Talk:Homeopathy: Difference between revisions

TODO

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care.

"treat" vs "claims to treat"

The word 'treat' just means to give something to somebody if certain conditions are met. So far as dealing with the illness, the treatment may be completely useless (as with homeopathy), but they're still being treated.

For example, in olden days, people were treated for all manner of indications with leeches. They didn't do a damn thing in many cases, but that was the treatment nevertheless.

The only way 'claims to treat' would be correct, is if there was some doubt that people take homeopathic treatments at all.- Wolfkeeper 01:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Claims to treat is the correct and neutral form. Also, as most preparations contain no solute, I'd say there is some doubt as to whether people are taking homeopathic treatments at all. Leeches are still used in medicine and did have an effect, though perhaps not the one intended. Verbal chat 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of back-and-forth on this. Can't we try to work towards a compromise, or at least a ceasefire?

Personally, I'd be happy with either version. No doubt there are other parts on this article that could benefit from the attention ;-)

bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy on how to treat unsubstantiated claims (if there isn't there probably should be)? The only body whose policy I'm familiar with on this is the (UK) Advertising Standards Authority, who interpret any claim to treat a condition as a claim of effective treatment. Brunton (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Verbal chat 09:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument; while "treat" technically also includes ineffective (and even harm inducing) treatments, colloquially I think the use of the term has an implication of effectiveness. The easiest way to solve this is to find a good RS that uses the wording one way or another and to cite it. Yobol (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The ASA gives a pretty good standard, which more than clinches it for me. Verbal chat 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Current opening sentence:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that claims to treat patients with astronomically diluted preparations.

Could we solve this by replacing claims to treat (or treat if the lead changes again ... which ideally it should not for a while) with uses? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not advertising anything, and we use the Wikipedia's policies in the Wikipedia, not the ASAs here. 'Claims to treat' is incorrect because they self-evidently do get treated, that's what 'treat' means. Either change it to something else entirely or leave it as 'treat'.- Wolfkeeper 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What do Wikipedia's policies say about treatment of unsubstantiated claims? Brunton (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated claim that is being repeatedly edit warred into the article is that people only claim to take homeopathic stuff, but don't really. That's what this sentence means.- Wolfkeeper 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the claim is that it is an effective remedy. Verbal chat 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of "that claims to treat patients with astronomically diluted preparations." is the word 'effective' or 'remedy'? Hint: none. A remedy is something that actually remedies something. A treatment is something you use under a prescribed set of conditions. See the difference?- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, torture is a certain sort of treatment of prisoners in an attempt to extract information. Does that make it a remedy? No.- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you keep using the word 'treat' but you don't seem to have a clue what it means.- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• In my book treating a person stands for applying a therapy with the intended goal of curing a medical condition. In the absence of a cure one attempts to alleviate the symptoms. Ergo, since homeopathy has been proven to be indistinguisable from placebo any homeopathic treatment is no more than a "claim."--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, so what you're saying is, they try to cure something by giving them something. And that's what they do. You'll note that there's no implication that it has to actually be actually successful, either always or ever, just that it's applied with that intention. So unless you think that homeopaths are always fraudulent, then the 'claim' bit is wrong.Wolfkeeper 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Trying implies you are doing something you expect has an effect on the desired outcome. Since homeopathy has been proven to have no effect, other than placebo, one cannot reasonably argue "they try to cure something." How can you cure anything when you are doing nothing? In short, doing something you know is ineffective by definition means you claim you are treating a patient. Or, so we are absolutely clear as to what this is about: a claim is an unproven assertion, ergo homeopathy claims to be a form of treatment for many diseases. Regarding "there's no implication that it has to actually be actually successful" I disagree. Giving lemon juice to cure cancer is silly. We know it does not work. So it is not a treatment for cancer. At best we can say people claim it cures cancer. To be called a treatment it must be proven to be effective, although not necessarily a 100%.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 10:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is it written that a treatment has to be proven scientifically? It isn't. That's not the definition of treat. The definition of treat is something used with the intended goal of improving something.

However, many homeopaths and patients really are dumb enough to not believe the scientific evidence, and hence really do expect that homeopathy will have an effect on the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work. It didn't matter that leeches didn't work, applying them, or homeopathy in a particular way was/is still a treatment.

(as an aside: Leeches can 'work' - perhaps it's their use in bloodletting that you refer to.)--TraceyR (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter. Leeches are still a treatment however they're used. That's the point isn't it?- Wolfkeeper 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

English just isn't used the way it is in the article, you're using the wrong words for what you're trying to say.- Wolfkeeper 12:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't leave this as 'claims to treat' it's a deliberate slur on homeopaths, it's saying that they deliberately give homeopathic treatments, knowing they don't work, that they're only claiming that they do. That may be true in some cases, but in general they really do believe it.- Wolfkeeper 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a deliberate slur; it says that homeopaths claim to treat. They really do claim[1] to treat[2]. Although we are working on the basis that the treatment is ineffective, "claim" applies equally well regardless of whether the claimant is ignorant, lying, delusional, confused, or something else.

I am not aware of any reasonable definition of the work "claim" which requires the claimant to knowingly say something untrue; if you have a good source that defines "claim" this way, please share it with us.

Where does the article say that homeopaths deliberately give treatments knowing that they don't work?

bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's mainly bad writing. A homeopathic remedy is a treatment. The claim is that this will cure the ailment. The treatment is a simple fact. It is the likelihood of the cure which is doubted. The current language muddles up these issues and by phrasing it in a strange way, gives the opening a tendentious tone. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you claim that using the word 'claim' when referring to something that somebody else says doesn't cast doubt, or imply the existence of doubt, on the veracity of what is said? Uh huh.- Wolfkeeper 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Our opening lead seems poorly constructed. Compare, for example, with the Encyclopedia Britannica which has:

"...a system of therapeutics, notably popular in the 19th century, which was founded on the stated principle that “like cures like,” similia similibus curantur, and which prescribed for patients drugs or other treatments that would produce in healthy persons symptoms of the diseases being treated."

The word "prescribed" seems good in accurately describing what is done - the physician recommends a particular treatment according to his diagnosis and doctrine. The word "treatment" is used here without any special implication of success. Is it not well understood that, for all forms of medicine, treatments are no guarantee of a cure?

Also the phrase "astronomically diluted" seems quite misleading as it suggests that the matter has something to do with the stars or planets. The essential idea of homeopathy - the theory that like cures like - is not mentioned at all. The Britannica version is far superior.

Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Treatments are generally understood imply a probability of success, see the ASA reference. While I generally disagree with your reasoning, I agree that "astronomically" is not a good word for the lead. See below. Verbal chat 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about "astronomically" (see below), but virtually every description of homoeopathy, even those from homoeopathic organisations, says that it uses highly diluted preparations. It is not true, by the way, that "the essential idea of homeopathy - the theory that like cures like - is not mentioned at all" - the second sentence of the lead says "Based on an ipse dixit axiom formulated by Hahnemann which he called the law of similars, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given as the treatment for patients exhibiting similar symptoms." This mirrors, for example, the Society of Homeopaths' description of homoeopathy, which describes the medicines as "highly diluted" in its first sentence, and doesn't mention "like cures like" until the second paragraph. Having it this way round would not appear to be massively controversial. Brunton (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say, assumptions make an ass out of you, Verbal, and treatments do not imply a probability of success only an intent to have some kind of effect. The fact that you are incapable of understanding the distinction probably partly contributes to you repeatedly reverting to a version that is either nonsense or a deliberate bad faith attack on homeopaths; hey they are quacks, but they're not necessarily fraudulent quacks- they don't knowingly prescribe treatments that don't work.- Wolfkeeper 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made an assumptions, or used the word. What I did was give an opinion backed by references without personal attacks against other editors or homeopaths, despite what you have attributed to me. I suggest you take a break. Verbal chat 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Claims to treat" is an ambiguous wording. It could be interpreted as referring to a practice that does not actually occur, while its practitioners claim that it does. Moreover, this wording along with the use of "so-called" in the third sentence of the lede are examples of weasel wording (see WP:ALLEGED). Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "fails to treat"? Actually, I think the "practitioners use" option currently in place is better. Brunton (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On insanity

Why is this insanity periodically coming up? What's wrong with the following sentence?

The famous doctor always treats his patients with contempt.

Does it really have to be "corrected" to the following?

The famous doctor always claims [or attempts] to treat his patients with contempt.

The word "treat" does have connotations of efficacy, but they are rather weak, and certainly much weaker than the implication that people actually do something. Any formulation implying that someone doesn't actually "treat" a patient but only "claims" or "tries" to do so is a very clear statement about their actual actions, not about the potential efficacy of these actions. The following is absolutely ludicrous:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that claims to treat patients with highly diluted preparations. [3]

The plain meaning of this sentence is that homeopaths try to give highly diluted preparations to patients but for some reason fail. It doesn't get clear though whether the problem is that the preparations aren't actually diluted, whether they try to send them to their patients by mail and they never arrive, or whether the patients, possibly after reading the Skeptical Inquirer or discussing with pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia, decide no improvement at all is actually better than an improvement due to the placebo effect (which may well be better for homeopathy than "proper" medicine for susceptible persons), and so throw them away. Hans Adler 11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the current wording which removes the bone of contention? Verbal chat 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the current wording comes from, it's very clumsy and needs fixing. But I still don't have time for such things, and it's way too hot anyway. Hans Adler 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans, while the wording does start to get a little cumbersome, the argument you have set up here is a bit of a straw man. The word "treat" has several meanings, among them ( from my dictionary) 1. behave towards or deal with in a certain way; and 2. give medical care or attention to. In your "claims to treat his patients with contempt" example, it depends on which definition of "treats" we are referencing. If the doctor claims that he "behaves towards or deals with in a certain way", the sentence comes across as saying that this doctor, for some odd reason, is known to brag about how poorly he treats his patients. If the doctor claims that he "gives medical care" in the form of contempt, then the word "claims" is certainly of use; otherwise the reader is being told that this odd method of dealing with patients is a form of medical care. Simply because he is a doctor, everything he does in the presence of a patient does not necessarily constitute medical care. He breaths, he farts, he ties his shoes, and he may even show contempt; but If he claimed to be medically treating you by any of these actions, you'd say he was an ass.

In the article, the word "treat" is most certainly being employed in the sense of "giving medical care", which implies that homeopathy is actually a form of medical care. According to the best evidence available, there is no reason to believe that homeopathy is any more useful than contempt as a form of medical care. The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that there is no reason to believe that homeopathy can be considered as a form of medical care, so why would we suggest it here? I, for one, think the qualification of the word "treat" is justifiedPuddin'head Wilson (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Were you under the impression that you were responding to my core argument? If so, you failed. I suggest a Google search for "placebo-treated" if you want to know what I mean. Even when "treat" is used in the medical sense, efficacy is not a necessary feature of a treatment (although there is of course a presumption of efficacy to some extent), and efficacy beyond placebo is definitely not a necessary feature. It's the same with most words in a natural language.

E.g. there is a presumption that a "city" is big in some sense (bigger than a town or village), and there is a presumption that an English "city" has a certain status granted by the king/queen. Both appear in dictionaries as if they were necessary features, but neither is really necessary. Whether we can call an English village with city status, or a large English settlement with no legal status at all, a "city", depends on context.

Here it's basically the same situation, a matter of context. The context in question is not "Is it possible/ethical to treat certain conditions with homeopathy?" Instead, the context is "Homeopaths treat patients with certain obviously ineffictive stuff." Hans Adler 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. But then again, I'm quite dim. How about:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy administer highly dilute preparations of substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease. The rationale for this approach was articulated by Hahnemann as the law of similars, an ipse dixit axiom which states "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

Sound any better?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Administer" instead of "treat"? I have no problem with that at all. I am not opposed to those people for whom the efficacy connotation feels stronger than for most of us replacing the word by something else that doesn't carry the same connotations. But this wasn't the first time that someone left the word "treat" in and made the article claim that homeopaths are even too stupid to actually administer the stuff.

I think the lead would flow much better if we replace the first two sentences by your text. (But I guess it should be "highly diluted", not "highly dilute". You can say either "dilute" or "diluted", but it seems odd to me to modify "dilute" with "highly".) Hans Adler 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Highly diluted" sounds fine to me. I'll make the change to the article tomoroow if no one has any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddin'head Wilson (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current version (so I suppose this is an objection) and "are known to cause the symptoms" strengthens what is already a too-strong assertion in the current lead. Verbal chat 15:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage "...substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease" (my emphasis) suggests that provings are carried out using undiluted substances. They aren't. They use the diluted remedies. Brunton (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest a change to "substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease" - some of these substances are merely speculated to cause analogous symptoms.

For a silly example, here's a proving of wood from a shipwreck, which the homeopath thinks will help treat people with obstructions, blockages, or traffic congestion in their lives: [4] - wood from an old shipwreck is not known to cause modern-day traffic congestion.

Helios sell such ingenious medicines as "Hadrian's Wall" and "Helium". What symptoms are known to be caused by old masonry and inert gases?

bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans that the current wording is a bit clumsy, but I certainly appreciate the need to not overestimate the rigor of homeopathic practices. I actually liked the original bit about "claiming to treat" as it seems like a reasonable assertion. I won't change anything in the article yet, but will work on some changes here when I get a chance. One of the insurmountable problems with editing articles on alternative medicine is the fact that, by their very nature, they embrace the idea that anyone can claim whatever they feel like and we are expected to, by default, assume it is legitimate. Wording which might be true to Hahnemann's original delusions doesn't address some of the silliness found in the "state of the art". Quite a pickle.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

I actually agree with Verbal that "when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms" is too strong. This is what most sources claim, presumably because it was the original motivation, but it simply doesn't seem to describe practice. We shouldn't repeat a misleading claim just because it's what everybody else is doing. (Sorry for just claiming that the claim is misleading. We actually researched this on the talk page, it must be in the archives somewhere.) How about the following:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy administer highly diluted preparations of substances which are believed to be capable of causing the symptoms presented by a patient in healthy individuals. The rationale for this approach was articulated by Hahnemann as the law of similars, an ipse dixit axiom which states "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

Does this work for everybody? Hans Adler 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks better to me.

At the risk of nitpicking, I think the latter part could be simplified to say something along the lines of:

This is based on the law of similars proposed by Hahnemann; "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

hence avoiding a latin overload at the end of the sentence. Comments / criticisms / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It might work better inverted.

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first practiced by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy select substances they believe to have been "proven" capable of causing the patient's symptoms in healthy individuals. They then administer highly diluted preparations of these substances to the patient as "remedies". Hahnemann dubbed the rationale for this approach as "the law of similars", an axiom stating "similia similibus curentur", later translated as "like cures like".

How's that look? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

luc montagnier's claim of radio waves

I added his claim to Water_memory#Subsequent_research, since it's more on-topic there. People claiming that it was a breakthrought discovery should read [this to see some of the reasons of why the scientific community has not taken the claim seriously. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In particular, it doesn't belong here because once again Montagnier didn't actually mention homoeopathy. The Sunday Times of the day before the story cited has a slightly fuller account, which says that Montagnier "did not mention homeopathy by name in his presentation." (Leake, J. Nobel laureate gives hope to homeopaths, Sunday Times 4.7.2010, p. 10) Brunton (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Astronomically" in the lead

The word "astronomically" in the lead doesn't come across as very encyclopaedic to me. I'd like to discuss possible alternatives, one such is "implausible" (supported by the lack of a scientific basis). Astronomically also pertains to big, but what we're talking about here is beyond miniscule - in nearly all cases it is 0. Verbal chat 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't read as encyclopaedic. "Astronomically" is a fairly recent addition (21st June). It used to say "heavily", and I've reverted it to that at least once - I hadn't noticed "astronomically" had been returned. I think "highly" is probably better, and certainly uncontroversial (for example the (UK) Society of Homeopaths (the larges body for lay homeopaths in the UK) defines homoeopathy as being "based on treating the individual with highly diluted substances", and the Faculty of Homeopathy (the organisation for medically-qualified homeopaths in the UK) describes the dilutions used as "ultra-high". We have a third editor objecting to "astronomically" above, so I'll change it. Brunton (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly is ok with me. Verbal chat 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "astronomically" is not encyclopedic and would support a change to "highly".Yobol (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that we don't include words based on how they sound, but on references. 'Astronomically' is literally and figuratively true, and furthermore after whole seconds with google, I can reference it to the British medical journal. See [5]- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally used the word 'astronomical' is pure hyperbole. In the sense that the word 'astronomical' is used here it refers to things that are related to or comparable to sizes found in astronomy. Some of the dilutions found in homeopathy are the same as one droplet dissolved in a sphere of water that is about the same as the orbital radius of the Earth from the Sun. We literally are talking about astronomical dilutions.- Wolfkeeper 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a figurative use of the word. The source cited above talks about substances being "diluted to astronomical levels", which is slightly different. I suppose "astronomical" is the sort of word "The Sun" (how appropriate!) would also use,, although the above comment is on the BMJ website; I'd be happier with a different word too. --TraceyR (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it to be figurative; figurative implies something that flatly isn't true. In this scenario it's essentially literal.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word 'highly' is astronomical understatement.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It also states that homeopathy "really is impossible", but I doubt that a TV review is an appropriate source for that statement. Brunton (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm talking about use in the BMJ.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It used to say "heavily", and I've reverted it to that at least once - I hadn't noticed "astronomically" had been returned. Ugh. This is the kind of thing that has caused me to lose some enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I'm not talking about the content, so much: I haven't read the sentence yet. Simply how changes can be fixed-remade-fixed-... As far as I can tell, there's really no solution in the Wikipedia system for this? Dogweather (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the three revert rule and the possibility of sanctions being taken against editors who persistently make edits against consensus, not much. Brunton (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And what about the lack of decent forum software? So that, e.g., one can get notified of replies. Is there a reason why a wiki page is the tool of choice for all communications? I'm actually very interested in these issues --- I've even started writing software for wikipedia editors to better communicate, but the solutions to some problems seem so obvious. Dogweather (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "astronomical" does not have an encyclopedic tone.

Wolfkeeper's recent edit summary says "reinserted astronomical, added refs, this is a characteristic of homeopathy, and no other form of treatment, highly dilute is not characteristic" which I find baffling; "highly dilute" is certainly an accurate description of homeopathy. Perhaps wolfkeeper objects to words that could also describe other things apart from homeopathy, but getting rid of those would mean deleting most of the article.

bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly dilute is completely inaccurate. For the sake of argument let's put down what highly dilute might mean:

• dilute (10%-70%)
• quite dilute (1%-20%)
• very dilute (0.05%-5%)
• highly dilute (0.05% - 1%)
• extremely dilute (0.001%-0.01%)
• incredibly dilute (0.0000001% to 0.001%)
• astronomically dilute (1 in 10^10 or less) [i.e. the 'strongest' homeopathic dilutions]

You can argue about the relative positions or an order of magnitude here or there, but basically, highly dilute is completely, massively, exaggerating what dilutions are characteristically used in homeopathy.- Wolfkeeper 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it at "highly dilute" or change it to "extremely dilute". The lower end of your scale doesn't have an encyclopedic tone at all, and I contest the numbers in that range. Also, preparations from harmless plants such as Arnica, Camphora, Calendula, Hamamelis are available in D2 (1%) and I believe rather common in D4 (0.01%). At the other end, preparations such as C60 (1:100^60) are a lot more diluted than 10^10, at least theoretically. And in any case "extremely" is already a superlative and doesn't need further escalation. We need to use language that describes the "typical case" (whatever that is) without too vehemently excluding the various border cases. One thing that this article should definitely not do is give our readers the impression that all homeopathic preparations are automatically harmless because they are by necessity "astronomically dilute". For people with severe allergies even a D6 preparation may well be dangerous. Hans Adler 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Hans Adler. It is not helpful to create an arbitrary hierarchy of descriptors and then pretend that they are mutually exclusive. If you add extra water to a 0.05% solution, does it cease to be "highly dilute"?

In any case, that arbitrary hierarchy of descriptors does not address the problem that "astronomical" has an unencyclopedic tone.

Why is "highly dilute" a "completely inaccurate" description of homeopathy? Simply saying so won't make it true.

bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Highly" is "completely inaccurate" in that it conveys no meaning. How long is a string? How far up is "high"? Numbers exist for a reason. At least the bizarre D and C notations used in homeopathy have a sort of meaning, even if it's not exactly the one that practioners construe. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does the word highly come from anyway? Astronomical is a referenced description.- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And I completely contest the bizarre theory that is being offered that we should changed referenced material based entirely on whether it sounds encyclopedic; oddly WP:SOUNDS RIGHT is a red link. In the Wikipedia we write material based on objective criteria based on what references say.- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "highly" comes from reliable sources. Many sources use it. I'm surprised you didn't notice that, as you pointed out how easy it was to google for a mention of "astronomically". I get thousands of results on Google Scholar, including [6], although there are plenty of sources elsewhere - perhaps you'd prefer a book or an interview instead of a scientific paper.

It would be absurd to reject "highly" on the basis of a made-up hierarchy of descriptions. It would be even more absurd to pretend that "astronomically" is the only label supported by reliable sources. Do you have any other objections?

What does the consensus say?

bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We can find sources that say just about any ridiculous thing on this topic. The basis to use is what the best quality sources say. Of course we know that any such adjective will be effectively meaningless anyhow, because of both ambiguity and false generality, so why not simply eliminate it? Then we could have "...practitioners use variously diluted preparations." Theres ample discussion later in the article to support that.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Homoeopaths use the term "highly" to describe the dilutions (see the BHA or SoH web pages that have been cited). I'm sure even "skeptics" can agree with this terminology. What is the problem? Brunton (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is what the dilutions really are, so that the reader understands the idea that is being put across. Astronomical is actually accurate as to the dilutions that are characteristically used.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys appear to be repeatedly edit warring 'highly' into the lead. My position is that this is severely inaccurate, and is actually unreferenced to a reliable source. It's my opinion that highly is being used in a deliberate attempt to slant the article in favour of homeopaths, to paint the topic as being less cranky than it really is, and further is also an inaccurate summary of the topic.- Wolfkeeper 15:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there.

• You argued that "Highly dilute is completely inaccurate". There were counterarguments on this page. You might not accept the counterarguments (and I might claim that your position does not hold any water) but at least acknowledge that there are folk here trying to present a reasoned position which does not agree with yours.
• Any number of sources use "highly". This has already been pointed out to you before. It's trivially easy to find such sources - both among homeopaths and skeptics. If you really need a citation just for an adverb, I will add one. Please do not pretend that "astronomically" is the only description which can be sourced.
• Please try to assume good faith. The people who disagree with you are not *deliberately* attempting to slant the article in the wrong direction.
• Take a step back and look at consensus. Please. It's just a word; why keep on warring with other contributors over one word? That time could be spent improving the article in other places.

bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and Amy Lansky on the (perceived) bias of this article

"The moral of this tale: a single individual or a small set of individuals, if they have dedication and plenty of time to burn, can overtake a Wikipedia page with misinformation. Unless the “other side” is willing to devote a full time effort to combat this, there is very little that can be done. Any change they make will be undone the next day. Of course, in general, most credible sources of information have lives and careers and cannot devote all of their time in a never-ending Wikipedia war. This is what has happened to the Wikipedia page on homeopathy. "http://www.homeopathic.org/content/quackbuster-operations-target-homeopathy-article-on-wikipedia-0

As many people know that on many search terms, Wikipedia comes up number 1 in Google. They are almost definitely in the top 10. So when the search term is Homeopathy, how accurate are they? I was looking at following wikipedia page on Homeopathy. The general definitions and information on Homeopathy seem to be for the most part correct. The part where all of the information that is incorrect seems to be in the research side of Homeopathy. ...http://blog.hmedicine.com/homeopathy-and-homeopathic-medicine-blog/bid/4844/Homeopathy-Misinformation-on-Wikipedia......

Should these opinions be included in the article? It seems reasonable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't do self-referential naval gazing. Dana Ullman isn't a prominent homeopath (he doesn't practice, I think) and isn't an expert - he is a "leading proselytizer of homeopathy". Also, he has been banned from contributing to homeopathy on wikipedia due to his excessively self-promotional and pro-homeopathy editing. Homeopathic.org is also not a reliable source. There may be some meat here for his own article, but I doubt it. Lansky's opinion also seems at odds with the RS which our article is based on, and is not published in a RS. Lansky is free to bring their concerns here for discussion. Verbal chat 12:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed, with the consenus being that the template is not needed. Brunton (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can take over a Wikipedia article, as long as they can produce reliable sources to substantiate what they write. 'Prominent homeopaths' will also need to supply reliable sources supporting their claims, just like anyone else. "Ipse dixit" is not proof, even from Hahnemann. If they can provide reliable sources for the effectiveness of potentization, 'remedies' etc, they can 'take over' this article (and be applauded for doing so). If they can find genuine 'misinformation' in the article, they should identify it here on the talk page and provide the proof that it is wrong. That's how Wikipedia works. --TraceyR (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

With so many peer reviewed sources to draw upon, there's no reason to cite the webpage of a non-notable homeopath. The page should be based on reliable sources and that ain't it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Prof. Peter Haber of the University of Basel (Chair of Contemporary History), who has been researching and teaching about Wikipedia since 2007, was interviewed in the German weekly paper 'Die Zeit' on 8 July, 2010 (No. 28). He mentions that the WP articles he and his students have looked into are generally correct and of good quality when they are edited frequently. He also states that there are seldom distortions in articles about controversial and sensitive subjects, a category to which this article probably belongs.

On the subject of Amy Lansky, it is understandable that she finds herself in disagreement with the facts in the article, given her experience of the improvement of her young son's "mild autism" while receiving homeopathic preparation(s), but, according to her website, she and her husband were trying several 'alternative therapies' concurrently; there could have been any number of reasons for his improvement. However much she feels that there is a link, anecdotal evidence isn't enough. The article reflects the current state of knowledge in a fair and balanced (i.e. un-Fox-like) way. If and when facts in support of homeopathy are established, you can be certain that Wikipedia will be one of the first places where they are reported. --TraceyR (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is this "biography" doing here anyway? She's definitely not notable (that is, INFAMOUS) enough to have her own entry. 190.20.195.109 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely having written a book which was published gives her some claim to notability. I haven't seen any evidence that she is a practising homeopath, though. I think that she just writes (and speaks?) in favour of it. --TraceyR (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This googlebooks search finds Amy L. Lansky, PhD cheek by jowl with Dana Ulman not once but twice (with a third time on the next page)! Just when you thought things couldn't get stranger. This finds her as a CDC epidemiologist per John Donnelly in the July 10, 2001 Congressional Record-House, p.12743. Other hits show her work at the CDC on mother-child HIV transmission in poor rural American populations. If anything this seems to indicate she is not a homeopath.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There no rule which says "Once a homeopath, always a homeopath" ... but it might be a different person, since her field wasn't originally epidemiology or statistics. Her WP article provides a link to her website, which might give more information. --TraceyR (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They may, or may not, be different people, but wouldn't this discussion be more appropriate here? I don't see that this is directly relevant to the homeopathy article. Brunton (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Amy Lansky has been a board member of the NCH since December 2003 and has been Secretary of the NCH since April 2005" and she is dedicated to helping others -- especially families with autistic children -- discover the curative powers of homeopathyaccording to the http://www.homeopathic.org

"Gregory Dana Ullman (born December 22, 1951, Hollywood, California) is an American author, publisher, educator, and proponent in the field of homeopathy." according to Wikipedia.

Are these people notable enough to have their own entry in wikipedia for promoting or practice homeopathy but their opinion on how wikipedia describes homeopathy is not relevant here? This approach does not seem so neutral.--Cheers1 (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, suggest specific changes instead of tagging the article. The reasons the above quotes are not reliable for this article has been explained to you already.Yobol (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive mention of 'none (or only one) molecule'

I counted about 13 mentions of the argument that there is none (or only one) molecule of the original substance at a given concentration. Of course, this is a key argument against the efficacy of homeopathy, but it get's a little annoying. Most humans have short and mid term memory and telling them the same thing over and over again may bore them or they may think you think they have a memory defect. Reorganizing the article to reduce the frequency of this argument might improve the article. Darsie42 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Everybody who reads this article is either a believer in homeopathy and therefore clearly has every brain defect that you can imagine including various memory defects. In this case you can't hit them on the head with the clue bat often enough, which of course can't do any damage under the circumstances. Or they were sent here by a web forum or mailing list of sceptics and discover that contrary to their expectations the article isn't actually unbalanced much in favour of the rabid homicidal fringe and there is little to do here to prove their correct alignment other than perhaps add the word "alleged" or "purported" where it was omitted as clear from context, or perhaps add another sentence or two describing how incredibly demented, sorry diluted, that stuff is.

This is not how this article should be written, but it is how it is written in practice. At least it's skewed in favour of the unscientific pseudoskeptic fringe that regards the placebo effect and psychosomatic medicine as evil incarnate. If this article must remain an eternal battlefield and can't be neutral and informative, that's still better than if it was dominated by the pro-homeopathy fringe.

My vision of this article would be that it should give a lot of information in a neutral tone but make it absolutely clear (without needless repetition) that homeopathy is a pre-scientific belief system including a strong founder cult, that higher dilutions cannot and do not have an effect beyond placebo, and that whether homeopathy is a better placebo than others, perhaps for patients of a certain disposition, has not been tested sufficiently. (Only one very old study.)

By the way, there is currently a debate about homeopathy in Germany. Public health insurance insists on covering homeopathy because it saves them money. Apparently extensive homeopathic consultations are effective in unearthing underlying conditions and in making patients change their lifestyles. Again, these factors have never been measured rigorously, because extremists from both sides agree that the only thing that matters is whether there is a measurable effect beyond placebo. Hans Adler 10:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe in homeopathy and I do not believe this article is skewed. If you have anything constructive to say please do, otherwise be silent. I do not appreciate being randomly insulted and all useful parts of your arguement are in the article. What is your problem? Greggydude (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Flower remedies

I'm not convinced that the section on 'flower remedies' is relevant to homeopathy. In what way(s) is it a "similar modality"? What is the rationale for mentioning "similar modalities"? --TraceyR (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be an offshoot of homoeopathy. Bach was a homoeopath, and the remedies are diluted in a similar way. It doesn't appear to use "like cures like", though: see the Edward Bach article: "If he felt a negative emotion, he would hold his hand over different plants, and if one alleviated the emotion, he would ascribe the power to heal that emotional problem to that plant." It would appear to involve similar concepts of "sympathetic magic" though. It probably is appropriate to a "related modalities" section here, but then so are tissue salts, which at least do appear to involve the principle of "like cures like", but which aren't mentioned. Brunton (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of animals and Homeopathy

In a blinded study where rats were treated for urinary infections results showed that rats treated withhomeopathic remedies had clear reduction of bacterial colonies. Results were at least as clear as fortreatment with antibiotics. Untreated rats had no changes in bacteria colonies, compared to a reductionto 33 % of original bacteria levels in rats treated with antibiotics, and 22 % and 39 % in rats treatedwith homeopathic remedies (Phosphorus and self-nosode). Gonçalves et al. O uso da homeopatia no tratamento da infecção urinária em ratas. Anais do VIII SINAPIH; 20-22 May, 2004: p.25-26.

In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 % in turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded. Filliat C. Particularité de l´utilisation de l´homéopathie en production avicole. Annals of the “Entretiens Internationaux de Monaco 2002”, 5-6 October 2002.

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers1 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PMIDs? Links to the full text? Or at least to abstracts? --Six words (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have been copied and pasted from here, or a similar list using the same source.

The article uses the results of published and peer-reviewed meta-analyses and reviews rather than individual papers. These appear to be conference presentations. I haven't been able to find either on Pubmed - have they been published in any journals, and are there any English abstracts (or ideally reliable translations of the entire papers) available? Without that there's really nothing to discuss. Even if there was text available it wouldn't outweigh the sources already used. Brunton (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The dogmatism of Q9 makes no sense

Since the wikipedia article boldly affirms that it is contrary to all the fundamental principles of science that homeopathy could have any pharmacological effect, it seems odd in Q9 to deny contributors the possibility of adding that it may well have a pharmacological effect outside of what are usually thought to be the basic principles of pharmacology. I refer specifically to the view of the Nobel-Prize Winning physicist, Brian Josephson, of Cambridge University, who in a letter to Science News in 1973 stated that homeopathic medicines could act through the flowing crystal phenomenon -- which is in fact part of the fundamental principles of physics. Generally, although I do not believe that homeopathy is effective, I find the rabid, viciously polemical tone of the entire article to be profoundly out of character for a wikipedia article, which as an encyclopedia entry rather than a broadsheet, should cultivate a neutral, purely informational style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.4 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Q9 does not say that the article shouldn't say anything about mechanisms for homoeopathy - it says that it should not mention that it might work by some unknown mechanism. If decent evidence is found that it works via some mechanism, then that should be included (as long as it can be sourced reliably, of course), but then that would no longer be an "as-yet undiscovered" mechanism.

As for this particular suggested mechanism, this is clearly not an "as-yet undiscovered" mechanism, since you state that it "is in fact part of the fundamental principles of physics." Is there any actual evidence that homoeopathy works through this phenomenon? I haven't noticed homoeopaths referring to this as a possible mechanism, which suggests that it isn't a mainstream view even within homoeopathy. Homoeopaths suggest all sorts of speculative "mechanisms" for homoeopathy, from quantum entanglement on up, but never seem to produce any actual evidence for them.

The same proposed mechanism, and the sort of sourcing you were proposing to use for it, was briefly discussed the last time you brought up Josephson here. Speculation is speculation, even if it does come from a Nobel laureate. The evidence from meta-analyses of research conducted in the 37 years since Josephson wrote that letter strongly suggests that there is no effect to be explained. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)