wildly, since 2% in Britain say they have used homeopathy in the past year, while the 25-50% might refer to have you "ever" used homeopathy. That's just a guess though, I agree we need a better source that makes this clearer. Tim Vickers 16:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

oh, refs not RS again...well...

121 Washington Post RS?
92, 118 FASEB jnl peer reviewed RS?
116 NY Times RS?
93 Randi organisation, peer reviewed RS?
89 Barrett RS?
42 quackwatch RS?

thank you Peter morrell 06:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that demanding that all sources be "peer reviewed" is far too extreme and unrealistic. Not all reliable sources necessarly need to be peer reviewed. Ideally sources are peer reviewed, but generally not all are and we can't throw them away on that basis. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I improved ref "42" by linking to neutral Google Books rather than partisan Quackwatch. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Wikidudeman, we can't find peer-reviewed sources for everything, but as I mention I'm not sure what the 25-50% figure refers to, and can't work this out from the source. Since it is 10-fold higher than our other estimates, I think we need to confirm it somehow. Tim Vickers 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Two comments:

The arbitration committee clarified that quackwatch and Barrett are legitimate sources and can be used subject to editorial consensus.
There is section of the Fringe guideline which is relevant to the question of whether all sources be peer reviewed.

ScienceApologist 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, please reread Kirill's response. He never says that Quackwatch/Barrett are legit sources. He/she said that in the particular ruling, they found that these sites are partisan and unreliable; however, he/she is also saying that they can't declare it so for all of its uses (i.e. Certainly it is reliable for providing Barrett's opinions). My point above was that given that Barrett/Quackwatch is partisan, can be construed as unreliable in some cases and further, that Barrett's self-purported homeopathic expertise in particular has been called into question by a judge; perhaps we were doing a disservice to Wikipedia by linking to not one, but three of Barrett's sites (some multiple times) in this article. However, things have changed and now I believe we are only linking to Barrett once now. I think this satisfies WP:WEIGHT now and is more in line with the spirit of WP:RS. I do agree with the sentiment above that peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals are best when available, but there are other kinds of sources which can be used when they are not. And finally, a general note: Great work, everyone! This article gets better and better thanks to all of your cooperativeness and extraordinary patience. It's been a pleasure participating here! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I reviewed the article and it appears that we are linking to Barrett twice - once as a ref and once as an external link. What do you all think? Shall we leave both or limit it to just one? If we opt for the latter, I am pretty sure that we can find another source to replace the where Barrett is used for a ref, thus allowing us to keep the external link to his anti-Homeopathy site. Thoughts? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see we are linking to him as a source for the statements: "The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)." Perhaps another source would be appropriate for this. Is Barrett a chemist? Whig 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. He is a psychiatrist 15 years retired. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a very simple calculation:

Number of moles in first solution = concentration (M) x volume (L)

Number of molecules in first solution = number of moles x 6.02x10²³

Then you just divide the number of molecules by the dilution to get the number of molecules remaining in the diluted solution. I don't think you need much in the way of chemical expertise to do that. Tim Vickers 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! Perhaps then there is a more reliable source to correspond this to homeopathic potencies. I would think you would need some sort of expertise in chemistry and certainly homeopathy to make such an assessment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Any science undergrad (or even a high school student) can follow the math. Skinwalker 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why do we need any citation at all? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I realize you have a strong personal animosity towards Stephen Barrett, but your ongoing campaign to purge all of his links from Wikipedia is becoming tiresome. I see no need to remove the reference. Skinwalker 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Strong personal animosity? Untrue. I do think his site is over-used as a source on Wikipedia mainly because it presents itself as being an authority of scientific facts, when actually it is just a purveyor of political opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it a verifiable reliable source? This is the only question that needs to be asked. You may believe it is not, others disagree. In the context of Wikipedia, it is suitable. Shot info 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this is so simple anybody can check the statement for themselves. Given that, I don't see why it matters who we cite. Although it's verging on a "Water is wet" statement we probably do need a citation just because if we don't somebody will challenge it. Tim Vickers 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In France they speak French. No citation needed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If a cite is needed, provide one. If it isn't needed don't. Will be interesting to see if it is challenged and if so, what is used and who adds it :-) Shot info 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph in question. As you will see, it is quoting a "super" physicist, not Barrett. As usual, Barrett uses, quotes, and consults experts on the topics he writes about:

Physicist Robert L. Park, Ph.D., former executive director of the American Physical Society, has noted that "since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth." Park has also noted that "to expect to get even one molecule of the "medicinal" substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some two billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus whatever impurities the lactose contained." The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).^[2]

^ Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998). "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials". Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 133 (11): 1187–90. PMID 9820349.
^ Barrett, Stephen (2004-12-28). "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake". National Institutes of Health. NCCAM. Retrieved 2007-07-25.

(That ref format should be corrected to note that it is quoting Park.)

If you can find such an authoritative source as Park saying the same thing so clearly, or even find him saying it on another website, then that site could be used as the reference. Otherwise this reference serves the purpose just fine. It needs to be from a scientific source that is antagonistic and critical towards homeopathy (which is pretty much always the case with really scientific sources). -- Fyslee / talk 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wandered into this discussion partway through so please forgive me if I misunderstand. If the point of the citation is to confirm the basic facts about dilutions and Avogadro's number, probably any 1st year chemistry book would suffice. Why would an antagonistic source be needed? Second point: IMHO, it could be said more clearly than the above quote from Park. Wanderer57 20:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are basically correct. Unfortunately those who believe in homeopathy are more often prone (than the general educated population) to disbelieve scientific sources and even simple high school textbooks that teach the basic building blocks of knowledge, of which these people seem to be quite ignorant. By quoting an authority on the subject, it helps to show how absurd their belief system is, and it may even cause those prone to logical thinking at times to reconsider their position. They may be inclined to believe an authority over a high school textbook, even though that should be sufficient. I'm sure it could also be said more clearly, but sometimes spelling it out in "large letters" (like lots of zeroes, since believers may not understand mathematical concepts and symbols) gets the point across better than short statements of simple logic. -- Fyslee / talk 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most high school textbooks quite reasonably don't include comparisons of homeopathic solutions to Avogadro's number, so they would be inferior as sources. - Nunh-huh 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the full calculation as a footnote. Could people check I didn't slip up anywhere. Tim Vickers 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bellavite, et. al.

These authors are currently used as a source in [71] and [73] but only for historical background. This [14] seems to be an excellent paper on dose-response non-linearity including the paradoxical pharmacology of toxins and proposed plausible mechanisms of homeopathic potency. I would appreciate feedback on suitability for inclusion. Whig 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a lecture that is highly speculative and contains conjectures of a pseudoscientific and metaphysical nature, which is quite appropriate for such a lecture, since that is what homeopathy is all about. Whether such material (extremely speculative OR) is suitable for this article is another question..... -- Fyslee / talk 03:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A problem is that this deals with how low concentrations of molecules can have, in some rare cases, larger effects than high concentrations. It does not deal with how no molecules could have larger effects than some molecules. The difference is that you can see how 1 μM might in some cases produce more activity than 10 mM, but no physical mechanism can explain how 0 μM has more effect than 10 mM. Tim Vickers 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The authors address high potencies as well [15]. Are you saying that this article is unsuitable for inclusion or do we have to argue the science first? Whig 00:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If that internal link doesn't work, go to the section on The Homeopathic ‘Potencies’ Whig 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the part where they say: "Although today such a hypothesis is strictly speculative, recent scientific evidence directs us to study this elusive phenomenon." Yes, this paper is speculation. Tim Vickers 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we have a diluted dose containing one molecule of the active ingredient. The next C dilution will produce 99 doses with none and one with one molecule. The homeopathist will not know which is which. If (a big if) someone with a mass spectrometer or other instrument were able to determine which is which, I think the doses tested would be destroyed in the testing. (If they are not outright destroyed, the potentization after the testing would be suspect.)

In a double blind study, someone still knows or can figure out from the records which dose is which.

In a study beyond certain dilutions, no one knows and scientific testing is no longer possible. Wanderer57 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(I should have said "scientific testing is no longer possible unless one knows that the presence or absence of any of the original molecules makes no difference.") Wanderer57 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To address Whig's question at the beginning of this section, Bellavite's paper seems to me to be highly speculative. To me, there is one intriguing point, that measurable differences in physical properties have been found between potentized and non-potentized liquids. Wanderer57 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientifically plausible, however, I think. It would need to be contextualized, and not stated as anything other than a theory of homeopathy. Currently we say that the theories of homeopathy are scientifically implausible, which this paper would tend to contradict. Whig 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you are referring to, I think, says, "Homeopathic solutions, when compared with the control solvent samples, show increased electrical conductivity (81,82), distinct NMR signals (83), optical emissions (84) and characteristic thermo-luminescent patterns when undergoing electromagnetic impulses (85)." These references in turn should be checked out but they appear to be reasonable citations. Whig 03:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's referring to Jacques Benveniste, whose work is discredited. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a few refs: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] that show you don't know what you are talking about this has nothing to do with Benveniste! do some simple research. Peter morrell 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Other investigators have been unable to reproduce any of the results in the NMR studies Link 1 link 2 link 3 and the gas discharge visualization study was basically all over the place, as you can see if you read their abstract link 4 any paper that cherry-picks a single positive result from a larger number of negative results and describes that Bell paper as showing anything is obviously trying to mislead its readers. Tim Vickers 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you find the Bell study misleading? Whig 06:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bell study is not misleading, it is confusing and inconclusive. However, any paper that cites the Bell paper in an attempt to prove that homeopathic remedies are different from water is trying to mislead its readers. Tim Vickers

Could you clarify why you find the Bell study confusing and inconclusive? Whig 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Read it, what are its conclusions? Their numbers are, to use a technical term - "All over the shop" Tim Vickers 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this [21] study, "CONCLUSIONS: GDV technology may provide an electromagnetic probe into the properties of homeopathic remedies as distinguished from solvent controls. However, the present findings also highlight the need for additional research to evaluate factors that may affect reproducibility of results." Whig 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they couldn't get any reproducible results - that's the problem. The paper proves nothing. Tim Vickers 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't read that way to me. Maybe someone else can chime in here. It suggests there may be factors affecting reproducibility, not that they failed to reproduce. Whig 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly a diversity of plausible physical explanations for homeopathic potency in high dilution with dynamization. This [22] from someone at Harvard Medical School has some rationale as well that might be worth citing. I do not have the full text of this article, can someone obtain it? Whig 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that Whig quoted above from Bellavite, which begins "Homeopathic solutions, when compared", is what I referred to. Here are the citations (for ease of reference):

81. Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Nonatelli L, Ramaglia A, Ventimiglia E. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. A calorimetric and conductivity study at 25°C. J Thermal Anal Calorim. 2004;78:331–42.

82. Elia V, Niccoli M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. J Thermal Anal Calorim. 2004;75:815–36.

83. Demangeat JL, Gries P, Poitevin B, Droesbeke JJ, Zahaf T, Maton F, et al. Low-field NMR water proton longitudinal relaxation in ultrahighly diluted aqueous solutions of silica-lactose prepared in glass material for pharmaceutical use. Appl Magn Reson. 2004;26:465–81.

84. Bell IR, Lewis DA, Brooks AJ, Lewis SE, Schwartz GE. Gas discharge visualization evaluation of ultramolecular doses of homeopathic medicines under blinded, controlled conditions. J Altern Complement Med. 2003;9:25–38. [PubMed]

85. Rey LR. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica. 2003;A323:67–74.

A question: Bellavite's paper has a link to a summary of 'Bell, et al' on PubMed. Can anyone suggest sites where I can find other papers? My local library links to some databases but it is limited.

Thanks, Wanderer57 13:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving related articles

I think that this article is to the point that it doesn't need any massive changes done to it and I also believe that we should start to focus our attention to related articles. If this article is to truly be great then the topics of homeopathy must also be improved. The articles that I have in mind are:

Homeopathic repertory
Homeopathic Materia Medica
The Organon of the Healing Art

Please add some input concerning this ASAP as well as ideas on how to go about improving these three articles. It should not be too difficult or take too long, however it must be done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the third one is pretty awful, and the first two appalling. What more can be said? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Homeopathic repertory and Homeopathic Materia Medica are short and likely to remain so, and they are closely related and partly redundant. Would it be better to combine them into a single article? That way the difference between the two can be clearly presented and contrasted, which is hard to do with separate articles. Either way, I think our Homeopathy#Repertory section is clearer than either of these articles as they stand. --Art Carlson 07:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I agree, even though the main article can still be improved, that our effort would be better spent bringing the related articles up to par.

What about adding the most relevant info from Homeopathic repertory to Homeopathy#Repertory and merging it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Hankey, Ph.D.

This [23] article tries to put forward a quantum field theory explanation for homeopathy. It isn't stated what his Ph.D. is in, and whether he is a physicist I do not know for sure, but it appears that he is. Whig 09:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He does [24] appear to be a physicist, indeed. Whig 10:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be notable. Jefffire 11:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! This has to be the first time I've seen a paper cite both the EPR paradox and King Lear. Probably not a reliable source - Hankey hasn't published in reputable journals for decades, assuming this is the same A. Hankey. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quanta ex machina? Tim Vickers 15:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside the ad hominems, is there a basis to believe that Dr. Hankey's work has been discredited by his peers? If not, then as a physicist he is a competent source to express a plausible physical theory, which of course other sources may dispute. Whig 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable publication on this topic in a physics journal and we'll discuss it. Tim Vickers 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So you would reject this paper from inclusion on the grounds that it is not published in a physics journal? Whig 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would reject this paper because it isn't published in any type of journal. Please stop wasting our time. Tim Vickers 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wasting your time. It isn't published in a reliable journal. It is still a reliable source, because Dr. Hankey is a published physicist. Whig 17:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, a published physicist is a reliable source on physics even when writing on a web site. A medical doctor is not a reliable source on physics even when writing in a medical journal. Whig 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It goes both ways. A trained scientist should know better than to comment on things he isn't qualified in. Scientists have been known to make complete asses out of themselves when they forget this (e.g. William Shockley, Brian David Josephson, Kary Mullis, and most recently, James Watson, and those are just the Nobel Laureates). It's simple, if you make a statement of scientific fact (or even opinion) in this article, it needs to be cited to a source published in reputable, peer-reviewed journal, or even a secondary source that draws from a reviewed article. Skinwalker 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the scientist is commenting on his own field. Whig 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO:

1) These discussions work so much better when they remain civil. I feel this creeping the other way.

2) This is an eclectic paper. Part of it seems to be physics. That part needs support either by other papers that are referred to in it, or papers that comment on it. The few physics journals referred to in it are quite old. Hankey relies heavily on Milgrom's papers in Homeopathy which, no matter how reputable a journal it is, does not give credibility to the parts about quantum theory. Someone with citation index access can check for citations and reviews of this paper.

3) Even if the paper and author were shown to have impeccable credentials, it is highly speculative. What would one quote from it that would be helpful to the article? Wanderer57 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is speculative, but it is a plausible physical ~~theory~~ hypothesis by a physicist which can be contextualized. Presently the article states that there is no plausible scientific mechanism, but this is contradicted. Whig 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here [25] is a sequel article which goes into more detail of his plausible hypothesis. Whig 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we begin using e-zines as "reliable sources"? Or was this reprinted from something that was referreed and peer reviewed? - Nunh-huh 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, no. If the writer were not a published physicist he would not be a reliable source. Whig 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We cite publications, not people! - Nunh-huh 19:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:RS: The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work. Whig 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand WP:RS. We don't cite random opinions on e-zines, regardless of the credentials of their authors, except as sources about that author: that is, they would be cited as evidence someone said something, not as evidence that something is valid. You might reasonably cite Alex Hankey's musings on a website in an article about Alex Hankey's opinions, but not in an article on homeopathy. - Nunh-huh 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Dr. Hankey's credentials, but I did notice that the link provided above to show he is a physicist actually shows 10 papers published more than 30 years ago mostly by him and two other people, and infrequently referred to since. I think more importantly, if a version of the paper under discussion were published in a physics journal, that would indicate the "physics" in it had been scrutinized by physicists. Since it is in a homeopathy journal, it likely was not. Since the paper suggests a physical mechanism might underlie homeopathy, the physics part is key. Putting this together with the speculative nature of the paper, what are we left with that could properly go into the article? Wanderer57 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do many physics journals publish papers on homeopathy? What journal should he submit his paper to? We can accept that he is an expert in the field of physics, based upon his credentials and publication history. If other experts in the field of physics disagree with him then that should certainly be taken into consideration, and if published physics reviews contradict him in such a way as to make his claims implausible, then perhaps he should be excluded. All of these are relevant weighting factors. Whig 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Even published scientists and Nobel Prize laureates can be unreliable sources in their own fields if they have written nonsense that shows their opinions are untrustworthy and that they have ignored basic scientific knowledge. One must keep an eye open for pseudoscientific, metaphysical, or weirdly speculative red flags in their writings. If you find them, then you must be very cautious in using them. The biggest fool can ask a thousand questions that the wisest man can never answer. Such drivel is not worthy of inclusion here. We need independently verified information that is reproduced and confirmed by reputable sources, not speculations, anecdotes, and self-fulfilling fantasies that are not falsifiable. If their opinions are not shared by large numbers of reputable scientists, then one is likely wasting time reading their writings. Such persons are only reliable sources for documenting their own opinion, and we do use them when writing articles about them. -- Fyslee / talk 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientists can be discredited. If Dr. Hankey has been discredited by his peers, please provide some evidence. Whig 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You do not mention that Dr. Alex Hankey completed a course in India on transcendental meditation. He believes that TM can cure cancer. He appears to have dropped out of physics about 25 years ago. The article you cited contains no physics; it is just pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo and its contents have no place on the WP. --Mathsci 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mention it because I wasn't aware of it. Even so, the sequel article [26] contains more physics. Whether it is validly reasoned or not, I am not competent to evaluate, but I defer to a physicist on matters of physics. If another physicist disputes Dr. Hankey, that should be presented. Whig 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion of bits of physics there, but the connections between them and the overall chain of reasoning are gossamer thin. This is only one opinion, of course. Finding support for this paper from any source that will pass as scientific is nearly impossible. To me, it reads like a flight of fantasy, sprinkled with scientic terms. Wanderer57 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the paper proves anything but plausibility of a physical model according to a published physicist. We need not give it more weight than that. Whig 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, your soapboxing on this talk page is becoming disruptive. We are not going to include speculative and unreliable sources in the article. Tim Vickers 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But if you'd like to file a complaint, please do. Whig 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over. Wanderer57 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit: According to physicist Alex Hankey, Ph.D., a physical explanation of homeopathy is plausible.[27][28] Whig 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reject, unless notability can be demonstrated, i.e., why is the opinion of this particular physicist important, or is there any reason to think that he vocalizes an opinion held by a significant minority of physicists? (But thanks for putting up a concrete proposal. We could use more of that here.) --Art Carlson 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Art, I think I can find some other physicists with similar perspectives on this. Fred Alan Wolf is one. I'm not sure how constructive it would be to go gathering these sources up if this wouldn't be helpful in supporting the need for including the balance that is necessary for this article to be NPOV. Right now, we are saying that homeopathy is scientifically implausible. Some physicists disagree. So we should say that, but we should be careful and attribute those disagreements. I'd welcome your input on how to do this effectively. Whig 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Find disagreements published by physicists in peer-reviewed scientific literature and we can discuss what weight to give to these sources. Tim Vickers 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is still room for improvement, but the current state isn't too bad, and any changes have to maintain the delicate semi-consensus we have now. I think your suggestion is not the way to go. I don't have too much time to spend on making a better suggestion now, but I will keep the issue in mind. --Art Carlson 09:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good articel. I'll promote it to GA status--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Great news! Thanks to all the editors who have contributed to the article. Tim Vickers 19:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch refs

See talk above we all agreed recently by consensus NOT to use quackwatch refs can you please rvt Fyslee and Cuerden's edits? Dragging in irrelevant trumped up charges against other editors is not relevant. The article is bad enough as it is. thank you Peter morrell 06:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus, and it was part of a deletionist purge of Quackwatch edits by one editor, which has now gotten him some very unwanted attention. Please do not participate in such madness. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for using such a POV source for factual material which is simply stated in the article, but if used to source critical opinions only, it is OK. The current case in in between, as it is a critical opinion, but used to cite factual material about history. It does seem to need a better source is one can be found. The fact cited is:

Nineteenth century American physician and author Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. was also a vocal critic of homeopathy and published an essay in 1842 entitled Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions.

And Peter's source is " Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions.

By Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes Presented by Sylvain Cazalet ", which seems to be a better source for such a statement than a highly biased and POV website. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also written in unreadable blue. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No one's been able to articulate any good reason for removing the Quackwatch links, other than IDONTLIKEITYOURESUPPRESSINGMYFRINGEPOV. The link will stay, and the article should link to homeowatch.org if it doesn't do so already. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave this reason earlier, but perhaps you missed it:

An interesting note about Barrett while we are on the subject, when he was paying himself to act as his organization's own expert witness while suing a Homeopathic remedy manufacturer, the judge, in conclusion, had the following to say of Barrett's alledged expertise with Homeopathy: Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs ... As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area ... Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. [29] The proceeding was from Section IV, Subsection B of this document. For more enlightenment on the credibility of Barrett in the world of Homeopathy, see Section IV, Subsection C where the judge states that Barrett's testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

Further, the judge describes Barrett as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position (anti-homeopathy), and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. Granted that this is just one judge's opinion, but I do think it certainly calls into question whether we can consider him as a reliable source (for objective or expert information) for this particular article.

In closing, I would like to point people to this section of the Barrett v. Rosenthal ArbCom where the committee does rule that Quackwatch is indeed a partisan site. Further, Fyslee is insisting that I am in big trouble for removing/replacing this link from this article. This is not true. What is true is that the ArbCom found Fyslee guilty of incivility and personal attacks and the appearance of a conflict of interest, for which the remedy is that Fyslee was cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. This cautioning came in part because it was shown that he had spammed and defended dozens and dozens of links to Barrett-related sites. I am curious as to why no admin in cautioning him for falling back into this cycle of behavior of defending Barrett links, engaging in incivility and personal attacks, and allowing his COI dictate his edits. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack by Levine2112

So Levine is once again reposting his attacks on Barrett and making false statements based on misunderstandings of the Arbcom ruling. Yawn....what else is new? This personal attack certainly isn't. He's done it before, been corrected, yet does it again. A COI was never established, but just to be on the safe side ("to avoid the appearance of a COI") a caution was issued. Fine. Since the COI was never established, Levine's continual raising of the issue is simple harassment of a rather nasty character.

It was never "shown that he [myself] had spammed ...... dozens and dozens of links to Barrett-related sites." That is Levine's own charge, which he attempted to prove and failed miserably for a number of reasons: it wasn't true; he refused to stop misusing the term "spammed"; his evidence was seriously flawed; it was shown that my edits were often defenses against Levine's own improper POV deletion rampages aimed against all things Barrett similar to the one he has just carried on. IOW I was just restoring his vandalism of existing links that I hadn't posted in the first place, yet he called it "spamming"!!! This was all clearly shown thanks to the hard work of other editors who went through his evidence and showed just how flawed it was. In the end only about 6-7 links were proven to have been placed by myself (mostly when I was a newbie), and never in a "spamming" fashion, but very specifically as good reliable sources, which is our job here.

If anyone is still in doubt about Levine's animosity towards Barrett, Quackwatch, and myself, I think his statements speak for themselves. If anyone wants to carry out the block (suggested by an admin) against him, be my guest. I'm getting tired of his harassment and POV deletion rampages against good sources that happen to diss his favorite quackeries. -- Fyslee / talk 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not reposting my attack on Barrett but in fact reposting a judges opinion about Barrett's expertise with regards to Homeopathy.
When the ArbCom refers to "editors with a known partisan point of view" they are referring to Fyslee. He has a known partisan point of view, as clearly demonstrated above and particularly made clear in his ArbCom.
If all Fyslee did was place 6-7 links to Quackwatch then why would he be cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV? What's funny is that I replace 6-7 Quackwatch links and he characterize it as a "rampage". Look closer. I have been defending/bolstering other Quackwatch links in places where I felt they are being used appropriately.

But I digress. Let's focus on my #1 point here. That's really all that is appropriate for this talk page, after all. A judge concluded that Barrett doesn't have the sufficient qualification to characterize himself as an expert in Homeopathy. Quackwatch is Barrett's self-published site. So, without the proper expertise, we cannot consider Quackwatch to be a reliable source. Please read through Wp:rs#Self-published_sources and WP:SPS. Given the judge's opinion of Barrett's bias, I would even go so far as to characterize Quackwatch, Homeowatch, etc. as extremist sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

<RI>There is absolutely no consensus in removing Quackwatch links. In fact, if you go to Quackwatch the same group there bitching here. Not sure that constitutes a consensus by any stretch of the imagination. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would actually say that there is no consensus for keeping the Quackwatch link. The link is contentious and controversial, so the onus for consensus is on inclusion, not on removal. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some editors prefer the Quackwatch reference with the cartoon goose and the subtitle "Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions" rather than the neutrally titled page at http://homeoint.org/cazalet/holmes/index.htm. The former carries a strong POV, whether or not a Wikipedia user who goes to it reads the article. Is this by any chance a significant reason why some editors prefer it? Please forgive me for being suspicious.

By the way, the Cazalet site has some intriguing papers, aside from the one by Holmes. Wanderer57 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the whole issue shows who actually owns and controls this article and it is no wonder therefore that it is still a very long way from NPOV and very likely to stay that way forever. It is a fringe subject and should be mostly about the subject matter of its title, rather than endless critique, which WDM promised some time back to place in a separate section. That is clearly never going to happen. It is immaterial if or when this article gets GA or FA, it is never going to be any good to the average reader for the aforementioned reasons. so there we are. cheers Peter morrell 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the link being a little better, but this is not the place for unfocused complaints about the article's editors. It doesn't look like endless criticism to me; the history seems covered well. Perhaps you could enumerate several of the specific POV problems you perceive in the article. I don't care for how we're having one super-trivial fight at a time. Let's discuss a larger list. Cool Hand Luke 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone have Sylvain Cazalet correct "6ne" to "one"? - Nunh-huh 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sent them a message.

It has been fixed. (Oct 28)

The point here is that for a skeptical opinion, Quackwatch is a good source. For facts, we do not use POV sources, except with thorough attribution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds exactly right. Especially for this article in particular. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone in this discussion consider Quackwatch as NPOV in regard to homeopathy? Wanderer57 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is POV. I don't see how it's even disputable. Whig 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I really want to hear from anyone who thinks that QuackWatch IS NPOV. Wanderer57 23:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I hear a straw man? Has anybody claimed Quackwatch was NPOV, or that any of us are NPOV? I hope not. Such sources aren't worth much when trying to document opinions, which is what we do using V & RS. Attribution is good in such situations. If a statement is non-mainstream or fringe it is even more important. Since Quackwatch is pretty mainstream and doesn't make unusual claims, attribution isn't always necessary, but sometimes it might be a good idea anyway. -- Fyslee / talk 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. No straw man was intended, and so far as I know no one has claimed QW is NPOV. I just want to check if anyone in the discussion thought it was NPOV. Wanderer57 02:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Quackwatch has a clear, readable version of Oliver Wendell Holmes' essay. Why should we use an unreadable version just because you don't like the site? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it may be note d that despite one judge's pre-Daubert ruling, huge numbers of major medical orginisations, newspapers, journals, even the U.S. Government recommend Quackwatch as a sourch, as detailed on Quackwatch.

Your position is untenable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. KingBio was in 2001... very much post Daubert. Also, just because the font is blue doesn't make it remotely unreadable. I can read it quite fine and it is on a site which is not controversial and partisan here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Why should we use the Cazalet site instead of the Quackwatch site for the Wendell Holmes paper?" It is simple. On Cazalet, the article is on a neutrally titled page. On Quackwatch, the article is on a page headed with a cartoon goose and the subtitle "Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions". QuackWatch conveys a strong POV, whether or not a Wikipedia user who goes to it reads the article. Wanderer57 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Morrell's understanding of appropriate topic matter

Above, Peter morrell wrote:

"It is a fringe subject and should be mostly about the subject matter of its title, rather than endless critique, ...."

I want to make sure I understand Peter's meaning and would like to hear his explanation. I get the feeling (which could be mistaken) after reading the above, that he thinks this article should just be about explaining homeopathy.

If I understand the purpose of Wikipedia, articles are supposed to cover the subject in all its facets, not only explanations of the subject, but everything about the subject, including all notable POV on the subject. Not only that, it requires articles to give the proper weight to certain aspects and POV when covering such subjects, which means that the scientific position gets the most weight, which is certainly not the case in this article.

What does Peter think about this? I feel he is objecting to having an article that includes any criticism beyond a short aside that mentions that criticism exists, and that he would rather have an article that just tells about homeopathy, just like so many thousands of pro-homeopathy websites do. I don't want to misunderstand him and since he is a significant editor on this article I feel he deserves the chance to explain his position on the matter.

I would also like to know if he thinks his POV is NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated several times I think the article should of course contain criticism and the due weight of crit against homeopathy. The issue seems to be a disagreement between different editors on how to balance this polarity of views within the article and within the sources. I am certainly not saying that all crit should be excluded or downsized. That would be an extremist position. Crit has a very important role to play in any disputed subject and MUST be included to achieve a fair balance. On the other hand, it should not be so prevalent as to dominate and smother the subject itself. IMO the crit in this article does tend to shadow every sentence and counters every statement the article tries to make. This gives the impression that the crit is overwhelmingly more important than the actual content about the subject of the title: homeopathy itself. I hope this clarifies my position. Peter morrell 08:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure others may wish to get a deeper understanding of your position. -- Fyslee / talk 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we add this please? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/20/homeopathy Squid87 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please no, Ben Goldacre is virtually a Stephen Barrett when it comes to homeopathy. This POV rant is not suitable. We have enough anti citations in the article already surely?? thanks Peter morrell 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a "blog". Wanderer57 17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The malaria debacle is already covered in the article, I don't think this source is better than the ones we are already using. Tim Vickers 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[Ernst-1] Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998). "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials". Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 133 (11): 1187–90. PMID 9820349.

[Sbarrett-2] Barrett, Stephen (2004-12-28). "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake". National Institutes of Health. NCCAM. Retrieved 2007-07-25.

[1]

[2]