Talk:Homeopathy

New outline on homeopathy

Please add your editions in this version --Homy 07:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion archive

Previous discussions are archived here. Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 1 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 2 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 3 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 4 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 5 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 6 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 7 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 9

Trials

Clearly homeopathy, as is stated in places on this page, exists, and therefore merits an article, although avoiding opinions is of course mandatory, and even suggesting that it is effective is borderline POV. But what does not seem to be receiving adequate attention is the simple fact that there are now a large number of scientifically conducted, statistically significant double-blind trials on record which show that the effect of homeopathic treatments equates to the effect of placebo; there are no properly conducted trials that show statistically demonstable evidence to the contrary. Placebos work in some conditions in some people. So does homeopathy, to the same extent; no more, no less. I see no value in this endless debate.--Anthony.bradbury 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that being equal to placebo doesn't make it valid for use as medicine. If it was there would be a placebopathy section of the hospital because after all, it's just as good as homeopathy. That homeopathy has statistically similar results to placebopathy is far from a ringing endorsment of homeopathy; it's like telling a sick person that they should drink some special water because it's just as good as a sugar pill. So the endless debate continues... Modusoperandi 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Modusoperandi. Placebo is non-specific factors in psychology. It is no effect. I like the placebopathy idea. It is just the quackery though. I know some have tried to make it a subject for example in hypnotherapy. But it is against the scientific methods. It is not able to be trusted or ethical in society. Hylas Chung 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nor would it be ethical to combine homeopathy, phrenology, astrology, faith healing, prayer and placebopathy into a one-stop shopping destination for people who want to feel the awesome effects of the no better statistically than placebo, if that... brand of therapy. I, if I were to start such an unethical store, would call it a Quackeria. Modusoperandi 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Modus. There is debate now on the pseudoscience article talk about should there be a category for quackery. You might like to say something there also. Hylas Chung 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...it would be fun to try...sadly I'm less of an expert and more the devil's advocate Modusoperandi 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bristol study

If it is valid to include here reference to the Lancet study [so-called] then why not also add the Bristol study? Is there any appetite for a reference to that, which shows a high % of effectiveness of homeopathic treatment? It seems fair to balance things up by including both...any comments? Peter morrell 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, a quick check with the interweb showed that the Bristol study had no control group. Modusoperandi 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No control group...and your point is? Peter morrell 16:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not valid without a control. You can't know how well something works without comparing it to a control group. More fundamentally, the study had no control group - that is, there is nothing against which to measure the results of the homeopathic treatment. It's as if you had a theory that feeding children nothing but cheese made them grow taller, so you fed all your children cheese, measured them after a year and said 'There - all of them have grown taller - proof that cheese works! Modusoperandi 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course that is a platitudinous and prejudicial answer because the current interest in homeopathy in society does not derived from some theory or some mental construction woven by intellectuals, it is deriving almost solely from patients; if patients say they feel better or much better from its use then of course that certainly does represent a valid corpus of evidence in its favour regardless of hypothetical goalposts put in place by such people as scientists, theoretcicians, armchair dogmatists or drug companies none of whom have used or tried homeopathy and all of whom are either sceptical of its use on theoretical grounds or for commercial reasons. I think a "reasonable person" would accept that such evidence is certainly valid whether you say a control group was used for comparison or not. Peter morrell 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if, by including "anecdotal" evidence as proof, you include the rest of quackery as valid too. That I once stepped on a crack and lo, my mother's back was broken doesn't make my newly invented science of backery stepcrackery any more valid than homeopathy.

Wow, I'm on a roll; first placebopathy, then quackeria, now backery stepcrackery. I think I'll get business cards made up with my profession as debunker bunker or perhaps quackiopath. Seriously though, homeopathy is only valid if you exclude pesky terms like control group and double blind testing. Even then, it's still only as good as placebo; which, again, is far from a ringing endorsment of homeopathy. I'm just annoyed that I was forced to use "lo" in a sentence (if there's any justice at all I hope only that I used in incorrectly, thus causing all of my english teachers to spin in their graves.) Nuts! I just used "thus" too...sigh.

Also, my answer wasn't platitudinous. Trite would be attempting to pass off anecdotal evidence as proof. (Yes, I had to look up "platitudinous"). Modusoperandi 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There you go again using terms like placebo and anecodote which come entirely from anti-homeopathic folks...these are not accepted terms...until there is a commonly agreed language for this type of dialogue, then there will be no bridging of the gulf. Evidence of experience and empiricism, upon which homeopathy is largely based, and true science too, is the true basis and to write that off as anecdote is again both prejudicial and platiduninous. If you want to argue seriously about homeopathy then it would be useful to drop theoretical objections against it and begin to investigate it neutrally, that is on an open basis without a priori fabrications that make this so-called debate endless, circular and probably futile...pro and anti groups shouting across a void does nothing to further constructive debate....meanwhile the public continue to reject drugging, and with good reason and to choose 'alternative medicine' [what you prefer to call quackery] also with good reason. Think about it; they already have made their choice regardless of the rantings of so-called scientists who in truth more closely resemble medieval religious zealots. Peter morrell 21:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Placebo and anedotal are neither prejudicial nor anti-homeopathic terms. Placebos are used to see if the effect of the drug being tested on the non-control group has an effect greater than that of placebo. Anecdotal evidence is just that; anecdotal.

Double blind testing and control groups are critical to the neutral exploration of the potential of any cure. "It worked for that guy." is anecdotal; "It worked for those guys much better than the placebo worked for the control group." is on much more stable ground. Find a good study that proves homeopathy and I'll start drinking magic water; tell me that it works, without properly conducted studies to back up that statement, and I'll stick with healthy living and the occasional trip to an actual doctor. Well, I'll try, anyway.

"They" are welcome to pursue any avenue that they think will heal them. "We" will continue to use what works. If homeopathy is eventually proven to work "we" will gladly use it; until then it's quackery.

I have absolutely no theoretical objections against homeopathy; they are all quite practical. Modusoperandi 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anecdote and placebo are subjective, fuzzy and thus ill-defined terms...they are certainly thus prejudicial. They mean different things to different people. Though you say you have only practical objections against homeopathy, they are also theoretical at least in part... Do you mean to say then that you have no problem with the use of similars, single drugs, provings and small doses? Miasms and vital force are actually the only 'theoretical aspects' of homeopathy; all the rest derive from empirical studies and experience or experiment. What you are saying then, in effect, is that you have no objection to the practical core of homeopathy. Is that true? I would find that hard to believe given the rantings on this forum by self-appointed pro-science zealots against all of those items listed above.

You should also be careful about extolling the virtues of RCTs - how many actual standard techniques in medicine have been derived from RCTs and how many from experience? I think you will find that some 90% derive from experience and tradition rather than from RCTs...this shows that RCTs are not the 'gold standard' some folks think. Also, RCTs are flawed in other respects and no substitute for experience; they have their critics within clinical medicine. You will find they are chiefly the baby of drug companies who finance them and push them out there as 'proven science' when they are no such thing.

Regarding the use of RCTs in homeopathy then if you understood what homeopathic treatment actually involves then you would appreciate the inability of RCTs to show anything much at all. That is not a cop out, but simply the truth. For example, you speak of testing a drug for a specific illness and using a placebo in the control group. That is impossible in homeopathy because there is no such thing as 'an illness,' there are just sick persons...as symptom totalities...all of whom are individuals requiring separate evaluation and hence different remedies and different regimes of treatment.

Further, the treatment of each individual must be watched and adapted as time goes on and such an approach is clearly unsuited to using a so-called 'control group' of 'similarly sick' persons for comparison...there are no 'similarly sick' persons to an individual...homeopathy indidivualises every single case as a totality and thus statistical comparisons using herd studies, so beloved of allopathy, are impossible due to the epistemological differences between the two systems vis-a-vis the concepts of illness and remedy. You can't just give the same drug to all of them and placebo to the control group. That is not a homeopathic approach and would not therefore test homeopathy.

So, even if you got two groups of people with say 'asthma' or 'arthritis'...such categories are unhomeopathic and each person would require individual evaluation and each would need to receive a different drug in varying doses...it would be extremely difficult to design a non-prejudicial dose-regime and trial protocol for both groups that would satisfy RCT experts and your hysterical detractors of homeopathy...such a study would not get off the ground and its results - if there were any - would be condemned in advance as unscientific. So what do you suggest? How would YOU test truly homeopathic treatment against placebo? Peter morrell 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, getting back to the original point, it is clear that material like the Bristol Study is indeed indicative of a level of effectiveness for homeopathy. Many other factors are also indicative of its effectiveness, but they need careful evaluation. And in any case, as I said previously, people are flocking to these therapies out of desperation at the inefficacy and dangerous/unpleasant side-effects of conventional drugging. It is patients who are driving the growing movement, not academics, scientists or medics. Or indeed critics of the whole scene. Peter morrell 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a double-blind test with people who suffer from too much sugar (hypersugardosis?). That way the homeopathic treatment could simply be diluted placebo. If like cures like treats hypersugardosis then the homeo group would be less sweet. I'm guessing that the placebo group goes up a smidge and the homeo group drops not at all (which wouldn't prove the homeo effect, it would instead show that placebo is a poor choice of treatment for the excessively sweet). Maybe there are corn starch-related maladies that would work better for this.

While it's convenient that double-blind testing doesn't prove homeopathy is because it's dose is user specific...the actual reason is probably much simpler...

Cough, cough. You do know that it's just water, right? [sound of crickets chirping]...[tumbleweed rolls by] Modusoperandi 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)\

Ummm... last time I checked, "placebo" and "anecdote" were well defined. A placebo is a "blank" given to a control group in a study but are told that they are being given the medication in the study. Pretty clear. Anecdote's are individual's accounts of a situation, in this case, the effect of a remedy on their illness. Nothing vague about that. No wiggle room. By the way, anecdotal evidence is the worst form of evidence because, and if you talk to any detective he'll back me up, every person has a different perspective of any given event, and their telling of the event will change with time. Plus, there is plenty of evidence to stuggest that placebos i.e. sugar pills, will work as a treatment in a small percentage of the study group in any study. If the Bristol Group study had no control, it is not good enough. Ask them to redo their study with a control, and we'll see what hapens then. I'm open minded enough to accept real results even if I find the therapy to be questionable.--Reverend Distopia 21:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No difference. Homeopathic meds are the ideal placebo

To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet designed a research method that can distinguish the difference between two unlabeled preparations made using homeopathic methodology, where the only difference is that one starts without any active ingredient. The end products of the dilution and succussing are identical, and I know of no method that can tell the difference, including their application as actual homeopathic medicines. The testing and results of use as treatments are the same. -- Fyslee 12:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Debating the effectiveness of medication is tough business. Research on the effectivness of major conventional anti-depressents (such as prozac) based on double-blind, controlled experiments show similar results as tests on homeopathy: they do not contribute much more than placebo. The article on antidepressents on wikipedia only mentions this problem at the end of the page. So then why is it that critics tend to be harsher on homeopathy? After all, homeopathy doesn't waste $8 billion a year of patient money does it??? Refer to the following articles to start with: How Well Do Antidepressants Really Work? and http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_565_01.html or just google 'antidepressents effect placebo' on google.

-- Soumya.ray 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY OF HOEMOEOPATHIC SCIENCE WILL END, IF YOU GO TO STUDY............

I have gone through the intelligent comments, views and thoughts of the user of the Wikipedia. I appreciate that the reader of this site is very intelligent and they want to know everything in the light of Scientific Phenomenon. The fact is about the Homoeopathic Science is that it is a "Art of Healing", as it is stated by the Father of Homoeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. The scientific Phenomenon of Homoeopathy is written para wise by Dr Hahnemann in his book ORGANON OF MEDICINE, which is a basic book to understand the philosophy and the science of Homoeopathy. The book is having the answer of the all controversies aroused by the intelligent readers. With this the reader should also study the CHRONIC DISEASES written by Dr Hahnemann. Another contribution of Dr Hahnemann is MATERIA MEDICA PURA in which the reader will find the prooving of the medicine with its technology.

If any reader will study these three books, I am sure the answer of any controversy, if he have in his mind, certainly will go away.

Regarding the scientific evaluation of the disease conditions in view of Modern Medical Science, Homoeopathy have progressed much more. INDIA is the only country, where Homoeopathy have progressed much more after Independence. Many anti-glyceamic medicines have been scientifically prooved but due to lack of information the achievements have not been welcommed by the public in general.DBB 10.25 IST, 03/06/06

Modus said: "double blind testing and control groups are critical to the neutral exploration of the potential of any cure." and I asked, "how would YOU test truly homeopathic treatment against placebo?" I am still waiting for an intelligent answer. Peter morrell 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the easiest of all to design. What is needed is a blind coded dose response study. Ask homeopaths to prepare their remedies at different potencies, submit them for blind coding, return the blind coded remedies to the hopmeopaths for assessement, and then return their ranked estimates of efficacy to be compared to the independently decoded identities. An independent placebo can be included based on the formulation of the remedy. Modern drugs are introduced from a rational scientific basis (established mechanism of action, identified target, experimentally testable rationale, supported by multiple independent lines of evidence), then supported by experimental studies in volunteers and animals (to provide evidence of action/mechanism of action) and ultimately validated after experience by multicentre randomised placebo controlled studies. Gleng 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's way better than my tongue-within-cheek test regimen! Of course I'd forgotten to point out that since homeo is making the extraordinary claim (that being that it isn't bunk) it's up to the pro for homeopath to prove its validity; otherwise it'd be like the ID's trying to get the Evo's to prove that the designer (or, cough, cough, Yahweh) didn't do it, which is tough as he (or "He") never returns phone calls. Modusoperandi 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL SEE IT'S BUNK

Hahnemann's Quinine experiment did not result in having the symptoms of malaria, but of Quinine poisoning. They are quite different from malaria, though some symptoms are the same. But, most infectious diseases and poisonings have the same symptoms: fever, feeling really crappy, and so forth.

Have a look: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/forum.asp?articlekey=24716 and check out the symptoms of malaria.

look up the symptoms of quinine poisoning here:

http://www.antiquusmorbus.com/English/Poison.htm

See what I mean? Not much similar.

Dietwald 12:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahnemann never did an experiment with "quinine" which never even existed then, it was a proving of Cinchona. Peter morrell 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

He was allergic to it - (Hahnemann's Allergy to Quinine) - so his experiments were based on a misunderstanding. -- Fyslee 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GLeng says "Modern drugs are introduced from a rational scientific basis...etc" well, just stop looking at homeopathy through the eyes of chemistry and see it as it is - a broad empiricial science in its own right. There is no chemistry in homeopathy period. Take off your blinkers and see! The human organism indeed any organism is something MORE than mere chemistry. A true science is empiricism not heads filled with endless theories and eyes covered in blinkers. Homeopathy is a true science based in experiment and experience and nothing more. Hahnemann was not a true vitalist either. Theory did not even come into it until about 1821 when he moved to Coethen and started to become a wee bit more metaphysical. But many homeopaths have chosen to reject those later accretions as unnecessary and stick to the empirical truth of homeopathy as a prctical art of healing. It makes little difference. Read the goddam history and see. It's all there Peter morrell 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, this is what I suspected. The theories of homeopathy are bunk, its whole rationale is empirical, hence the importance of convincing evidence of anything beyond placebo effects. Without accepting a scientific methodology for this at least then on what grounds can you claim even a passing resemblence to science?Gleng 16:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK so what do you mean by "a scientific methodology?" Homeopathy is not bunk and it has few 'theories' to speak of beyond the actuality of its method; it might be termed a paradigm outside of which it just looks weird but within which it is superbly coherent. What theories are you on about? there are only miasms and vital force, and they are entirely optional add-ons. It only looks weird to folks who are soaked in science beliefs, such as yourself. What do you mean by a scientific methodology because if you start ranting again through your chemistry mental filter [which is a "view" of life - a theory - but not life itself] and through which you clearly see everything, and beyond which you see nothing, then you have lost the whole thing. Do you really understand the meaning of the term empirical? Peter morrell 17:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Be warned Peter that you can waste alot of time debating the rights and wrongs of particular positions. It's easier to stick to the verifiable sources and quote these. If there are empirical homeopathic studies that support the effectiveness of particular remedies then link them to the article. As far as I'm aware the double blind studies are not particularly favourable to homeopathy so a NPOV balance needs to be found. I admit to being a skeptic myself but I have a lot of friends who swear by it so there should be enough info either way to produce a balanced article. Some editors will never be happy unless the article totally reflects the truth as they see it but even though I have doubts myself and am "blinkered" by a scientific outlook too :) the interests of producing an informative and balanced article are paramount. Sophia 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timely advice Sophia, perhaps, but it is not so much a waste of time arguing about positions, but of getting an airing for the genuine epistemological disparities between chemistry and homeopathy because modern so-called scientists object to homeopathy along the lines of "it can't work therefore it doesn't work" type arguments which are in essence rooted in a deep [indeed unshakeable] faith and belief in chemistry as an absolute description of our world. I thought science had dispensed with faith and belief since Galileo's day? Well, this is why they hate homeopathy so much cuz it turns their theory of life on its head and says hey there is more than just molecules! what a surprise. Chemistry gives them a total disbelief in homeopathy. So until these science zealots are encouraged to think slightly beyond chemistry and mechanisms and hopefully engage with a true empirical view of persons and life as totalities, then they will never get a handle on homeopathy. That is one reason why the debate is so circular. Peter morrell 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really. What model does homeopathy propose that explains over a hundred years of observation of chemical, physical, and biological systems better than molecular theory? T.J.C. 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I was simply contrasting homeopathy with modern medicine to characterise the differences, Peter Morrell seems to agree that these are the differences, and that there is no theory to speak of underlying homeopathy. As for being scientific, look up the scientific method. The core of the scientific method is falsufiability, peter morrell invited a design for placebo test, and I proposed one. I have no hatred for homeopathy, and doubt if you could find evidence through the thread of this article to support that. I have no belief in its falsity any more than faith in its truth. Personally I doubt that there's a shred of value in it, but I'd be delighted at any convincing evidence to the contrary. Peter, please remember to be civil, and no personal attacks; even on Talk pages, you're entry above crosses a lineGleng 23:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True...I'm still smarting at the mentions of so-called scientists. Modusoperandi 02:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A double-blind test of homeopathic remdedies is far from impossible to conduct. A group of homeopathic practitioners would diagnose patients. Half of those patients would receive the real remedies; the other half would receive distilled water. Nobody except the record keepers would know which was which. This would have to be a huge study, since it is evaluating the whole range of conditions, not a single one, but with a sufficiently large group, it would work. It would be at least a first step towards actually testing whether this method has a measurable effect.

-- Worldwalker, too lazy to log in

Treading on eggshells

I will happily explain my previous comments. No offence intended. By so-called scientists I mean non-empiricist 'science fans' who seem merely saturated in the beliefs and whizz-bang assumptions of science and not its primary method of investigation - neutral observation and experiment. And who seem more concerned with extolling the minutiae of its accepted core doctrines than the virtues of its open exploratory methods. These folks seem sadly in the majority within science and it is only the truly innovative persons and freethinkers who can 'think outside the box' and appreciate all topics of knowledge regardless of what is or is not deemed to be heretical or bad science. Maybe having heads full of theories prevents them from appreciating other subjects more empathically, and leads them to make rash, foolish and unsupportable comments as we see here often about subjects they have not studied very deeply.

Regarding theories in homeopathy there really are none. It is not a medical system founded on theories, unlike most others, and it is really just a method [a] of investigating drugs and finding their true therapeutic properties [compare, for example, the cruel use of vivisection, in vitro chemical studies and the hopelessly hit and miss doctrine of signatures] and [b] of using them for the sick. That is all there is to it. However, it is true, tangentially, that various theories have arisen at different times about how it works, but none of them have attracted more than a passing interest for homeopaths who are busily engaged in learning about drugs and treating patients, often with great success.

Therefore, as I said before, it is true to say there is no major theory in homeopathy, no models, mechanisms or constructs. It is almost exclusively practice driven not theory driven. Somehow it has resisted the temptaion to add accretions of theory even though it has a massive literature that encompasses many ideas and speculative subtleties about its methods and ideas. Yet none of them have been absorbed into the mainstream. I hope that explains that point. Even if you take the views of Kent, for example, then his views [interesting as they are] are completely irrelevant to modern homeopathy, and the same can be said of Cooper, Compton Burnett, Hering and any other 'giant' of homeopathic history. Even the world's 'greatest living homeopath,' George Vithoulkas, has little truck with theory and dismisses the miasm theory as unhelpful. Perhaps Eizayaga's 'layers theory' might be regarded as a good theory in homeopathy, but again it is only a model. In any case, it applies to treatment not to how remedies work.

As homeopathy came into being very gradually from about 1783 [the year Hahnemann abandoned medical practice, took up translations and realised single drugs were the way forward] until his first dose reduction experiments, commencing in 1798, its "observation of chemical, physical, and biological systems," have therefore actually been going on for a little over TWO hundred years, not just one. Even if you measure it from his Belladonna and Scarlet Fever tracts of 1801, and his first 27 drug provings, published in 1805 [the Fragmenta de viribibus medicamentorum positivis], homeopathy still has two centuries of history under its belt, though only just.

Regarding scientific methodology, I would argue for a certain pattern of scientific discovery, that raw empiricism tends to found a new path, repeatability [by others] establishes the validity of that path [compare homeopathy with Cold Fusion, for example] and then it can be expanded and any underlying explanations sought for why or how it works. In the case of homeopathy, this is fraught with problems. It is hard to deal with those problems in brevity, but I will try. Hahnemann was a brilliant scientist with a peerless reputation within the German scientific community long before homeopathy, especially, perhaps ironically, in the field of chemistry. He was a pioneer of various chemical tests; a pioneer of hygiene [Friend of Health, 1792]; had a good grasp of Pharmacy [Pharmaceutical Lexicon, 1793]; was a pioneer of Psychiatry [cure of Herr Klockenbring, 1792-3] a year before the work of Pinel and Tuke; and a pioneer of bacteriology [Cholera papers of 1831-2] fifty years before the work of Koch and Pasteur. He gets no credit for any of that.

His work certainly conforms to the empirical founding of a new path, and to repeatability as he not only proved Cinchona [1790] and established a method, but went on to prove [along with others] nearly a hundred drugs, all of which are very different from each other in their characteristic properties, repeatedly confirmed in practice by numerous physicians over the last two centuries.

Therefore, it is only when we come to look for mechanisms and theories that we face the first major hurdle and where homeopathy might be said to be wanting. That its methods run counter to chemistry is unfortunate and repeated efforts to find a mechanism for the efficacy of infinitesimal doses have failed. Of course for the sceptics, the clock is ticking and their disbelief is confirmed by this situation, but for those who use homeopathy on a daily basis, it is merely frustrating to see this art of healing repeatedly attacked and vilified. In an as-is sense this is nobody's fault, not Hahnemann's or any other homeopath, it is just the way things are. One can speculate about vital forces and the memory of water, but the bottom line is no-one knows who it works.

Other major conceptual problem areas for future talk are the 'sick person' vs. 'disease' and the 'fragmentalism' of science vs. the 'holism' of homeopathy. I strongly suspect that 'science' as it exists can ever prove homeopathy works because they are incompatible ways of thinking and modes of interpreting our world. It is like trying to compare a Cartesian with a Kantian or Hegelian world view; square pegs do not fit into round holes. But that is another story. Peter morrell 07:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are starting from the assumption that because some people have been satisfied with the outcome of homeopathic treatment, that it is effacious. This is faulty reasoning.

If homeopathy claims to have an observable effect on the physical world, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why it cannot be tested experimentally under the rigorous conditions necessary to demonstrate efficacy.

"Incompatible ways of thinking," huh? I wouldn't have a problem if homeopathy said, "We can only treat a person's spirit." But the instant you claim to have an observable, quantifiable, physical effect, you need to back those claims up with more than hand-waving. That you don't think this is necessary or possible only demonstrates your lack of scientific understanding. Which is why it's rich you presume to lecture us on scientific neutrality. T.J.C. 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeat of message from higher up: :Every so often, I feel compelled, despite my better judgement, to say something on this page. Why does homeopathy need to be proven to have a page on Wikipedia, that is free from all this POV, heated argument, regular impasse etc.? I see no way forward if it cannot be agreed to have a simple, low-key, explanatory article on the page, stating the rationale that Hahnemann and followers have used, without either supporting or contradicting that rationale. I would be happy to write one, as I've said several times. There need be no promotion or support of homeopathy nor this determined onslaught. A worthwhile article can be written WITHOUT claims of efficacy. I bet there are hundreds of articles on WP, which explain something that has no basis in modern science (as we know it). :-) :-) :-) - Ballista 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC) P.S.: There is a h--l of a lot of modern conventional medicine that is not 'EBM' - that's no reason to have an edit war or a bloody battle on the talk page! (This message is repeated here, at the (current) bottom of this page, so that it will be seen.) - Ballista 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Bits and bobs

T J C said: "the instant you claim to have an observable, quantifiable, physical effect, you need to back those claims up with more than hand-waving. That you don't think this is necessary or possible only demonstrates your lack of scientific understanding. Which is why it's rich you presume to lecture us on scientific neutrality."

Well to be clear, I agree that it should be possible to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy. It is not that I don't think it is necessary, it is just that I am dubious that it will ever be possible for several reasons. The reasons are a bit complicated to be quite honest. It is not because I lack scientific understanding, or that I seek to pontificate about scientific neutrality. Fisrtly, I get the impression that no study will ever satisfy the detractors of homeopathy because whatever you do they will pick it to pieces and find fault with it (All scientific studies are equally subject to review and criticism.), just as Ballista says about this article.

Secondly, in any experiment you need to be very clear what you are setting out to demonstrate. This needs some very careful reflection. In the case of any medical treatment I think we can all agree that you have to demonstrate that something has got better or been relieved or gone away. What is this something? Conventionally, it is either an observable symptom, or group of symptoms, or a named disease. Big problem! Homeopathy does not treat symptoms or named diseases, it treats a patient totality, which is often measurable only in the sense of "thanks, I feel better now," which science understandably treats with some derision (Is it not also true that homeopathy claims to treat many acute symptoms - such as inflammation, colds, skin infections, etc?). It is too woolly and unquantified (That's completely untrue. Otherwise, how would any pain medication gain any scientific acceptance whatsoever? Or antidepressants? Homeopathy can be held to the standards used when evaluating these.). So the 'incompatibility in thinking' I referred to is this underpinning incompatibility between a so-called disease entity that is the bread and butter of allopathic medicine, and the 'sickness toality' of a person that is dealt with in homeopathy. These are quite simply not directly comparable categories of sickness phenomena (Again, this is ducking and weaving. There have been reliable protocols for assessing subjective phenomena for years.).

The homeopathic view of a patient is vastly superior to that in sceintific medicine. Why do I say that? Because the homeopath takes everything the patient can say and finds in it symptoms of mind, emotions, sleep, dreams, likes and dislikes, etc, which resonate with similar images in the materia medica. In a homeopathic consultation, the patient is allowed a free ticket to say whatever they like about themselves, not only as a cathartic and genuinely therapeutic exercise in its own right to gush forth all their problems, but also so the eagle eye of the homeopath can pick out little gems from this curious monologue, clues that point to remedies in the physical or mental sphere (Your argument here is ridiculously circular: "Homeopaths are superior because their method of diagnosing patients is superior." Yet you offer no evidence that this approach is superior. Superior in what way? That homeopaths can more efficiently find the cause of symptoms? That patients walk out feeling more satisfied?).

While the patient is talking, the homeopath is noting things down that point to specific remedies - if the patient is predoiminantly cold or hot, nervous, emotional, aggressive, quiet or noisy, tearful or reserved. All such empathically absorbed information is coming at the homeopath in the language of the provings. A point not made in this article is that Hahnemann was very insistent that the drug pictures should be free of technical language and Kent picks up on and amplifies this point when he says keep the patient talking and keep them talking in the simple language of the provings, that is free of medical terms (Using imprecise language is not a strength.), just a person saying what they feel, how their sickness affects them and how it feels, which side the pain or discomfort is on, which side is most comfortable, their sleep position, how stiff or limp their handshake is, whether they enjoy storms or not, if they are made worse or better for movement, etc. "Leave the patient in freedom always. Do not put any words into his mouth. Never allow yourself to hurry a patient...say as little as you can, but keep the patient talking and keep him talking close to the line." [James T Kent, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, 1900, N Atlantic Books, pp.160-1] (Any patient interaction is subject to suggestion or ideomotor action, which is why it is necessary to have the details of the interaction available for review.)

Surely anyone can see the material used in the two systems are miles apart, like comparing sheep and goats, or apples and oranges (Simply false. Homeopathy treats measurable effects). This is a very thorny issue. Likewise, when you say a trial is possible, as GLeng said some posts ago, well yes, OK, but hold on, how are you going to conduct a trial that allows the homeopath to change the remedy halfway through or increase the dose frequency or change the potency whenever they think fit, as would be required as standard practice in homeopathy? Is that going to impact upon the neutrality of the trial? (Easy: you allow the homeopath to change the remedy halfway through the trial - but the patient is still only administered either remedy or placebo, depending on what group they are in. The homeopath is unaware if the patient is given remedy or placebo, but can assume for the purposes of the trial that they are receiving the remedy.)

And how can that then be *randomly* transferred to the control group? (The homeopath prepares the remedy in a standard bottle. The bottle is submitted to the study overseers. The bottle is either replaced or not replaced and catalogued.) Any fool can see that such a trial would be hopelessly complicated and almost a free-for-all and thus farcical (Convenient excuse: "It would be too hard."). Do you really imagine that a trial of such an open-ended & flexible nature would impress any scientist? (Yes. Attention to detail and rigorous, logical protocols usually impress scientists. T.J.C. 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)) The results would be laughed out of court. I sincerely hope this explains some of the previous points. Peter morrell 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is quite posible see this study. The other thing to do is too look at proveings using the method in this study.

Nice try. Unfortunately, neither of those studies are any use for the purpose of demonstrating homeopathy. The first is written by well known detractors of alternative medicine, whose covert aim is to derail it. The second does not follow the general protocols of homeopathic provings in which a range of potencies and the crude substance itself are all used in the conduction of a proving. This Belladonna study ONLY used Belladonna 30c, which might have been expected to show *some* results, but lower potencies [e.g. 2x, 3x, 3c] and crude substance would have been preferred. Peter morrell 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If the first study is nothing more than an attempt to discredit homeopathy, it should be possible to point out the logical inconsistencies in the study that are both indicative of bias and untrue to the doctrines of homeopathy. Unless, of course, you're going to put on your tinfoil hat and claim they made the whole study up out of thin air. T.J.C. 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We are talking methidologies rather than results. So what is the problem with the first protocol? As for your a crtisisms of the second homeopathy claims an effect at 30C either it does or does not exist. Effects at things such as 1X are a separate issue.Geni 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first study does look interesting but it does not tell you in the full-text version [1] what the homeopaths were 'allowed' to do regarding changes of remedy, potency and frequency of dosage...until that is revealed I cannot see how the study was operated. Nor does it say what remedies were used. If the homoepaths were literally given a free hand to do as they liked and the placebo group merely shadowed them, then it should have shown results if the homeopaths were any good. Some improvements were noted in the homeopathic group [see full text of article] but they were not deemed very spectacular. I would prefer not to express an opinion in the public domain about the persons who authored this study; people can draw their own conclusions from that and there is plenty online about them. As the email address is given in the full text article there is nothing to stop someone asking him about how the study was conducted.

Regarding the second study a 30c potency does not necessarily elicit symptoms in any person. It is far better to use the crude substance in low dose or in low potency to get good effects. Obviously, in the case of Belladonna, which is poisonous, this would need to be monitored carefully. In any case, a remedy only produces symptoms when it is ingested by a sensitive person, especially in higher potency. This is why low doses are preferred in provings and always formed the basis of the early provings. Having said that modern provings generally use a wide range of potencies, some low and some high as standard practice.

Please note, readers can also read the e-letter responses of some clinicians to this article [2] and they all seem to criticise the methodology, indeed one describes the study as "fatally flawed." Peter morrell 08:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The fataly flawed line comes from someone working at Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. Slight conflic of interest I feel. Once of the secondarly measeures did produce a significant result but the shear number of secondarly measures meant that that was expected based on chance alone. The homeopaths could do what they liked. They just didn't know if they were being given real remedies or placebos.

As for your attempt to critise the second study not every person had to prove for the results to be significant. If you conced that you do not expect to see a statisiticaly significant number of people to prove at 30C then you have just conceeded that by it's own interal rules homeopathy can't work at 30C.Geni 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST to PETER MORRELL to form an International Team of Experts

I would like to submit my humble request to all the participents of this debate, to end the controversy in the way of PRACTICAL APPROACH. We should form a Group / Association /Company in which the most sofisticated scientist with the ultramodern devices users should be included, some Top homoeopaths, some top Modern Western Medical Practitioners, some physiologist, some biophysiologist, some physicist and other essential persons related on demand inclusion under an unprejudised observers group. Then Test the efficiency of the Homoeopathic Medical system. Merely OPPOSE for OPPOSITIONIS VERY EASY, because of prejudiceness. If any person is not willing to accept the phenomenon, it is upto them, how he takes it ? No body can forcibly implement his views on others. We are living in Democratic conuntry and we have right to express our views. It is upto the mental capacity and thinking ability of a person, how he conceive a phenomenon ? If you think in destructive way,you will always be in personality disorders.

In my opinion, no body have gone through the serious writtings of Hahnemann.Not a single person, who is participating in this debate. Any single person who is arising the controversy, if has gone to the pages of Hahnemann writtings, he wiil certainly get the answer of his curiosities, whatever he have in his mind. Those who are talking about that they have understand all about the Homoeopathy, they are living in the fools paradise and apeasing themselves with their own ignorence. These persons are befooling the entire people including themselves. However I will like PETER MORRELL to come forward and form an Association for testing of the efficiency of Homoeopathy in his own way, because in my opinion he is more intelligent person who have a best analytical mind than we are.

The compliments are very nice, but I don't have the time or cash to set up an institute. These days I am just an historian of the subject, and the writings of Hahnemann are indeed a revelation to those with an open mind. If you really want to test homeopathy for yourself then go to the best place in the world where you can see it in action every single day: India [3]. There you can see a line of 100 patients being treated by doctors in tiny villages. It is the most homeopathic country on the planet. Or alternatively you can buy remedies yourself and a materia medica and start using them. It is safe and harmless and that is how many of the great homeopaths first learned how to prescribe. I was lucky because I learned it from a farmer who employed one of the greatest homeopathic vets of all time: George McLeod, and from their advice I was amazed to see it working before my own eyes, not just on people, but on pets, horses, babies and young children, sometimes with astonishing speed. Doubts are soon dispelled when you see it in action and it becomes something you fall back almost every day when you have young children. These RCTs on homeopathy are forsure still missing something but I don't claim to know what it is. Peter morrell 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, India's stellar infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and prevalence of infectious disease is a true testament to the success of homeopathy and is highly indicative of its efficacy. T.J.C. 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are totally innocent and having ignorence about the reality, here we are talking and discussing about the role of Homoeopathy. Please talk on the Homoeopathy and dont deviate yourself. What is the condition of western world, they are going to be Homosexual. Which is totally unnatural. What will be the mortality rate of infants in the western conuntry when there is no birth due to Homosexuality. Regarding life expectancy, are you immoral and you will never end your life. One day will come and you will end your life. Dont forgate that fate is something and every individual have its life span. Infectious diseases are very common all over the world, why you are particularly targeting to India. There are other countries where these problems are in a very severe stage. Pay your attention to these states and sacrifies yourself there.

I really must thank you. This is quite possibly the funniest, most entertaining thing I've ever read. Every single part of it is wonderful. You are a treasure. Don't ever change! T.J.C. 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PETER MORRELL COME TO INDIA

Thanks for the reply. If you agree, I can arrange the all facility, what ever you want and the experts of all fields according to your need. There is many institutions and medical colleges in India where according to your wish, the trial can be arranged.National Institute of Homoeopathy,KOLAKATTA, INDIA is fully equipped with the ultramodern facilities for the pathological and scanning facilities and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, NEW DELHI,INDIA have one Homoeopathic wing, where Homoeopathic research is often conducted. A List of Medical colleges can be provided to you, where you wish to conduct your research work. But First you have to submit a project report, what you like to reasearch and on what subjects before the concerned persons. You will be finacially helped by the Government as well as private organisations and from the Homoeopathic fraternity. Are you agree to this proposal ? Medical Organisations will help you according to your need. I am related to Department of AYUSH [Ayurved,Yoga and Naturecure,Unani, Siddha,Homoeopathy], Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

Yes, Peter. Your unwavering devotion to homeopathy, combined with the depth of knowledge of scientific reasoning you have demonstrated here, makes you the perfect person to conduct a study of its efficacy for the National Institute of Homeopathy. T.J.C. 06:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Links: Reverted Danaullman

Yes, it's the last thing we need edit wars over, but I see no good reason to remove the BBC link. It's interesting, balanced, and accessible.

I am also concerned about the e-book link included in the revert: [4] It appears to be a site offering an e-book for sale, not for free reference. Comments, please. T.J.C. 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

It is sadly very apparent from some recent contributions that cynical, bullying and aggressive tactics have been adopted, regrettably including personal attacks against people who are just as entitled to contribute to this discussion as anybody else, without fear of hurtful comments or intimidation. Is this attitude really justified?

When such behaviour appears one is entitled to question the motivation, good sense and neutrality of such so-called scientists. I have previously quite jokingly described such persons as 'science zealots' but this type of behaviour merely acts to confirm this label. Such vile behaviour takes one back to the intolerances of the Nazi regime or the Inquisition. Of course, by their behaviour they betray their own claim to be good scientists, i.e. detached, emotionally neutral and happy to see any outcome proven by facts and observations, sound reasoning, broadly tolerant of other viewpoints, etc. They do not manifest sober, tolerant and rational behaviour, anything but, and this leads one to ask what it is about homeopathy that gets them into such a state? Is it because their beliefs are being challenged? If it is not their pro-science beliefs that homeopathy challenges, then what is it? Are they annoyed that homeopathy is not accepted by mainstream science and thus they desire to be strict conformists to the dogmas of the church of science? Peter morrell 07:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever said that scientists are detached? The best scientists have an considerable fervor for truth and facts. What you seem to want is wussy thinking and an everything-goes, I'm-ok-you're-ok kind of attitude that considers all points of view to be equally valid. Not so. Flim-flam is flim-flam, quackery is quackery, and pseudo-science is pseudo-science. Calling a spade a spade may not be nice, but it's factual. Homeopathy is bunk. Take it or leave it, I don't care. But, don't try to push your unreasonable POV here.

Actually, I would outlaw the practice of homeopathy as a fraud and public health threat. Dietwald 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can't respect other people's point of view then how do you expect them to respect yours? You don't deserve respect for anything you have said. It is people like you who drag this type of discussion down into the gutter where you clearly prefer [it] to be. Peter morrell 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of the contributions on this page seem to be in breach of WP rules on civility, and particularly no personal attacks. These can cause unnecessary upset, and be extremely distracting. Please "clear the slate" and start afresh, and be consistently civil, and assume good faith. This is always going to be controversial, but please let's get a clear idea of what must be done, and see WP guidelines wherever there is any doubt.

The task here is NOT to either promote homeopathy or to denigrate it, the article must have no "purpose" beyond characterising homeopathy fairly and verifiably, and where there are disagreements then the article must characterise the dispute without engaging in it. i.e. every significant viewpoint should be characterised separately and objectively, with V RS sources. In particular, it is all of our responsibilities to ensure that significant viewpoints that we do not ourselves hold are also represented in this article, and that they are represented clearly and fairly. We do not have to decide between them it's not our job to weigh the relative merits, that is OR and POV. So we need homeopaths to edit to ensure that their viewpoints are properly expressed, and we also need sceptics similarly. It is not a question of one or the other; the obligation is to include both.

So why the steam everyone? Of course we have disagreements, these should make the article more interesting to read, not more unpleasant to write. Most importantly, if you disagree with an opinion, you can discuss it here, but do so without impugning the motives of the other person or attacking their character, intelligence etc etc. Please assume that everyone here is good intentioned, knowledgeable in their own area whatever that is, and is trying to contribute constructively as best they can. Please accept that everyone can make mistakes and don't overreact, but repeated intolerant language will force admin action by WP rulesGleng 10:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies from my side to the wiki community. Dietwald 13:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gleng is a valuable member of the homeopathy page and I respect his opinion. As such, I'll ease up on the sarcasm. I nevertheless feel obligated to note one or two things.

An ad hominem fallacy is when someone makes the argument "You're wrong because you're stupid" or some such statement. When I say to Person B, "Person A is a poor choice for the job because of these qualities that Person A has," that's not an ad hominem fallacy. When I attack your argument with derision or scorn, that's not an ad hominem fallacy.

Also, if we're going to start dropping the "logical fallacy" towel, I would strongly consider the often-used "appeal to popularity" fallacy as it applies to homeopathy (e.g. India).

Peter: You appear to be a well-spoken, literate, and reasonable individual. You do not understand the necessary scientific principles well enough to apply them to arguments about homeopathy. Example: placebos. Therefore: don't try unless you are prepared to defend them.

I would be very interested to see you apply other aspects of your knowledge of homeopathy to the article. T.J.C. 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to chip in my 2 cents on this. I have this page at my watchlist, although I have not participated on the content, nor the discussions (I have an interest in it, no the knowledge). The flurry of posts in the last days when I count at least three opiniated new editors is a pretty normal thing to happen. At times, that can be difficult, especially when you come from the internet where everybody just can do and say everything at for example news groups, or where you are virtually unrestricted in determining the content of your own website. Fortunately, wikipedia is not the internet itself, and we do have a bunch of policies and guidelines to keep the place running as smoothly as it does (which at times seems amazing). My own experience is that if you keep things nice yourself, others will do the same. If you are new, well, it will take a bit of time to get used to how wikipedia functions, but if you get a feel for it, it works really well. One golden rule that I learned here very quickly and that I would like to pass on for the moment is: discuss the content, not the editors. Otherwise, it becomes very quickly a game of newcomers biting newcomers and makes it unpleasant for everybody (See WP:BITE for some well meant advise). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding TJC's comment, I am not especially precious about my own knowledge of homeopathy, extensive though it is. I am trying to slowly improve the article in fully referenced ways where possible. I have studied and practised homeopathy since 1978 and have been writing about its history since 1994 in the form of articles published internationally in well respected journals. I'm not bragging, I'm just indicating the extent of my knowledge of it. I accept that it has a big problem with science, but then I am a Zoology graduate who has taught that subject in various guises for many years. I am pretty familiar with most scientific principles and was steeped in it. Seeing homeopathy and herbalism, osteopathy, chiropractic, reflexology, dowsing, nature cure, etc all work for me and for friends and relatives was a major turning point for me. It was a challenge to my tacit science beliefs absorbed during my education. But I was happy to jettison them all, well many of them, as assumptions, once I could see things work that I could not explain with that particualr conceptual toolkit. That is where I differ from many other scientists: it is an ability to adopt more than one paradigm and to accept that science has limits. That is the flexibility I have found helpful for me to cope, as compared to armchair dogmatists who tend to dismiss things beyond their own paradigm outright. Sadly, many scientists fall into that barcket. I hope this explain my position. I don't like sarcasm! but I accept it is irresistible for some. Peter morrell 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Potentising Machines

Peter, your edits on the potentising machines are useful. That's what makes this article good. Informative, but not promotional. Thank you. Dietwald 09:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope to just keep adding bits and pieces of a factual nature as time permits. Peter morrell 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just stay clear of any language that seems to 'endorse' the practice. :) Dietwald 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual, I will do my best to be scrupulously neutral! However, I could equally claim that this article is already riddled with prejudicial language against homeopathy and promoting the false view that its tenets can be opposed 'a priori' on the theoretical grounds of chemistry. Molecules, to be perfectly clear, are a way of understanding our world, they are NOT that world itself. They are a human construct used to understand reality, whatever that is. Therefore, it is invalid to state that homeopathy cannot work because its medicinal products "contain no molecules." Whether they contain molecules or not is actually irrelevant, both logically and to the homeopath on empirical grounds. What is relevant is if they possess therapeutic powers. If they do, then the reason for that is sceondary because empiricism trumps all in a pure science. If they possess therapeutic powers, then the explanation for that must be sought in due course possible or possibly not involving molecules. In other words, empirical observation must always come before and stand above any alleged mechanisms, models and so-called explanations. Otherwise what you will have is more a belief system than a true empirical science. Do you follow what I am saying? In fact of course modern science is a blend of BOTH. It is a blend of true observations and also theoretical constructs. I would contend so is homeopathy! Peter morrell 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of getting back into the discussion: how do you know homeopathic substances have therapeutic power? But, that's besides the point. Mainstream scientists say it's bunk. Homeopaths say it's not. Fine, let's include both points of view and let readers make up their minds. By the way: molecules do not exist? Do you question the existence of atoms? Does this mean you do not believe in matter? Dietwald 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What I said is that you make an assumption that molecules is ALL that exists. I do not make that assumption. Chemistry is a theory, not a complete view of reality. Once you limit your view to just atoms and molecules, then you cannot see much beyond them, and of course on that basis homeopathy does seem to be bunk. I would contend that there might be more to life than simply molecules. You cannot legitimately reject phenomena on the basis that they do not conform to your theories...that is not science, it is more like religion! However, as I said, science is a bit of both: it includes genuine observations and also theories, assumptions and beliefs. You would argue the observations of homeopathy are delusions. Having seen them, I would not. It is like Galileo's argument with the Pope about the moons of Jupiter - do you know that story? Peter morrell 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I generally stop debating when people start implicitely comparing themselves to the allegedly prosecuted geniuses of history. Not sure who said it, but it goes something like this: for every correct idea that has been wrongfully dismissed at first, there are hundreds of wrong ideas that have been correctly dismissed right away. Strange to see you refer to the authority of 'science' when you seem to be rather dismissive of it earlier on. Science is not whatever we want it to be. Science follows the rules (imperfect as they may be) of the scientific method. It's about results, verifiable results, and better explanations. Occam's razor, falsifiability, the whole shebang. Everything else is magical thinking, mostly based on post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and selective memories Dietwald 10:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gobbledegook. Let me know when you get back to reality and we can discourse again. Stop trying to see the world through a gauze of theories: look at things as they are, not as you want them to be according to the diktat of some theory. You just proved by your words that a so-called scientist cannot see the world as it is without their precious theory spectacles. It is unlikely that further meaningful exchanges are possible with someone like you. Peter morrell 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Theories, young skywalker, are what enables us to understand the world. Funny, by the way, that you dismiss even the utility of theories in your defense of homeopathy. You may want to check out what the word theory actually means. And, yes, scientists cannot look at the world without the help of theories. Without theories, the world is just one big garble of unconnected phenomena. Without theories, science becomes stamp collection. Without theories, there is no knowledge. In fact, theories are arguably the highest form of human knowledge, because they provide explanations for mane disparate phenomena. They integrate observations into a sensible whole. Since you do not even accept the utility of theories, you seem to have a rather uncommon way of looking at the world. For those of us who live on planet earth, there is a good link I suggest to be included into this article: http://www.homeowatch.org/ . Dietwald 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is already included, and a good one it is too. Whilst I enjoy a good argument, Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. So let's draw a line here whilst it's still good-natured, eh? Jefffire 11:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to have passed good-natured awhile ago. It's weird; I lose the interweb for a week and the, erm, discussion turns nasty. Sigh. Can't docs and quacks just get along? Modusoperandi 14:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Allright, Allright, I'll take a time-out. The article is obviously in good hands for the moment. I will turn my ire at someone else ;) Dietwald 08:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cosmetic Suggestion

Just like to propose that the line "growing in popularity in the United States faster than any other method of alternative healing"[2] be taken out of the intro as it seems slightly redundant when the preceding line is about it's growth, because it's rather US centered and because it makes the whole sentence look a little ugly. It would fit perfectly happily in a later section I think. Comments? Jefffire 11:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You just don't like the fact that it is growing just about everywhere do you? Peter morrell 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm more annoyed that the broke and the easily duped have no choice but to go to quackery to get cured. The easily duped will, sadly, always be duped by quacks, but the broke shouldn't get screwed simply because they can't afford to buy in to their medical system. Pills and doctors, are effective but expensive, and quacks can easily undercut the competition because faith (faith in water, in this case) is cheap. Sigh... Modusoperandi 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets not get side tracked by personal attacks and irrelevnt discussion. The phrase is immediately preceded by "growing in popularity", so an additional sentence about growth in the US relative to other CAM's is redundant. More importantly it looks ungainly and inelegant. Jefffire 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So...change it? This is wikipedia, if you can make it better, edit it. The worst that'll happen is that it will be reverted. Modusoperandi 16:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was cheap i could understand, but the mark up on sugar pills is huge. There is a lot of money to be made. i agree that the redundancy is crazy in the introduction. Why does "it is incrase in popularity" have to be quoted three times? It would be a lot better to write it once and then cite the three different sources (if these three are actually needed). Alternatively just use one quote from the most reputable source. David D. (Talk) 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep this a strictly cosmetic discussion? There is a lot to say on the topic of homeopathy so things will get quickly bogged down if we don't. Jefffire 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New quote

Does anyone object to the addition of this quotation?: "Presently in France, 32 percent of family doctors use homeopathy, while 42 percent of medical physicians in the United Kingdom refer patients to a homeopath." [5]

No objections to the statement per se but the source is not strong; see WP policy on verifiable reputable sources. In general, avoid websites with an appaent prompotional bias and prefer authoratative published sources, peer reviewed secondary sources are best, but summary reports of reputable organisations are good. The AMA has collected figures on referrals to CAM in the USA, and in the UK there was a House of Lords Select Committee Report on CAM [6] which stated (about all CAMs) "However CAM is also available on the NHS, and has been since its inception. The Department of Health commissioned an independent study in 1995 to help develop a picture of CAM access via general practice[53]. This study reported that 40% of GP partnerships in England provide access to CAM for NHS patients. But evidence shows that this provision is very patchy - whether patients have NHS access to CAM is dependent on the attitude of their particular PCG or Primary Care Trust (PCT)[54] (Q 109). FIM told us: "The Foundation's integrated health awards identified 80 good examples of integration both with primary and hospital services. It demonstrated that provision is increasingly becoming available through the NHS but access to such services is patchy" . 40% of partnerships providing access to some sort of CAM probably indicate that fewer than this provide access to homeopathy, as some refer to acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathy. Providing access also does not indicate referral rate, so it seems likely that a much smaller proportion are referred. The figures are probably available but will need digging for. As far as I can recall in the USA from surveys of doctors, about 20% of doctors declared that they would be willing to refer a patient to a CAM practitioner, but it seemed again from other reports that despite this declared willingness, actual referrals were low. My memory might be faulty and the fifure might be higher or lower than this for homeopathy. If you can find a verifiable reputable source for a statement of fact then it should go in providing the fact is noteworthy. Even if the fact is disputed on these pages it goes in as a fact - the nformation we include must be verifiable, it may not be accurate, we are not in a position to judge. Opinions can also go in provided they are labelled clearly as opinions and a source given to show whose opinion it is, providing the souce of the opinion is notable or authoratative, and the opinion itself is noteworthy. Again, for an opinion, need a strong source to verify that this is indeed the opinion of those it is claimed hold that opinion. There should be no censorship here, only the discipline of verifiable reputable sources of information.Gleng 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a somewhat spurious argument in the sense that if several different sources all say around 40% GP referrals to homeopaths, then what really is the problem? I do not see massive nit-picking obsession with accuracy elsewhere on this wikipedia article [ahem, quite the contrary in places!] and therefore I do not accept the argument that has been presented. I have a few other quote ideas and if I am not blocked then I shall present them here first for discussion. thanks Peter morrell 09:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem is with websites that they often just copy the figure from each other, and errors get copied in this way. It's a matter in the end of finding the original source or a verifiable source. If any fact in any article is disputed, then the process is to challenge it either on the Talk pages or with a "citation needed" tag, and if no verification is forthcoming then it should be removed. If there is a V RS then a fact is a fact and stays. Obviously all articles contain information that might be wrong but which is included in good faith in the belief that the information is true and unontroversial. If this is not the case, it needs a source. This is an encyclopedia. Gleng 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter - Gleng has put the position of how to include facts and opinions very well above. As he says - unless you start with a primary quality source for your data there is a high chance that you are just seeing lots of internet "echoes" of data that may not be reliable in the first place. Homeopathy is so popular that I'm sure any fact or opinion positive to it's effectiveness will be in some reputable souce somewhere, it's just a matter of finding it. It doesn't have to be an on-line source - any data available to the general public through reference libraries or journal archives is acceptable. As I've said before - I have a scientific background so hold the double-blind testing system and the peer review process in very high regard as they are great levelers - it doesn't matter how influential you are unless someone else can replicate your data it will be treated with caution (Cold fusion anyone???). You are correct that sometimes a radical idea will be given the cold shoulder by conventional science but later rehabilitated (one of my uni lecturers was Prof Michael Green of string theory fame). This shows however that the scientific process really does work - ideas stand or fall on their effectiveness - science just gives new ideas a "hard time" to see if they really work.

If you think that no one else on wikipedia is as thorough as the editors on this page may I please invite you to join the discussions on Christianity/Jesus/Jesus-Myth where we go through all sources and data with a fine toothcomb! I hold a very minority opinion on these pages but welcome this rigorousness as it makes for a much stronger argument that is harder to discount by the mainstream view. Sophia 11:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks, if you want some hard data on the growth of homeopathy in the UK I can give it in numbers [which science geeks seem to get off on] and from impeccable sources. I can add that soon. I will also search out some hard data concerning this 40% claim and see what I can do on that. I don't wnat to get into an argument again but I do respect the opinions of people who are JUST armchair theorists and science zealots who have a vested interest in knocking homeopathy, who aggressively express strong views and who have no intention of ever trying it for themselves. I'm afraid that attitude, which predominates here to a degree, and valid though it is in certain respects [whatever floats your boat & all that], gets from me the 'respect' they inspire. Sorry about that, so if you call for hard data, which I can supply, then I will ask the same of them. As a simple example, demonstrate the major conceptual difference between say vital force and electron? or black hole and the Holy Trinity? hint: they are models that work within their own paradigms...get it? Peter morrell 12:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop trying to start a flame war. Explain a point clearly and concisely and then stop. Don't make snide attacks against the 'other side' or otherwise create unnessasery strife. This goes for everyone. Jefffire 12:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - let me echo Jefffire's comments - lets stick to the veifiable facts and let all sides show the same level of thoroughness with their information. The article gains from well written, well sourced and referenced material and as long as we keep this goal in mind we can all work together no matter how different our personal views are on these issues. One thing to bear in mind is that in the "real" world where we rarely get into such deep exchanges about our views on touchy subjects with friends let alone strangers, I bet we could all sit down and have a cup of coffee and be very pleasant to each other. Sophia 14:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New data

Here is some hard data...it would be helpful if somebody can advise about how best it can be inserted into the article at the right point...

Homeopaths in the UK.

Data showing the growth of UK homeopathic practitioners:

1. RSHom means Registered member of the UK Society of Homeopaths

                     female

Year RSHoms RSHoms 1979 15 1980 28 1981 41 1982 45 1983 50 1984 54 1985 62 1986 65 1987 67 1988 82 40 (48.8%) 1989 132 81 (61.4%) 1990 165 99 (60%) 1991 180 112 (62.2%) 1992 210 137 (65.2%) 1993 260 182 (70%) 1994 360 264 (73.3%) 1995 427 310 (72.6%) 1996 465 357 (76.8%) 1997 493 381 (77.3%) 1998 542 418 (77.1%) 1999 708 n/a

Sources: Soc Hom Registers 1979-98; Society of homeopaths Annual Reports 1989-93; Society of Homeopaths Newsletter 25 p.5; Society of Homeopaths Newsletter 24 p.5; Society of Homeopaths Newsletter 21 p.5

1. The Faculty of Homeopathy [medically qualified pracitioners of homeopathy]

year total No females percentage 1939 219 28 12.8% 1969 125 41 32.8% 1972 244 43 17.6% 1974 259 37 14.7% 1985 487 106 21.8% 1988 586 154 26.3% 1998 1600 576 36%

Source: Faculty Lists 1939-98

Not only does this data show a steady increase in these practitioners, but also an increasing female domination of the profession. I would be happy for someone else to place this into the article in the appropriate place. Comments please? Peter morrell 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, last article edit was mine, inserting data as per peter above. This type of data provides no real problem - the society's website is a fine source for society membership figures. Just a matter of keeping the information concise - remember this is an international encyclopaedia.Gleng 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I will insert the data tomorrow...is it possible to place it in a compact form such as a table? I think that might look better, but I do not know how to edit it in that particular way. Meanwhile, I do have other data, for example of the numbers of dispensaries, but maybe that is becoming too historically detailed. I suppose someone can always remove it if they don't like it, which is OK. I plan to add some good information about Homeopathy in Russia from a reliable website and a thesis in my possession and also some amusing quotes from the 19th century about small doses and Dr Quin. As long as no-one will be enraged by such a suggestion, then that is the plan. I shall be happy to discuss these changes as appropriate. Peter morrell 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

- Please check the edit already made to the article to add your data; do you really want a table? Problem is UK is one of many countries - why put these data in in detail fior the UK, which is probably a rather minor element world wideGleng 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

House of Lords Report and more

Well, the House of Lords Report here [7] is probably the most reliable source of data about the increasing use of CAM in the UK. It does NOT say homeopathy is increasing by 40% or that 40% of GPs refer patients to homeopaths, but it does contain some data based on rather limited surveys here and in the US. Worth looking at.

Regarding RCTs, then I would also suggest people read this [8] very interesting report from Canada about the Lancet study. It contains some of the most compelling reasons I have read about why RCTs are a pretty hopeless method for testing homeopathy. However, it seems many folks are working on this and it is to be hoped that RCTs can eventually be adapted or fine-tuned to investigate what they term "complex interventions" like homeopathy more fully and more statistically signicant. Peter morrell 10:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The house of lords report is a useful source for UK popularity data. However the responces to the lancet trial and randomised controlled trials in general aren't for reasons of notability and reliability. Jefffire 10:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why you draw that conclusion? Peter morrell 10:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RCT's are highly respected and well known and so is the lancet trial. The respondants aren't even close in terms of reliability, respectibility and notability. WP:NPOV#pseudoscience come into play here. Jefffire 10:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RV: Lancet refutations

The only marginally acceptable one is the one from the 'acclaimed' homeopath, which was already in there before Peter's edit. Even still - it's not appropriate by WP:RS since it is effectively self-published on his website.

I know people will scream if I remove them without discussion - so seriously - isn't there a published, peer-reviewed letter refutation by now? In _any_ journal? Anybody can write crap on their website and call it legitimate. T.J.C. 06:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to a previous editor above [GLeng]the article does not have to present only one view...both sides need fair representation; thus, on that basis, the views of homeopaths in response to the Lancet study are clearly valid and should appear here alongside those who praise the Lancet study. A FAIR article should explore both sides...surely? On that basis it should stay. My article of an interview with George Vithoulkas was published FIRST in a paper homeopathic jnl and appears on his own website as well as my own, therefore I would dismiss your pejorative comment that "anybody can write crap on their website and call it legitimate." Is an interview crap? maybe your views are crap, who is to say? the wikipedia article on homeopathy should be balanced on all sides. Clearly you don't want that. 194.82.139.5 07:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about only presenting one view. This is about presenting reputable sources. My statements are representative of Wikipedia policy WP:RS. It clearly indicates that self-published material is troublesome, and rightly so. I could host my own unpublished letter on my own website - this does not make it authoritative. Homeopathy has at least one peer-reviewed journal devoted to it. Submissions from that would be acceptable, for example. T.J.C. 08:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the dates...homeopathy began in the 1790s; it is not clear when the term was first used perhaps 1790 with the first proving, maybe earlier. The date 1796 is the date of his publication Essay on a new priniciple, in other words when he decided the proving of Cinchona [1790] was a general principle, as between 1790 and 1796 he was doing more provings. 27 such provings [conducted in the 1790s] were published in 1805 in his Fragmenta de viribus. Therefore, there is not a conflict of dates. There is just confusion over when the term 'homeopathy' was first used. In any case, in actuality homeopathy itself originated during the 1790s. I hope that clarifies. Regarding the graph, I did not place the graph but I have asked the person who did place it to add a footnote containing the source of the info and what RSHom means. Then it should be clear what the graph is for. I have not yet had a reply about adding the footnote. The graph simply illustrates the growth of homeopathy in the UK. Peter morrell 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the clarification. Please edit if you feel it requires it. Also, once the graph is properly labelled it should be a good addition to the article. T.J.C. 08:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit what? do you mean the graph? I don't know how to or I would. Peter morrell 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, well, the graph seems to have disappeared overnight! but here is the caption for it:

RSHom means Registered member of the Society of Homeopaths UK, the largest UK homeopathic association.

Sources: Soc Hom Registers 1979-98; Society of homeopaths Annual Reports 1989-93; Society of Homeopaths Newsletter 25 p.5; Society of Homeopaths Newsletter 24 p.5; Society of Homeopaths Newsletter 21 p.5

If the graph reappears and someone is able/willing to place this caption on it, then thanks very much. Peter morrell 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: The hpathy.com refutation is self-published, too, and needs to be removed. I found some more appropriate responses in the published alternative/homeopathy journals. T.J.C. 05:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

it might be helpful to readers and more transparent to say what these "more appropriate responses" actually involve. What major points do they make that Vithoulkas & Co don't? Is there more substance to their comments or it just more authoritative? if so, how and why? thanks Peter morrell 07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They're not self-published, they don't violate WP:RS, they're peer-reviewed scientific publications that refute a peer-reviewed scientific publication. T.J.C. 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so YOU regard them as more respectable...so much for the packaging, what about the contents? I repeat the question: what of substance do they say? its a fair point cuz if they say nowt new then who cares where they publish their views? In fact, for example, I think most homeopaths would be more interested in the views of Vithoulkas, on almost any issue, than the words of Peter Fisher. Have you actually read these articles? Peter morrell 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles have undergone a similar review process as to their logical and factual consistency as the Lancet article in order to be published, as such, they are more reputable. Self-published website material has not been reviewed for factual or logical consistency. See WP:RS. What you or I "feel" about Vithoulkas is completely irrelevant. Try reading some Wikipedia policies - they exist for a reason. T.J.C. 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And also, what exactly is with the assumption that only homeopaths are going to be the ones reading the article? Furthermore, that's another 'appeal to popularity' fallacy. You may remember that from our India discussion. Just because homeopaths would rather hear what Vithoulkas has to say doesn't make him more credible - it makes it more likely that he only says what homeopaths want to hear. T.J.C. 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks, OK points taken. My interview with GV was also published in a peer reviewed homeopathic jnl: "The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine (AJHM) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal." [9] Peter morrell 08:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the lost graph

I have found the graph on a previous edit, not sure how it got lost...any ideas how it can be placed back and the caption added? Peter morrell 08:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Category pseudoscience

We have been discussing the use of the category pseudoscience on the pseudoscience category talk page and are all agreed on one thing: for a category to be included, all the editors of an article should be in agreement about the applicability of the category. This comes out of theWikipedia policy on categories: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Above and beyond this, it should not be a controversial subject in the world at large, though we have suggested that there is a point at which fringe topics might be treated as essentially uncontroversial.

I suggest that the use of this category on this page is very clearly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines; it is not a "self-evident and uncontroversial" category, either amongst the editors of the page or generally.Hgilbert 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.

It's ironic that you claim that there should be no controversy over whether or not to include homeopathy in this category, since the inclusion critera is merely that there is legitimate controversy - which obviously applies to homeopathy. A vital force? "Laws" that are never questioned even in light of contradictory evidence? (i.e. it can't be that the laws are wrong, it's just the wrong remedy). A sweeping majority of uncontrolled studies and undefended claims? Homeopathy is pseudoscience. T.J.C. 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed the general Wikipedia guidelines on the use of categories. It is not uncontroversial; the guidelines suggest that only uncontroversial categorizations be used.Hgilbert 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The existing Wiki definition of pseudoscience clearly applies to homeopathy.

What, specifically, is controversial? The definition of the category? If that's your beef, take it up at the discussion over there. T.J.C. 21:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll elaborate: The guidelines are talking about controversy regarding how well the category applies to the article at hand, not alleged controversy regarding the category itself. T.J.C. 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Or to rephrase, Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined up with Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to rewrite NPOV policy so that their favourite pseudosciences aren't classified as such. This is nothing new, and everyone else seems to be ignoring them. — Dunc|☺ 22:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you Duncharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the one systematically disregarding Wikipedia guidelines, in particular the WP:CG policy that categories should only be applied when uncontroversial. Having a look at this talk page, I would not say that this is the case here. Perhaps you could review Wikipedia policies?Hgilbert 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least one user -- Dunc -- has been paying attention, judging by his unwarranted stream of rude comments and edits. (I've left a friendly mention of this at Dunc's user talk page.) But there has also been some substantive exchange at category talk:pseudoscience, and I would welcome more.

I think it's pretty clear that scientific consensus is to doubt homeopathy because its mechanism of action is so hard to imagine, and that there is little if any EBM-level evidence for it. But that isn't necessarily the same as saying it's inherently untestable or that the evidence that exists is fraudulantly represented, which are criteria that are often mentioned for pseudoscience. I don't know enough about homeopathy to comment more specifically. If in doubt, it's probably better to just use NPOV wording and a source rather than have Wikpedia appear to "endorse" a categorization.

The caveats at WP:CG (especially these) actually apply to any category whose definition is somewhat flexible in popular usage, sometimes taken as pejorative, and prone to be fuzzily populated. Another good example is Category:cult. Someone may say something is a cult, but putting it in the cat raises NPOV problems since the categorization is an on/off thing without possibility of qualification. So I certainly agree Hgilbert's basic point deserves careful consideration, and maybe we do need to work some of this out at the cat level. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As we all know, WP:V says that "(t)he burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain". There is no scarcity of sources opining that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. But it seems that a higher threshold is required to use the cat. Maybe we will reach some consensus on that threshold at category talk:pseudoscience. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy only applies to real-life, not to disagreements between editors, so I must disagree with Hgilberts reasoning. It seems to me that there is a wealth of sources to assign category:pseudoscience to this topic, and many are very reliable. I'm afraid I see no reason to remove the cat. Jefffire 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in real life, eight mainstream French medical schools teach homeopathy as a recognized medical specialty. I'd say that unless we're prepared to be exceptionally anglophilic, we've got a real difference of opinion. Note that the Lancet study that everyone quotes was criticized by the [official report of the Swiss governmental agency releasing the study as being methodologically limited in value.Hgilbert 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How scientifically respected are those schools, and how respected are those specific departments? Does the Swiss study contradict its conclusions, or just call it "limited"? It seems to me that there is no scientific controversy. There is no flood of papers published in Nature alledgeing a validity of the field. There is however heavy criticism of the techniques used by homeopaths to "prove" things, their practice, and their profession. If you can find a serious respected group of scientists saying that homeopathy is "valid" then perhaps we have something to work with. But this is OR. Jefffire 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1999 the French Medical Association called for homeopathy to be included in all medical degree training. (Archives of Internal Medicine, 1999, 17, September 27) A meta-analysis published in 1991 in the British Medical Journal found that most studies support homeopathy's efficacy; this meta-analysis was conducted free from political influences, unlike the PEK-Lancet one, which has been severely criticized by its own research team after its report was altered and many results suppressed by the government.

I like how you conveniently ignore no less than FIVE independent refutations published in the same journal less than a year after the 1999 article. On another note, can you supply the names of some of the medical schools in France that teach clinical homeopathy as part of its curriculum? Google is remarkably thin on the subject. T.J.C. 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What is OR about all this? How can some fairly unqualified author's (e.g. Williams') claim that a subject is pseudoscience be considered verified proof, while actual researchers' reports and the attitude of a whole medical association is ignorable? Hgilbert 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not relying on Williams for the totality of the claim. A quick look at the entry on the skeptics dictioary reveals a wealth of sources. Jefffire 09:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction cleanup

Hey guys, I know you've been working hard on this article and I had no purpose here but to make your intro a little more readable by the inquiring reader. Feel free to change it back, but IMO it says everything it said before, only cleaner. Cheers:) --Dematt 19:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

I feel that the way this article is phrased has rather a pro-homeopathy POV. In general, it seems to imply that homeopathy basically works, but merits further investigation. As this is not really the case, I suggest that the article be altered, for example by putting the scientific testing section before the popularity section, and phrasing the criticisms in that section more strongly. Is that acceptable? --David.Mestel 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I was just looking at it from another POV and noticing how it didn't say anything about whether it works or not. Most of the article is very technical and doesn't say much about efficacy, which I presume is what it should be. It is obviously a very delicate balance. --Dematt 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is complicated because homeopathy certainly does work, but in my opinion, these clinical outcomes are only the result of the placebo effect. We know placebos work, so we should not pretend they don't. The article does an excellent job of presenting the history and current form and usage of homeopathy. I think you probably see it as POV since it contains arguments on both sides. If you read it with the attitude that this is a swindle selling "magical water" then the parts with an anti-homeopathy POV are invisible and seen as common sense. On the other hand, if you read it as an active and satisfied user of "homeopathic remedies" then the pro-homeopathy POV is invisible and seen as common sense.--TimVickers 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that "homeopathy certainly does work" because of the placebo effect is to use a different standard for effectiveness than is actually used in medical research. In order to be considered an effective medical treatment, a treatment has to be more effective than placebo ... not merely as effective as placebo. --FOo 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that homeopathy does not work as a way of preparing medicines, however as a method of treatment it is an effective way of giving people safe placebos. It is unarguable that giving patients homeopathic remidies can produce improvements in their condition but the people who contribute to this page differ as to the probable mechanism. This is almost a sematic point, but seeing homeopathy as a safe form of placebo therapy lets you take a more relaxed view of the issue.--TimVickers 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand. You say that "homeopathy certainly does work," even if it is only placebo. Would you make the same statement about other placebo remedies such as prayer, laying on of hands, trancendental meditation, Reiki, use of an E-meter to audit for body thetans, shamanism, witchcraft, exorcism, the hundreds of different untested herbal remedies on the shelves at your drug store, magnetic bracelets, blood letting, megadoses of Vitamin C, etc.? Would you state about each of these that it "certainly does work" in the same sense that "homeopathy certainly does work"? If yes, then you have a rather unconventional understanding of the meaning of the phrase "certainly does work." If no, then what is the distinction you're trying to draw between homeopathy and these other placebos? Capedia 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference between homeopathy and these other alternative therapies is that homeopathic remedies are completely and reliably harmless. Untested herbs, huge doses of vitamins or blood-letting are all potentially harmful. If people are going to use these non-scientific remedies then I would prefer them to choose one that won't cause any damage. How could a few drops of water or a sugar pill cause any harm? These preparations certainly contain no active ingredients, so they are the perfect placebos.--TimVickers 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also Agree, but as editors for encyclopedic value, it is not ours to determine the validity of any claim, or for that matter, any science. We should not be concerned whether the results of our conscientious good editing sounds any more or less POV either way. Research speaks for itself, and abstract theories either stand or fall on their own; though their respective values will be interpreted differently depending on the reader's POV. We can not allow ourselves to present facts in such a way that leads a reader to "our" conclusion. That will only make the intelligent and conscious reader discount the total wikipedia process as biased. They want us to provide them with the all sides the best we can so they can decide from there. It has nothing to do with the volume of material. Most times, one sentence is all that it takes to make a good antagonistic POV statement. If we do our job, we just cover all the POV's as thoroughly and succinctly as possible.--Dematt 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. As a good editor I will strive to put these two opposing viewpoins forward as clearly as possible, despite my personal thoughts on the matter.--TimVickers 17:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

References

It is an excellent thing to have references in an article, but many of the references made on this page are to websites of unverifiable quality. This is fine for referring to sets of people having particular opinions, since a website is just an expression of opinion. However, quoting a website to verify a fact can be perilous, as the holocaust denial controversy shows. Can people who have referenced websites make an effort to find the same material on other, more official websites such as the sites of the various established homeopathic organisations?--TimVickers 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lancet

I have extensively altered the section on the Lancet study for several reasons. 1) the description of the study was inaccurate, 2) the PEK dissent is tangential, not obviously related to this study at all, and wholly irrelevant to the peer review by Lancet. 3) The statement on methodological limitations was disingenuous, it was clearly made about the studies on acupuncture and herbal medicine, and this was a reservation about the weakness of apparent evidence for effectiveness. 4) The statement about 8 studies is simply a misunderstanding of the nature of the study. Thus this section (on the Lancet article) appears to have been utterly subverted purely for the purpose of undermining this to promote a POV. In fact, in the original insert of the Lancet studies, criticisms of the study by homeopaths were referenced, and if I have the energy I'll restore those. However, a meta-analysis in Lancet is about as notable and powerful a V RS source as you can get; they don't come better than this, and there has been no peer-reviewed refutation in a major journal that I know. On WP we describe and characterise evidence and opinions, we do not engage ourselves in disputes. Whether anyone likes thiis evidence or not, its notability means that we have some obligation to describe this properly and fairly. This study was extensively discussed on these pages earlier, in the last Talk archive, the description I have now inserted was one accepted on those pages by Davidnortmann as a fair description. I have no objection to dissent being referenced, but the study should not be misrepresented. Gleng 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the Lancet 'thing' has been widely condemned from all quarters of the CAM and homeopathy professions as flawed and constructed by skeptic funded people. If that is so then it is fundamentally biased. I have no idea how true that is. However, why not now add the Bristol study which I have floated before...? thanks Peter morrell 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to describing other studies that come to different conclusions, my concern is a) to keep the described studies to a few notable studies and explain why they are noteworthy. 2)that the account of scientific investigation represents the consensus view of scientists, i.e. that the effects attributed to homeopathy are placebo effects. It is certainly possible that scientists are prejudiced/narrow minded/incompetent etc etc and I have no objection to referencing to criticisms of the scientific approach; but like it or not, right or wrong, the current consensus scientific judgement of homeopathy is that it is probably all placebo; I have no objection to minority scientific views being described so long as it is made clear that they are minority views. The Lancet study is notable not only in itself but also for the attention it received (editorials proclaiming the end of homeopathy etc) and of course it attracted criticism. It's not our job really to say whether the criticism is well founded or not in the article, nor should we give criticicm "equal weight" - that's not NPOV either, unless the criticism is as authoratative as the source, but yes add references to critical analysis of the studyGleng 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

and then guys like you wonder why there are growing ranks of perfectly intelligent people who regard your so-called science as a suffocative belief dictatorship, pure and simple, as repellant and hardline as anything Stalin or Brezhnev were part of; I thought that these wiki articles were supposed to scrupulously present BOTH sides regardless of science. This is an article about homeopathy not about science. or is that a hopelessly naive view? There just does not seem any point in adding to this heap of refuse any more, let alone trying to give balance and facts. stuff it I give up. Peter morrell 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea of science being a "suffocative belief dictatorship" is completely inconsistent with the multitude of novel facts science integrates every year and that the theories that have been used to explain these facts have changed radically over time. If science did indeed enforce conformity, then we would still describe disease as an imbalance in the four humors or a result of "miasma" or bad air. In fact, the amazing pace of scientific change reveals this to be a truly revolutionary and powerful way of examining the world.--TimVickers 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

it behaves EXACTLY in this way and that is enough; you believe what you like; degrees and professorships in biochemnistry are NOT adequate qualifications for makijng reliable judgements about homeopathy. and never will be. period. Peter morrell 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

that science is a belief dictatorship is not an IDEA, it is absolutely an observation of fact. Indeed science is a complete modern-day religion. Idiots and science zealots [science geeks] come to this article who know completely nothing about homeopathy, NOTHING, and yet they pontificate about it as if they know everything. They know nothing. and reveal only their profound ignorance, riding piggy-back, as ignorance usually does, upon their arrogance. Homeopathy has nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry and never will do. To believe otherwise is quite simply to believe that some pathetic qualification in golf enables one to comment intelligently upon tennis or boxing. Such is frankly a quite farcical proposition. Peter morrell 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Jacques Benveniste, didn't he use science to explore homepathy? To say that chemistry has nothing to do with homeopathy is not correct. If it that was true, why would various groups interested in homepathic medicine fund scientific research? David D. (Talk) 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statements above are certainly interesting and colourful opinions Peter, thank you for contributing them to this discussion. However, for homeopathy to work, it does require that the potency of drugs increases with dilution. Since I prepare dilution series of drugs every week and see concentrated solutions having large effects on cells and dilute solutions small effects, I am sure you can see that my sceptical attitute towards this claim is entirely reasonable from my perspective, based on the repeated and unvarying results of these experiments.--TimVickers 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

...the strongest possible dose in Homeopathy is water...where's the Amazing Randi when you need him? Modusoperandi 05:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Benveniste, there are some dilutions that work very well, such as 10⁶⁰, while others are next to useless. My bet is that Tim is not preparing his dilutions correctly. Sloppy preparation along with the incorrect dilution factor will usually result in ineffective homeopathic remedies. According to Benveniste, it is all to do with the special properties of water that allow a memory of the active ingredient without the side effects. If you get optimal dilution, without contaminants, it is even possible to transmit the healing properties over the internet in the form of electromagnetic energy resonance. Obviously this sounds like a fantastic claim but Benveniste published this data in 1998, so it must be true. This is known as Digital Biology and is the origin of the name of the company (Digibio) he started to utilise this discovery. David D. (Talk) 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should try treating the cells with methotrexate diluted in good brandy? I get a bit bored doing all these EC50s, so a more imbibable diluant would do me good.--TimVickers 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all about the solvent Tim. Make it worth while. David D. (Talk) 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

why move Bard quote?

Tim I can't see why you have extended or moved the Shakespeare quote and its meaning has now been lost. That the flower contains poison and medicinal power is the essence of the quote--similarity means that what can poison can also cure, which is in part what inspired Hahnemann's interest in poisons and then led him down the path to proving medicine. why put it near olfaction? seems crazy to me. Please can you put the quote back where it was & as it was or explain why you moved it? it seems well out of place where you put it and adding the next 2 lines of the verse destroys the sharper meaning about poisons...what do you think? well, think it over. thanks Peter morrell 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it because it says that the flower can produce two different effects on people: medicine when it is smelled and poison when it is tasted. This seemed to fit well in olfaction, which deals with medicine through smell. However, the quote does not mention "Like cures like" so it is not a clear alternative statement of that maxim.--TimVickers 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

it has to be so literalk doesn't it? I am changing it back you just don't get it do you? try learning something about the subject before editing a piece. Would I dream of muscling in & editing your enzyme stuff? no - think about why...as I said before arrogance and ignorance...such common bedfellows. science! it is all arrogance...the word science is an obscenity. I asked you nicely and you said no. you do not see the point and I have wasted my time politely discussing with someone who knows nothing about homeopathy Peter morrell 17:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Shakespeare is referring to similarity here. His fragrance and poison are different molecules, therefore not similar. Isn't the point of similarity that a chemical that can poison can also cure? The SAME chemical. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are writing this for the interested but uninformed Peter, adding things that may be misinterperted or open to alternative interpretations, is perhaps short-sighted. Romeo and Juliet has always been one of my favourite plays, which is why the quote attracted my attention. Please calm down, I'm only trying to help.--TimVickers 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the new version, much clearer and now unambiguous. A good edit Peter.--TimVickers 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks,phew! I thought we were at war for a minute! sorry my tone sounded a little rash! BTW it is not my article and I am not that precious about it, but as I said before I would not personally dream of editing articles which are beyond my ken, that is all. Being immersed in homeopathy and its history for nearly 30 years does give me a modicum of confidence about saying what is right and wrong about it, as your work in enzymes, Tim, doubtless gives you a similar feel for the subject. that is all I meant; am sorry if you found my tone offensive. I hope that is now OK. Peter morrell 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think the quote is being used out of context.

The following two lines are as follows:

Within the infant rind of this small flower

Poison hath residence and medicine power:

For this, being smelt, with that part cheers each part;

Being tasted, slays all senses with the heart.

Shakespeare is clearly talking about different qualities in the flower, not one single property that can act as a medicine and a poison, such as arsenic. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

no both interpretations are perfectly valid. :of course it is about similars...shall I spell it out? 'poison hath residence and medicine power' within the same flower...the link is that which can poison can also heal. Surely it is just so blindingly obvious I just can't see what is so hard about that! sorry. that is an excellent resume of similars, but can we just leave it in? or do you really dislike it? Peter morrell 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No i do not really dislike it, and this particular line, 'poison hath residence and medicine power', may have been inspired by homepathic remidies of the time. However, Shakespeare clarifys exactly what he means by the medicine "being smelt, with that part cheers" and the poison "Being tasted, slays all senses". With this usage it wrecks the homeopathic connection. I will not revert it though. David D. (Talk) 18:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the homeopathic connection is wrecked at all. I think the first sentiment expressed is superbly homeopathic but the second part about smelling is merely another supplementary sentiment. It is not clear to me what Shakespeare himself meant or thought, but the first quote does not seem in any way to be used out of context, and stands on its own okay. thanks Peter morrell 18:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry to keep banging on about the Bard! but the point I was making was that the medicinal power in the flower is [homeopathically] identical to the poison that resides there. Is that any clearer? therefore, what is compressed in this beautiful little phrase is the same notion that Paracelsus and Hahnemann both shared: medical similars and that what makes poisons so special is that their power is a too strong medicinal effect...what Hahnemann arguably achieved, then, where Paracelsus failed, is through dose reduction he tamed that power of poison and made it into a therapeutic agent instead. Peter morrell 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason this phrase is open to two alternative interpretations is that it does not say that the poison and medicine are the same, just that they are in the same place. It may refer to the same chemical in the flower having two alternative actions, or alternatively it might be that there are two separate chemicals contained within the flower, one volatile and one not. How you read it depends on your preconceptions. While it is certainly true that chemicals with beneficial effects may be poisonous at high doses, it does not logically follow that all chemicals with poisonous effects are beneficial at low doses. However, it is certainly an interesting hypothesis and probably quite a sensible one when it was made 200 years ago.--TimVickers 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

I just wanted to say that I find that the Homoeopathy article is pretty good now. It seems to me to take a balanced view, as it should. I bet that was painful for many! :) Philip Howard 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody is entirely happy with it, then it must be correct!--TimVickers 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Becoming more popular?

Tim, this is the quote from the article cited in the introduction. You think this is not specific enough? David D. (Talk) 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy are growing in popularity and are increasingly being endorsed by doctors."

It is ambiguous, see my talk page, we need a better reference, prefereably with survey data.--TimVickers 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note for 193.193.199.127

Please do not see this last revision as a rejection of the material you have produced, this is well-written and interesting. However, it needs to be integrated into the current version, which is the result of a long and painfully slow process of compramise by multiple different editors with different points of view. Although I personally agree with many of the points you make, they are expressed in a non-encyclopedic style. Wikipedia articles cannot only approach things from one viewpoint. --TimVickers 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

this guy has repeatedly attempted in recent months to vandalise this article and replace it with his own useless, highly subjective and pejorative POV version. This has to be resisted by consensus. There is nothing in it of any historical value or that is remotely factually accurate. It is pure anti-homeopathy POV Hysteria. It is NOT well written or remotely interesting; indeed, it is a corrupt and bastardised version of homeopathy that is not, and never will be, remotely acceptable. Peter morrell 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the historical things seemed interesting Peter, such as the flow-dilution machine and the spread of influence through contact. Are these not true? They are not all properly referenced. --TimVickers 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly anything accurate or useful can be salvaged from that material but the broad thrust of it is extremely negative and hysterical and thus unsound. If you can salvage stuff from it that can be referenced then nobody can seriously object to that. Peter morrell 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

I have followed the debates on this page, and figure I'll chime in with a question. The tag on the page lists that neutrality and "factual accuracy" of the article are disputed. Does people at this point feel it might be appropriate to change this to just a neutrality dispute tag. I understand if people don't, especially because of the possibility of future edits inserting unsourced claims. Just wondering if there were currently factual disputes about the article, since most of it seems to be well sourced. In any case, I'll defer to the regular editors here. Not my leg 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see it as factually accurate and reasonably neutral in tone.--TimVickers 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TimGleng 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

there was a factual error in the opening sentance. I've fixed it (although perhaps "attempts to" or "tries to" would be a better wording).Geni 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. People were treated with bloodletting or cupping in the past. Mostly unsuccessfully it is true, but the outcome is irrelevant to the action. It would be wrong and POV to say "cured" but it is entirely accurate to say "treated".--TimVickers 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm agree with Tim on this. A cancer patient may receive Chemo to treat cancer, and end up having the cancer kill him. It would still be appropriate to say he was "treated with Chemo-therapy."

Proper tests of provings show that they are probably not using a like.Geni 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the wrong homeopathic remedy is selected, treatment fails and the patient dies, it is still accurate to say that the patient was "treated" with homeopathy. This may be unfortunate, but it is true!--TimVickers 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the point it isn't the treatment claim I'm objecting to but the solid like cures like claim. Homeopaths claim to be following that but the evidence sugests otherwise.Geni 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

correction, what you previously objected to was the specific word TREAT like with like and that is what they do...cure like with like is of course a CLAIM, but that is not mentioned here. Peter morrell 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please no strawmen. No lets look at the opening sentance. "that treats "like with like"". That is phrased as a dirrect stament of fact. However proving protocols are poor and their result don't appear when proper protocols are put in place. Thus the claim that homeopaths really do treat like with like (rather than treat like with random or sod all) cannot be supported.Geni 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

when are you going to start talking sense? you talk rubbish and know naff all about this subject. Go and study the subject before you spout such utter mindless nonsense. Your views are worthless. how can you have such strong views about a subject you never even studied? it's pathetic Peter morrell 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter, this kind of reply won't help create a stable article. A classic case of count to ten before posting. For what its worth i agree with Peter in this case. Homeopaths obviously treat patients. I don't think such a statement implies that the patients are cured. David D. (Talk) 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim I know a lot more about the subject than you think I do. I fact in certain areas I probably know more than you do. Now It is not the word treat I'm obujecting to but the "treats "like with like"". In order for that to be the case we would have to accept proveings as valid which is clearly a POV judgement.Geni 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Get real

I'm not happy about "preferring instead to view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded"" the Organon says something slightly different and homeopaths don't appear to be united on any one claim in this area.Geni 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)\

The recognition of divided opinions is why it says "many homeopathic practitioners" rather than simply "homeopathic practitioners" It is only the practitioners who do not recognise conventional diagnoses who are part of this list of the reasons why homeopathy is controversial. I'm not being very clear here. One of the reasons why homeopathy is controversial is the views of a segment of homeopathic practitioners on conventional diagnoses. It would be fine to change "many" to "some" depending on people's assessment of how common these views are, but it would be wrong to omit these views from the list of reasons why homeopathy is controversial.--TimVickers 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The first mention of proveings follows the classical line to far and should prbably link to Homeopathic proving.Geni 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved section on Hahnemann

[removed and restored to article] I was wondering if this section might be better in the article about Samuel Hahnemann, since although it is interesting, it seems only tangentially related to homeopathy. What do people think? --TimVickers 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted it; it is certainly a crucial aspect of the subject if you wish to seriously understand the subject. You cannot realistically separate the views of Hahnemann from that of homeopathy. The discussion is NOT the place for this info. Peter morrell 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

further: the scetion balances out the criticisms that were mentioned about his miasm theory and show there is more to homeopathy and him than mere miasms. I find it ridiculous that you bang on about the recent critique over malaria and completely ignore the serious diseases that homeopathy has a good track record of curing, even in its early days. Study the literature of the subject before you pontificate from the armchair about its alleged dangers. You have lost your editorial neutrality on this one Tim. Peter morrell 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Name one.Geni 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

if you read the literature of homeopathy, as opposed to deriding it with extremely limited knowledge but strongly held views, then you will see dozens of cases homeopathy has cured including Yellow fever, mumps, measles, whooping cough, diabetes, cancers, psoriasis, alopecia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, and at least one case of haemophilia. You profess to know about and edit an article about a subject you have not even studied. Tim's deletions and amendments in general have been balanced, neutral and very fair, but his latest deletion about miasms lacks balance because that paragraph about miasms includes criticisms about miasms as if they are the be all and end all of homeopathy, which they are not and it ignores the broad swathe of Hahnemann's advanced views on a range of medical aspects of which he was a pioneer...such as psychiatry and microbiology. Including that revision balances that section up nicely. Peter morrell 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So personal attacks and argument by assertion. You see the problem is I have studied. I know what you mean when you claim homeopathy has cured X (anicdotal reports based on questionable diagnosis and in the more amuseing cases carfuly ignoreing the conventional treatment involved). So no I'm not impressed by your bold claims.Geni 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's at least attempt to adopt the veneer of civility. Let us also stop with the anecdotal evidence ("you will see dozens of cases homeopathy has cured including...at least one case of haemophilia...") Modusoperandi 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Veneer of civility cont'd

They were not 'mine' and they are not 'bold claims' or 'anecdotal evidence,' they are just extracts from the literature of homeopathy, which if you studied you would know about already...study as in 'study openly' as opposed to study in order to pick fault with, find holes in and try to discredit; there is a huge difference. Regarding your problem with similars...is it possible for you to state more clearly why you feel that homeopathy does not employ similars all the time axiomatically? also, it would be useful for me to say that I think the issue here is not about homeopathy per se but about the entrenched and probably unmoveable disbelief of people like you who are not really 'qualified' to edit an article about it, by which I mean to say that you have strong anti- views on the subject and are clearly under-informed about it; I would say those qualities uniquely qualify you to leave it alone rather than to interfere in it...but I am merely expressing a POV; the article should be an accurate and balanced account of this subject and need not include the views of its critics except insofar as they are relevant to the topic in question; balance is the key word; I cannot think of any homeopath who would say that homeopathy does not employ similars as you have stated. what do you mean by this comment? it just sounds bizarre. OK let us be more civil, but please answer the points raised. thank you 213.40.131.66 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ...ooops sorry I had not even logged in!Peter morrell 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to accuse everyone but you of bias and then call for increased civility.

One could alternatively argue that because you are so firmly entrenched in its dogma, you are unable to be objective about homeopathy, which is necessary to achieve NPOV. The nature of science is to examine claims with a critical eye. To demand that science give homeopathy a pass in this respect is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates that you know the homeopathic literature is of poor quality according to the scientific standards of pharmacology and physiology, two subjects about which homeopathy makes specific claims.

Oh, but I forgot, homeopathy has nothing to do with chemistry and science or controls or placebo, right? It's magic and therefore should be excluded from scrutiny.

Furthmore, regarding "like cures like." It is trivial to note that an uncontrolled proving may elicit symptoms that are not necessarily caused by the specific substance being proven. As such, while homeopaths CLAIM to treat like with like, they may not actually be doing so, because the provings are by and large unreliable or unverified. (By scientific standards, but since homeopathy is magic, it's all OK!) T.J.C. 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult, as I am sure you are aware to treat this subject objectively. If it helps you can look at the pages of this encyclopedia on practices such as Christianity, Voodoo or Islam. None of these areas are scientifically proven and they also make claims about the natural world that are in conflict with current scientific ideas. However, this does not make it correct to have "This is only superstition" the only content in a page on a form of theism. This requirement we put aside our own convictions makes editing difficult, however co-operation, compromise and careful changes are still possible. --TimVickers 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not call for civility, so please try to get your facts right. I agreed to be more civil on the request of another. Don't you read the posts? As for being soaked in dogma I think that's a bit rich considering you fail to view the world except solely through the distorting dogma of science, which is inapplicable to something like this subject. This article is supposed to be a neutral and accurate account of homeopathy; and so far, thanks to people like Tim, it is just about becoming that. As for the views of its critics, who crawl all over it and pull it to pieces and just try to ruin the factual accuracy of the article, they are not really of much relevance to achieving the task in hand. They are never going to change their view...how dogmatic is that? these exchanges do not improve the article. Peter morrell 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The root problem Peter is that while you may assert that science does not apply here, this is only a personal opinion. Some other people have a different opinion and feel that science does indeed apply. This is similar to religion, where some feel science applies and others do not. It is not sensible for me to insist that my opinion that science applies to this subject is more reasonable than yours that it does not, however strongly I feel this to be true. --TimVickers 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

you are probably right but I do not accept that science has the right to demand every other branch of knowledge and practice, viewpoint and experience is accountable to it. How dogmatic and arrogant is that? in fact it has a name scientific imperialism, which is precisely what it is. Science is actually a belief system, the religion of today, and you see the rants here against things like homeopathy that cannot be quite pigeonholed in the way science demands, and they are the rants of science zealots pure and simple. There is more to life and the world than science. But these cardinals of science want the world to answer to them. they have lost the original science which is to look at the world and try to make sense of it with open eyes and an open heart. Their heads are just stuffed with theories. As I have said before, you just cannot understand something like homeopathy through the filter of science. I tried and gave up years ago. It can't be done; it is an entirely different beast. So who cares it is hopeless trying to even bridge the gulf between us. Let us just try to improve the article. Peter morrell 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis added above is mine: Science is the study of the natural, observable, quantifiable universe. If science cannot be used to study homeopathy, then homeopathy is supernatural. If that is the case, I suggest we reflect this in the article by changing "is a system of alternative medicine" to "is a collection of fabulous magical powers." T.J.C. 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

...and it's not so much "scientific imperialism", rather it's "scientific empiricism"... Modusoperandi 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

sCAM is a scam

Good point above by T.J.C. 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC). This just points out a fact - so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM) is a collection of very diverse methods, including "a collection of fabulous magical powers."

Now why is this situation problematic? It is because sCAM practices that are actually metaphysical belief systems ("religions") are clamouring for financial support from Medicare ("state") and insurance. This violates the constitutional principle of Separation of church and state, and causes non-believers to pay for the missionary efforts of alternative therapists who are actually proselyting for their religion, even when they aren't aware of doing so. This is documented in the book The Aquarian Conspiracy.

I believe in the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, truth in advertising, and "freedom of informed choice". If sCAM practitioners and promoters would only be honest and admit that they are practicing a religion, and quit trying to scam the state, insurance companies, and the public by claiming their methods aren't religious, but are scientifically proven (which is far from the case - if they were proven they wouldn't be considered "alternative" anymore), then I'd have no trouble with letting responsible adults choose to use these practices, as long as they paid for them themselves, but that's not the case. The sCAM industry is really trying to scam us! -- Fyslee 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- Fyslee 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a sunday service right there!:) --Dematt 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What else can one expect from a PK (preacher's kid)? ....;-) -- Fyslee 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you listened well! ;)--Dematt 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bandolier: evidence-based or evidence-biased?

The Cochrane Collaboration commissions and conducts systematic reviews of clinical efficacy in all areas including homeopathy. Bandolier does not, so its role is misrepresented here. The 'Bandolier reviews' are secondhand reports of other researchers' reviews. The Bandolier flu review, which I have removed, was in fact a report of the Cochrane review already cited. Bandolier's distortion of the Cochrane conclusions (flu is of shorter duration with Oscillococcinum 200 than placebo) is connected with Bandolier's long history of antagonism to homeopathy.--Jedermann 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding lost reply from Tim

Tim, your previous reply now seems to have vanished but this is my reply...In any case, there are longer articles than this on wikipedia, so I don't really see what the fuss is about. The main point really is about balance and neutrality and presenting correct information, instead of POV drivel, with which this article has been periodically saturated. Thanks, mainly to your editing skills, Tim, that phase now seems to have passed, hopefully on a permanent basis. Peter morrell 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy is very much eligible for scientific review and judgment

Peter morrell wrote:

"...the distorting dogma of science, which is inapplicable to something like this subject."

That statement is far from true since homeopathy makes very definite and falsifiable claims, and that places it right in the sights of any scientific rifle scope. It has not only been sighted on, but has been repeatedly shot at, and with much success. It is a highly testable method, in spite of the fact that its advocates constantly keep moving the goal in attempts to avoid being proven wrong. But whenever an experiment has been properly performed under well controlled conditions, homeopathy turns out to be nothing but so much water:

• "Homeopathy is God's way of thinning the flock". - dpr

• "Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It's completely safe to drink." - Peter Dorn

-- Fyslee 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What we do here is write an encyclopedia. We are not in the business of deciding if something is right or wrong. As long as an article is an accurate record of a belief system then it is entirely correct for it to describe the belief system in detail. --TimVickers 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Total agreement. The talk page is where we indulge in other things, like discussing the rightness or wrongness.....;-) The article itself must include all significant POV and present them in such a way as to leave it up to the reader to weigh the evidence for themselves. It is not our job as editors to make up their minds for them, but the talk page can certainly be used to attempt to convince each other. (Better informed editors are better editors.) The article should cover all aspects of the subject: tell about homeopathy, its claims and mechanisms, its belief system, its history, and its controversies, including the research and criticisms, all in a NPOV way. -- Fyslee 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet more total agreement. Hgilbert 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My word, I thought there might be an argument here, all I can see is a group hug in text. --TimVickers 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in on it! --Dematt 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

the usual hateful diatribe is a such a turn off. I only intend to focus on improving the article in future, these morons are not even worth talking to. Peter morrell 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter, please don't take it so hard. You have to admit, editing makes us hold in our frustrations for so long, then we blow. It is better that it is with humor than with anger.

Your work is the most important here. You are the only one that actually uses these principles and if this article is left to those that don't, who knows what will be left. Remember, here at wikipedia you are an editor first, homeopath second. No-one here is any better or any worse than you are, just looking at it from a different POV. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not. Take what you can when you can and leave the rest. If you do your best to be NPOV, other editors will back you up. If what you say is POV or opinion, at least expect it to get balanced with the other POV by another editor. You don't have to like the other editor, but it helps to respect their POV if you expect them to respect yours.

Everybody- Not to belittle anybody's edits, but thanks mostly to Peter's knowledge and Tim's editing skill this article is full of factual and useful information for the uneducated reader. I think all of you agree it was not so useful 2 months ago. I don't have to tell any of you that even if you do not agree with some of the information, that does not mean it does not belong in the homeopathy article. This article requires the mutual respect of each editor's unique POV. So lets keep working together to get it right.

And Fyslee, be nice.

--Dematt 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I see editors who have very different views here. You are getting on very well I think. I will offer some positive feedback. I see the article is quite comprehensive. I see also that the opening represents the article well. I wish other controversial articles will do the same. I will do some good research on this article. I expect only very small changes. This article is good. Hylas Chung 04:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on reliable sources

User Peter Morrell is currently edit warring in a POV on scientific testing of Homeopathic mechanisms. [[10]]

This sort of thing is clearly covered under WP:RS. Namely that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The studies (which Peter is presenting at face value as fact) are not exceptional reliable reliable sources. Either they get presented as opinions (in which case my point becomes one of WP:NPOV#undue_weigh) or they should be removed entirely. Jefffire 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest listing any studies that have been done that show no effect. (Unless all the studies to date do show significant effects.) Let the scientific work speak for itself, without prejudice, however difficult this is on issues in which emotions run high. Hgilbert 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you agree with me that the current wording is POV? This is a matter of reliability of sources. A paper published in the Lancet is highly reliable for example, whilst the papers cherry picked in the current wording are not from reliable sources. Simply listing all studies is a clear breach of undue weight, not all studies are equally valid. Unless Peter makes some comment here I will assume he cedes this point and change the article back. Jefffire 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not edit warring...you are edit warring...this article is about homeopathy NOT the view science zealots take of it, which we know all too well. NPOV presents the case as-is not as science wants it to be. The Lancet is an allopathic organ wholly opposed to homoepathy, it is not in any sense neutral any more than Bunty for Girls. The listings supplied by HGilbert should stay, they form a decent slab of attempts over a 70 year period to explore in vitro the effects of potentsied substances on enzyme reactions, plant growth etc. What is so wrong with readers knowing that [a] these studies took place, [b] that they form a part of the corpus of homoepathic history and literature, and [c] what the results SEEMED to show? what is wrong with that? you just can't have this article all your way. like it or lump it we know why you are wholly opposed to homoepathy and why it offends your dogmatic beliefs in science. Please leave the article as it is. Peter morrell 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone of the above speaks for itself. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, in particular WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. You will see how the presentation you have introduced is clearly a violation of these. Jefffire 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

tone? read the content. Do you deny then that you are wholly opposed to homeopathy because it offends your dogmatic beliefs about science? Why not just state your own bias then we can see what you really think? these studies go back to the 1920s and before, and yet you dismiss them because you regard them as bogus just because they appeared in non-standard journals. Where else do you think homeopaths, and their sympathisers, could publish their studies? There is not a standard scientific journal in the world which would publish such studies back in the 1920s. It would be professional suicide for such journals to do so. So your claim that they are unreliable, like your view more generally of homeopathy, rests on unsound assumptions and armchair theorising. Is that not entirely evident in the tone of your interventions in these articles? You are a perfect example of a science imperialist acting like a science police force, enforcing what you think is true and what everyone else should believe. a truly NPOV view would simply accept a neutral stance, which you are evidently incapable of adopting. Peter morrell 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The content of your message relating to ad hominem was irrelevent, so I ignored it. My personal beliefs are irrelevent and not your business, comment on edits, not editors. The failure of homeopaths to publish in reliable scientific journals is their problem,not mine. Wikipedia guidelines is very clear on this subject, if the "truth" is not published in reliable sources, then the "truth" is not reported here. Wikipedia is built on verifiability, and has to be verified from reliable sources. Read the links I provided to our guidelines for a more detailed analysis. If you want to report differently, then you must first change the scientific mainstream view in the real world before trying to change Wikipedia in such a manner. Jefffire 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The sources provided simply are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion. Unless you have a reliable source, please refrain from adding this to the article. And no, that's not imperialistic science dogma talking, that's Wikipedia policy and that's all there is to it. Infinitenoodles 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What we are talking about in this section is scientific studies on homeopathy. Consequently, we must adopt a scientific view to accurately report these studies. This is not POV, instead it is a simple requirement of the section we are discussing. A problem with including a set of positive studies without context is that "water memory" is incompatible with the dose response relationship. If you pick up any issue of any scientific journal you will find dose-response relationships in almost every paper you choose at random. These are found in data such as drug EC50s, enzyme assays or almost anyithing involving a dilution series. The reason therefore why people regard reporting a few positive studies from the last fifty years as POV is that they feel it ignores the hundreds of thousands of negative studies published over the same time. It would be literally impossible to fit even a fraction of the papers showing a dose-response relationship that have been published this month into our article. Selecting a few positive resutls from this huge number of negative ones is therefore seen as seriously misrepresenting the literature. I have moved the "context" section I put in the study on histamine release up to the into to this section, does this make it more acceptable to everybody? --TimVickers 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You might misunderstand what these studies are about, Tim. They are not medical studies per se; they look at in vitro reactions of allergens, etc. to various potentizations, or the growth of grain seeds with various potentizations of various substances. They are a wholly separate field from the studies of homeopathic treatment, and really belong in a separate article on potentizations, with a summary in this article. Perhaps we could begin gathering information towards this article...under a section titled potentization in the homeopathy article initially, with positive and negative research of various aspects of this subject, with the aim of creating a separate article as soon as we have a reasonable beginning? Hgilbert 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You could put any such data in the Dose-response relationship page. However, to avoid giving a slanted view of the literature you would have to find the percentage of scientific papers that do not describe the dose-response relationship and the percentage that do. You would probably end up having to cite a few thousand papers that describe this relationship for each one that does not. Do you see the problem? --TimVickers 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any papers that explore the effect of potentizations in vitro or on plant growth that have not found this effect. Could you give some citations, please?

Incidentally, the distinction between potentization and simple dilution is being blurred by some edits to this section. Since homeopathy expressly focuses on a particular method of preparation, potentization, tests using simple dilutions must not be confounded with those that use the potentization technique. Hgilbert 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do not have access to the Davenas Nature paper on degranulation, I can send you the Pdf. When you read this you will see that vortexing, which is a standard laboratory procedure, was used to prepare the dilutions used in this study. Since standard dilution methods were used in one of the papers cited as positive results, it is incorrect to say that the methods used in studies giving negative results are different from the methods used in the studies giving positive results. --TimVickers 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done my final modification here to try to clarify things, moving the Davenas to separate the potentizations from the dilutions. I do feel there should be clarity here, but let's work it out without edit wars. Hgilbert 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence that potentization and dilution result in solutions with signficantly different observable properties. Basic chemistry and physics dictate that the mechanics of potentization (shaking/hitting/chanting) will not significantly alter a dilute solution. Therefore, in the scientific section, there is no justifcation for treating the two separately. T.J.C. 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We can side-step that point by including the studies that attempted to reporduce the effects seen with "successed" solutions and found no difference. This and the summary review contributed by Hgilbert makes a reasonable section. --TimVickers 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cholera, Germ Theory, etc

Someone today deleted a factual sentence stating that Hahnemann was the pioneer of microbiology. It is not a claim, it is historically factual. Here is the timeline...

Following his observations of cholera epidemics in 1830 and 1831, "Hahnemann published four articles on cholera from June to October 1831." [11]

"in 1860. Pasteur's experiments proved conclusively that fermentation is caused by microorganisms." [12]

1876 Koch published his paper on anthrax

1875 Ferdinand J. Cohn publishes an early classification of bacteria

1884 Koch's publishes his postulates

1885 Pasteur virus expt 'proves' link between a germ [he called it a virus] and a specific sickness

So which way do you want it? 1831 to 1885 is 54 years - does that make Hahnemann a pioneer of bacteriology or not? I think the answer is yes. Peter morrell 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it. I was the one that deleted the sentence. Please see my post in the other section. Infinitenoodles 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahnemann as Pioneer in Microbiology

So as not to turn this into an edit war, let's talk this out here. I don't contest that he conceived of microbes. I just don't feel that this, without evidence of additional work in the field, qualifies him as a pioneer. I'd like to have something in there about it, but something that seems a little less opinionated. Do you think we could work out some way of phrasing this without it sounding as over the top? Infinitenoodles 14:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

the word pioneer means the first - what else is there to say? it is the correct word, even though folks like you detest it. Same with the psychiatrists, they passed him over too as the pioneer of gentle psychiatry. Its not a big deal it is simply historically true. The evidence is in the dates. How wide a gap would you like? 100 years a thousand? 54 is enough surely? He was the first to say that cholera is caused by infinitesimally small living creatures. Read it yourself it is online: those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists [13] Peter morrell 14:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "folks like you" you mean people concerned about having overblown claims that compromise credibility present in this encyclopedia, yes I suppose so. I'm trying to be reasonable here Peter. My issue is not with the gap. It's with calling him a pioneer. The definition of pioneer being, "n 1: someone who helps to open up a new line of research or technology or art." [14] He postulated the existence of microbes, yes, but did this postulation influence Pasteur and Koch? If not, he didn't exactly contribute to the field. Unless there's evidence that he made solid contributions, we really shouldn't be saying he's the first pioneer in microbiology. Infinitenoodles 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I see what you are saying and that is a valid point. However, whether or not he influenced Pasteur is a side-issue in one sense...he can be credited as the first to state that a specific disease was caused by minute living creatures. That foreshadows the work of P & K, but I am not sure they knew about his work. In that sense, your idea of further fieldwork is a good one. But again, it is extremely hard to prove who influenced who in any line of historical inquiry; this is a general point of enormous importance. Anyone can assume that 2 people who lived in the same town and did the same things must have known each other, but to prove they did requires a very different set of problems. I live in the same street as a homeopathic clinic but I never go in there and they do not know me. I live opposite a good landscape artist and I am also an artist but we have never even said hello to each other. Do you see the magnitude of the problem? To prove that A knows B or has been influenced by their work is historically very problematical. Even if you have evidence that B read the work of A, and lived in the same street, this still does not prove concretely that they did influence each other, does it? Anyway, to repeat, Hahnemann was a pioneer of microbiology in the specific maybe narrow sense he says above about Cholera. In the sense about the wider field as it became after P & K, then he contributed nothing further to the field. Maybe you can suggest how the wording in the article might be changed? I hope this clarifies my previous comments. Peter morrell 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire passage states, On board ships – in those confined spaces, filled with mouldy watery vapours, the cholera miasm finds a favourable element for its multiplication, and grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists. However, cholera is not a miasm (energy being). This precludes him from having any important impact on the field of microbiology. I suggest we remove the part about him being a pioneer in microbiology (severely POV and undefendable), leave in the part where he suggested that cholera was a minute living creature, and let people draw their own conclusions about what that means. T.J.C. 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pasteur was 9 yrs old in 1831; Hahnemann died in 1843; Koch was born in 1843. you would have a lot of fieldwork to do to prove conclusively that P & K were influenced by Hahnemann or even by homeopathy, or even knew of them. It is possible, but to prove it might well be a mammoth task. Regarding the point above about being "severe POV" that is plain nonsense. He was indeed the pioneer of psychiatry and microbiology, but you just don't like it, do you? How neutral is that for such a science imperialist? Peter morrell 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you fanboys will see whatever you want to see. I'm interested in having evidence for assertions, despite how 'difficult' they may be to demonstrate. T.J.C. 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly clarifies. Thanks. Let's see if we can agree on a good version of it here and then we'll toss it into the article.

---

However, we should not regard the miasm theory as the 'be all and end all' of homeopathy. For example, these criticisms ignore the fact that Hahnemann strongly advocated good hygiene, fresh air, regular exercise, good nutrition as precursors of good health [see his 1792 essay: The Friend of Health]; he was a proponent of humane treatment of the insane in 1792-3 [1796, Description of Klockenbring During his Insanity] a year before William Tuke and Philippe Pinel. He also published tracts in which he described the cause of Cholera as "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures" Asiatic Cholera, 1831, making this one of the earliest recorded speculations on the existence of microbes. These considerations clearly indicate a modern feel to his medical views that may be justly regarded as advanced for his times.

---

This version acknowledges the same accomplishments but avoids the issue of pioneering. Any suggestions? Infinitenoodles 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK that sounds fine, so long as you insert back in the citations...I am happy with that please go ahead. Peter morrell 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put in a new edit referring to others expressing similar ideas one hundred years before. Koch and Pasteur only proved a theory that had been around for centuries. Since Anton van Leeuwenhoek people had the clear idea that microbes caused disease, but it was Koch who provided clear experimental proof of this idea. --TimVickers 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, there was an edit conflict and I seem to have broken my links. I'll take care of that first. I'll try to work with the info you just put in there Tim. I think it's very pertinent, thanks? Infinitenoodles 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I mildly object to the 'clearly indicate a modern feel to his medical views' passage - it's POV (and kind of silly). T.J.C. 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as we have consensus, please do whatever you think is necessary to fix up this part. Infinitenoodles 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I dumped it - it really contributes nothing to the article. T.J.C. 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed and replaced it. It is neither POV nor silly...as compared to the dumper. Peter morrell 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me all the names you want, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not for drawing conclusions or making speculations. It is for providing verifiable information. T.J.C. 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

At least we agree on the factual content of this section. Minor stylistic concerns aside, this has been greatly improved by our efforts. Thanks people. --TimVickers 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute: Miasms

Hahnemann's acceptance of this emerging idea of infectious disease before its final proof by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur clearly indicate how his pioneering medical views may be regarded as advanced for his times.

This statement should be removed, for two reasons. First, it is easily disputable, and thus subject to POV. More importantly, it is unreferenced, indicating that it is a Wikipedia editor is drawing conclusions from the facts provided. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If a reference is found and this assertion is attributed to an anthropologist or medical historian, it would become appropriate to include it. Otherwise, it's just ramblings (and poorly written - never, ever use the word 'clearly' to make a point - similar to "obviously" or "undoubtedly" it just conceals a lack of sound argument.) T.J.C. 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you happy with the new version? --TimVickers 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's perfectly fine now. Cheers! T.J.C. 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter morrell is a medical historian!Peter morrell 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And you are a very valuable resource for this page Peter. How is your book of Hahnemann essays progressing? --TimVickers 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on this page

See User:Homy/homeopathy

OR tag

In which section is the disputed material? T.J.C. 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)