Talk:Allopathic medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Using the term

It is essential that this page stays neutral. That means we should not evaluate whether one system of medicine is better than another but we should present the facts as they are.

The term should be defined at the beginning and then expanded upon. The term itself is used by a variety of people. I have heard the term "allopathy" commonly used at Harvard Medical School as well as at medical conferences. It is not just a term used by critics. We should simply define the term at the beginning. Later in the article, it can be discussed who uses the term.

have you got a citation for that.Geni 00:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

174 is hardly a significant level of useGeni 01:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many references you think is necessary. The point is that there are hundreds of journal articles out there that use the term in a non-derogatory manner. When I did a quick search on Web of Science for journal articles allopath* came up with 325 references, which was more than naturopath* (181) but less than chiroprac*(2301) or homeopath* (1,437).

Here is a citation from NIH in which allopathic and conventional are indicated to be interchangeable. CL http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/wholemed.htm

The meaning as per Merriam Webster is "relating to or being a system of medicine that aims to combat disease by using remedies (as drugs or surgery) which produce effects that are different from or incompatible with those of the disease being treated". It doesn't mean "mainstream", especially as "mainstream" medicine has never been based on such a principle. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That definition seems to fit conventional medicine fairly well to me.

Webster's New World Edition

My Webster's New World Edition, gives your definition and then says "loosely applied to the general practice of medicine today." This is the way I have heard it commonly used on many occasions.

I think the term also refers to a general principle for modern medicine as well. For example, to treat high cholesterol, you take a medicine that lowers cholesterol. To treat cancer, you eliminate the cancer. This is different than most other medical frameworks. For example, traditional chinese medicine uses techniques to create energetic balance between organs. The objective is thus balance not elimination of disease.

How about we use the full websters definition to avoid controversy then? - (unsigned)

As long as the accurate meaning is included. We already point out both the loose, inaccurate meaning used by foes of medicine, and the accurate meaning. - Nunh-huh 00:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This term is not at all used by only "foes" of medicine. Allopathy is a widespread term, used by the NIH, used by medical schools, and by a number of physicians. CL

Who said it was used "only" by foes of medicine? It's used primarily by foes of medicine, not only. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and I care about what a US publication thinks because? This article isn't just about US usageGeni 02:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify....are you referring to the Annals of Internal Medicine and the National Institutes of Health?

Term is used different outside of the USA

Perhaps you are indicating that the term "allopath" is used very differently in the country you are in compared to the U.S. In which case, this may explain the differing perspectives. In the US, allopathy is commonly used by physicians and medical schools to discuss conventional medicine. Is this different? Where are you writing from? CL

Nunh-huh, where are you writing from as well? CL

I believe Geni refers to the "national" in "National Institutes of Health". Both NIH and NCAM are American, not international. Europe, where homeopathy originated and still has appreciable adherents, is not likely to confuse "allopathy" with "medicine". I write from the U.S., where "allopath" is not used by "mainstream" physicians to refer to themselves, except insofar as they are misinformed or extremely informal in their usage. The term is primarily used by those who in some way seek to characterize some unitary thing to which "alternative medicine" is the "alternative". - Nunh-huh 03:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Are you saying that a "center" of the National Institutes of Health is poorly-informed and derogatory toward conventional medicine? (MR)

NCAM is certainly worth citing as an example of what those who have professional interests in alternative medicine mean when they say "allopath". It's not a place to cite as an example of "mainstream" physicians calling themselves allopaths. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the National Institutes of Health is THE U.S. government agency designated to create policy and coordinate research in the U.S. Both the director of NCCAM and the director of NIH are medical doctors.

The NCCAM is not the NIH. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the NIH website, it refers to the "Individual Organizations that make up the NIH" This includes institutes, centers, and offices. NCCAM is displayed as a center under the authority of the director. This is also reflected in a diagram of the organizational structure that puts NCCAM under the direct authority of the NIH director. If these individual offices are not part of the NIH then the NIH only consists of the director's office and has a very small buudget. - (unsigned)

The NCCAM is not the NIH. Don't confuse the part with the whole. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So far, three sources of evidence have been presented that the term is used by mainstream physicians to refer to themselves: (1) A major health institute uses the term on their website, (2) Over a hundred scientific journal articles use the term some of them from prominent journals such as the Archives of Internal Medicine, or the Journal of Geriatrics. (3) Two people in this discussion have stated anecdotal evidence that they have heard it being used by respected physicians. What more evidence do you require to show that it is a common term used by a variety of people that refers to mainstream medical practice? (MR)

No instance of its use shows it is a common term. That is statistical; that is the sort of information dictionaries collate and present. That some physicians don't know the proper meaning of allopath is not in dispute: what is in dispute is that those called allopaths by others commonly refer to themselves as such: they don't, and many of the citations you (or someone) has adduced here to claim it is in fact claim the opposite! - Nunh-huh 04:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the reference I cited in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the author refers to the "recent embrace by the medical profession" of the term allopathy, and she cites many journal articles that use the term. Here is one journal article that uses the term right there in the abstract (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53(1):136-140). If doctors and other medical practicioners do not use the term then please tell me why an article with 3 out of 5 authors as M.D.s would use the term to refer to their own medical system, and have it be published in a major peer-reviewed medical journal. - (unsigned)

In the commentary you cited, the point is that any perceived "recent embrace" is incorrect. I think we can reject the criteria that a word means anything 3 doctors agree it means. Dictionaries are the authorities on word usage, not physicians. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed the definition to reflect what is commonly referred to as the most authoritative and current source of the English language (Oxford English Dictionary, 2004). - (unsigned)

And I have added the non-"concise" definition. - Nunh-huh 20:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you please tell me the year that definition was published as well as the exact edition (is it the unabridged, the American, or the short edition?) - (unsigned)

It's from 1971 Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Newer editions will not have removed the definition, and neither should you remove it from the article. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can not accept a 34 year-old dictionary reference on this site. Definitions do change on a yearly basis. The usage of this term is very different than it was over three decades ago. - (unsigned)

Definitions don't have expiration dates, and they don't get removed from the OED. If new definitions are added, the old ones remain. If you can't "accept" the first edition's definition, by all means look up the second's and add it. Who knows, they may have added your preferred definition. Or not. They may have marked this one as "archaic". Or not. I don't think they will have. - Nunh-huh 04:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misusing dictionary definitions

I'm disappointed. First, you argue that dictionaries are what "collate" these kind of statistics. Then you quote an entirely out of date definition. If you were arguing it was from the unabridged version, that may in fact, be different. But you are quoting a definition from 1971 from the Compact definition. The online 2005 Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary has the following definition for allopathy:noun "the treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having effects opposite to the symptoms. Often contrasted with HOMEOPATHY." [[1]] which is their current definition. They do not have your 1971 definition. CL

Dictionaries are indeed the authorities. But the online dictionary you cite is obviously incomplete, or incompletely cited. The 1971 edition is "compact" because it is photographically reduced, not because it is incomplete. The online "compact" edition states that it defines 145,000 words, which is less than the 1971 edition. Further, words rarely have but one definition, and definitions do not "replace" prior definitions: new meanings are added, old ones are not subtracted. And the 2003 Merriam Webster (as previously cited) contains the meaning, so the issue is not dates or changes but completeness. You are picking and choosing among definitions and declaring those you don't like obsolete, which they are not. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I also write from the U.S. At Harvard Medical School, which is a prominent conventional US medical school, "allopathy" is a term commonly used among physicians. Although I cannot speak to what the 'average' physician would say in the US (and I don't know at all about in other countries), allopathy has come up again and again by rather well-informed Harvard professors, using the term allopathy. Its origin is strange in that it was coined by someone outside the field. However, it is being used commonly by the physicians I interact with at a very conventional institution in the U.S. CL

When it becomes a common enough usage to supplant the primary definition in dictionaries, we can make what you perceive as the "Harvard" usage our primary definition. Until then we'd best stick with authoritative sources. - Nunh-huh 04:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As defined in Webster's New World Dictionary, allopathy is the "treatment of disease by remedies that produce effects different from or opposite to those produced by the disease: loosely applied to the general practice of medicine today, but in strict usage opposed to homeopathy." I think then that this definition is fair. CL

Yes, I read it the first time. The definition you wanted to make primary is not primary, but secondary and "loose". The current Collegiate edition of Merriam Webster has no such definition. - Nunh-huh 04:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence that the term allopathy is derogatory

Could you please indicate the evidence that "allopathy" is used as a derogatory term by critics? Thank you. CL

see here. "The term allopathy, however, is not applicable to the modern practice of "nonhomeopathic" medicine. Whole drug classes, such as antibiotics, do not act in the manner of "opposites." Furthermore, the botanical schools of the 19th century used allopathy as a disagreeable term of contrast. They claimed the captured warmth and life-sustaining properties of the botanicals that they administered, whereas allopathy carried all of the derogatory implications associated with its use of cold minerals from the dark earth (such as mercurial agents) [10,15,16]. This, too, has now lost its applicability in a world that uses agents created by bioengineers and genetic manipulation." - Nunh-huh 04:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That was an interesting editorial by an MD. However, it remarked about critics of the 19th century. Terms change over time. Their idea of "authoritarian medicine" certainly held no attractiveness to me. Perhaps allopathy is not the best term, but it is used commonly. Please tell me what negative connotations are associated with the term (aside from 19th century complaints). CL

For one thing, it (falsely) claims that "allopaths" use a magical system of reasoning, like homeopathy, with "like" substituted for "unlike". - Nunh-huh 06:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Especially as the citation purports to be NIH, when it's actually NCCAM using the term. - Nunh-huh 02:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NCCAM is an office at NIH - (unsigned)

They are not identical: when NCCAM says something, it's not the NIH saying it. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NCCAM is a Center of the National Institute of Health, this citation is to their main web page discussing different systems of medicine.

An article written in 1998 discusses the term. See "When did I become an Allopath?" from the Archives of Internal Medcine 158(20): pp. 2185-2186. She found 174 citations in mainstream academic journals using the term to refer to mainstream medical practice. It most often appeared in journals in the Social Sciences or Public Health. I am sure there have been a lot of citations since 1998 as well (MR).

And the point of that commentary is that the author does not consider herself an allopath, and that allopath is a misnomer! - Nunh-huh 04:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The author says the term is commonly used by medical practicioners but she does not like it. In the article, the author wrote:

"When did I become an allopath? The term is being used more and more lately."

"It's recent embrace by the medical profession is concerning."

"In a recent teaching session in my institution [University of California, Davis] a family practice resident argued that allopath is a preferable term." - (unsigned)

And her point is that it's a misnomer, and its use is incorrect.... - Nunh-huh 06:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a misnomer? - (unsigned)

because no actual system of medicine practiced today has ever been based on any allopathic principle. I suspect that's why the author also recognizes it's a misnomer, and why the dictionary labels the sense that you seem to prefer "loose". - Nunh-huh 06:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that opinion. For example, allopathic medicine treats high cholesterol with a drug that lowers cholesterol. It treats infections by eliminating the pathogens. I believe this is different than other systems of medicine. This is consistent with the updated dictionary definitions. <- written by someone sometime

I can sort of see treating hypercholesterolemia by inhibiting it's synthesis as a treatment in the sense Hahnemann thought, though I'd be surprised if there were any homeopaths that gave homeopathic doses of cholesterol to treat hypercholesterolemia. Hahnemann, however, worked in the domain of symptoms. With hypercholesterolemia not causing symptoms it is outside of Hahnemann's domain. The comment on an antibiotic is precious. It really incorporates scientific discoveries of bacteria causing disease. In homepathy you would look for a substance that simulated the disease symptoms and give it in homeopathic doses. Allopathic would mean to give something that caused opposite symptoms. Of couse, antibiotics given alone don't cause any symptoms. The fact that you give something that doesn't cause symptoms but still cures the disesea is the notable thing here. The guiding priciple is not to use symptom effects of the drugs to guide choices, but the antibacterial effect in choosing the antibiotic. This is why applying the allopathic concept to Western medicine doesn't make sense . That said, a lot of people use allopathic medicine to mean conventional Western medical practice, regardless of the history of the term. Kd4ttc 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

More reliance on a dictionary

I have updated the definition to a more recent and authoritative source. The previous definition was from a NEW WORLD Webster's edition from 1997. The new definition is from the latest edition of the Oxford edition representing the international english usage. The new definition is also consistent with the latest copy of the Webster's Dictionary that says allopathy is "the treatment of a disease by using remedies whose effects differ from those produced by that disease. This is the principle of mainstream medical practice as opposed to that of homeopathy." This suggests that the usage of the term has change significantly in the last 8 years. (MR)

A defintion which is massively flawed unless you are going to claim that cis-platin usage is not part of mainstream treatment of cancerGeni 20:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cisplatin is an anti-neoplastic agent--cancer is an uncontrolled overgrowth of cells, cisplatin induces apoptosis. That is using an opposing form of treatment.

To say that no Western system of medicine has any basis in the principle of allopathy is ignoring the history you so vociferously argue for. Whether modern-day physicians like it or not, we have evolved (thank goodness quite a lot) from the barber-surgeons/regulars/allopaths of the 18th and 19th century. There is nothing in any of the definitions mentioned that speaks of a "magical" nature as the basis of allopathy (simply that it is the treatment of disease by opposites). The treatment model for conventional medicine often takes the form of this "opposing" action. If the immune system is overagressive (e.g. lupus), we suppress it. If the sinuses are overreacting, we give anti-histamines. If the yeast are overwhelming, we killl them. If the cholesterol is high, we lower it. If oxygen supply is inadequate, we provide supplemental oxygen. CL

Cisplatin is a carcinogen.Geni 02:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See this reference for a description of the actual mechanism of action of cisplatin.[[2]] Cisplatin is a "cytotoxic" platinum-containing alkylating agent that induces apoptosis, which is cell death. CL

I know the mechanism behind csiplatin very well. I works (much simplfied) by messing with the DNA. this has the ocastional side effect of causeing cancer (amoungst other things).Geni 03:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of giving cisplatin is to treat cancer, not to cause cancer. Thus, when an oncologist gives it, their intention is to lower the tumor burden, not create new cancers. The adverse effects are unfortunate, but not the reason this drug is given by oncologists. This is not relevant to this discussion. CL

No Western system is based on the "principle" of allopathy: such a "principle" is the imagining of Hahneman, not of those who actually practice the medicine he called "allopathic". Medicine does not induce the "opposite" effects of illness because they are opposite: the effects follow from the restoration of health, they are not ends in and of themselves. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to read a principle into a mode of treatment

If one defines the opposite of health as overreactive histamine release, or an overactive immune sytem, or an overwhelming bacterial infection, and then one uses or designs drugs to counteract that (reduce histamine release or suppress the immune system, or kill bacteria) that is an opposing effect. What does not follow is necessary restored health (a lupus patient not in remission, an ongoing pneumonia). There is an attempt to treat by singling out the problem, and negating, reducing, or modifying it in some way. - CL

No, that's your attempt to read a principle into a mode of treatment, not that of those doing the treating. It's not the principle they use to guide their treatment. No actual practitioner uses the induction of "opposite" effects as a principle to guide treatment. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I see a patient who has menstrual cramps, I advise naproxen--they have pain, I recommend something to counteract that pain. When I have a patient who is wheezing because of constricted bronchioles, I prescribe a medication that relaxes their bronchioles. I am counteracting physiologic insults or maladaptive behaviours, or good physiologic responses that cause discomfort or danger to patients, and modifying them. CL

Presumably you do so because these treatments have been shown to be beneficial, rather than because they produce the "opposite" of the patient's complaints. - Nunh-huh 03:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I treat a patient, it is with (my) knowledge of the evidence for therapies, my understanding of patho/physiology, and most importantly, the clinical situation that presents itself. Many treatments have benefit for many conditions. However, we need to decide on specific treatments based on our patients needs and desires. If a medication works in 80% of the population, that is wonderful for 80% of the population. If it doesn't work for my patient, I will try to find another medication or therapy, that works for them, that alleviates their symptoms, improves their health, or cures their disease, but decisions can only be made in response to what happens with the patient. If a specific intervention does not produce the desired (opposite or modified effect), others will have to be tried. CL

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the primary meaning of "allopathy". You are not being guided by the "principle" of "allopathy". - Nunh-huh 03:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I treat high cholesterol, by lowering it. I treat high blood pressure, by lowering it. I treat inflammation, by reducing it. I treat overwhelming myocardial oxygen demand by lowering the demand. I treat too little dopamine, by supplementary dopamine. I treat bacterial overgrowth, by killing most of the bacteria. I treat vitamin deficiency, by giving extra vitamins. The goal for much of medicine is to reverse processes that are dangerous or maladaptive. CL

Yes, and homeopathy also sought to treat disease by reversing processes that are dangerous or maladaptive. It sought to do so by administering substances which had the same effect as the disease. You do not follow an analogous "principle" by administering substances because they have the opposite effect of the disease, but rather because they affect morbidity, mortality, or comfort. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right there you are dismissing the entire field of modern drug development! Drugs are being developed that have specific mechanisms of action to counteract maladaptive processes. They are being purposely designed for that. CL

Comfort is the opposite of discomfort. When someone has pain, I give them an anti-inflammatory because that opposes the inflammatory process at work in their body. When someone is dehydrated, I give them isotonic saline. These are purposeful choices. CL

Yes, they are as purposeful as the choices homeopaths make, and they are more effective. But your choices are not guided by a "principle" of producing opposite effects, while homeopaths are guided by a principle of producing similar effects. According to your formulation, treating a disease is intrinsically an "allopathic" process. That's not what Hahneman meant when he invented the word. - Nunh-huh 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Allopathy versus homopathy distinction

I do not think that the only way to treat disease is an "allopathic" way. I think the main tool used by conventional medicine today is based on a principle that treats disease through opposing the underlying pathophysiology or countering the overlying symptoms. This is the main tool of treatment of conventional medicine. - unsigned.

But the allopathy vs homeopathy distinction was based on treatment choice by similarity/dissimilarity of their effects to symptoms, not underlying pathology. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CL here. There are different ways of treating disease. Homeopathy uses medicines that have similar effects to the disease. For example, if a patient has an allergic reaction, then an allopathic doctor would prescribe a medicine to reduce the inflammatory response. However, a homeopath might actually take the allergic agent and dilute it multiple times in water and administer it to the patient. The idea is that this will stimulate the body to overcome the allergy. That is why allopathic medicine is based on treatments that have opposite effects and homeopathic medicine is based on similar effects. On the other hand, traditonal chinese medicine is based on promoting balance in the body. A chinese medical doctor might prescribe herbs to modulate the immune response so that the patient would no longer have an extreme reaction to the allergen. (MR)

Conventional medicine does not select medicines based on the production of effects opposite to symptoms. It selects medicines based on their effects in alleviating disease. There is no principle of "allopathy" underlying conventional medicine. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks RK

Thank you RK for putting Arvindn in his place. I could not have done it without your help.  :)--Mr-Natural-Health 19:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A related discussion is taking place

A related discussion is taking place in Talk:Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints. The twist is that the argument is being made in reverse.

Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia. All supporters of Alternative medicine should vote to delete this article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Allopathy is used by mainstream academics and doctors

Here is a link to a class taught at MIT entitled "Introduction to Allopathy: The Unique Philosophy of Modern Western Medicine." The teacher is not a "critic" of modern medicine. http://student.mit.edu/searchiap/iap-5258.html (MR)

That's not a course, it's a lecture sponsored by a student association. It's not part of the curriculum. One wonders about the "teacher" as he seems to confuse "allopathy" with "evidence based medicine". - Nunh-huh 02:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. The term "allopath" is used within academic departments to refer to mainstream medicine, which itself is referred to as "evidence-based" medicine by some people.

A lecture sponsored by a student aswsociation is not an academic department! - Nunh-huh 04:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The term may have historically been pejorative, but it is certainly embraced by the medical community now. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) is the accrediting body for residencies. On their website they use the term allopathic to describe their own programs: "The ACGME is a private, non-profit organization that accredits all the allopathic residency programs in the United States and promotes quality education for residents." (http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/medStudent/medSt_FAQ.asp) The American Association of Medical Colleges also refers to the type of medicine they teach as allopathic: "the American Medical College Application Service, a centralized service thru which a person can apply to almost all of the US Allopathic Medical Schools." (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/glossary.htm). The American Medical Association (AMA) also uses the term in a non-disparaging way: "Mean per capita debt for 2003 allopathic graduates excluding students without loans..." (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/5349.html). But the term does not seem to be used only in the US. The Royal College of Physicians uses it in England as well: "Complementary and allopathic schools of medicine share many of the same central values. " (http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/clinicalmedicine/0206_nov_conf1.htm).

If such usage becomes sufficiently widespread, a reputable dictionary will pick it up and include it in their definitions. In the meantime, Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate includes only the definition "relating to or being a system of medicine that aims to combat disease by using remedies (as drugs or surgery) which produce effects that are different from or incompatible with those of the disease being treated" which of course is not the same as "non-alternative medicine". - Nunh-huh 06:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the term allopathy?

I really don't understand here why the term allopathy is so controversial. I see it as a neutral label to refer to mainstream western medical practice. Some people may dislike the term. However, that is how it is commonly used not just by critics of mainstream medicine but also by doctors themselves (see http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/969989270.html among many others).

The current usage of the term is different than the roots of the term. We can mention both in the article. However, the section on current usage should reflect the fact that it is commonly used in a neutral manner.

removal of quotes, misleading citations

If one has consulted only the on-line version of a dictionary, that is the version that should be cited. Illustrative quotations should not be removed. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe all statements and quotations should be balanced to reflect the idea that some people believe the principle of opposites is characteristic of allopathic medicine and other people do not think it is characteristic.

Also, do you have a reference showing that the term "allopathic" applied to medicine is used more in the U.S.? Afterall, the current defition is from an international English dictionary. -(unsigned)

I've looked the word up in the actual current version of the OED, and placed it in the article: as I predicted, the definition has not changed much, and has certainly not been "replaced". "Some people's" belief that the principle of opposites is a tenet of medicine is, unfortunately, baseless, there being no text book of medicine in which such a supposedly fundamental principle is in fact delineated, so these people's belief can't be given equal weight to actual practice. One will look in vain for a major textbook of medicine in which the word "allopath" is even indexed, or allopathy is referenced. Nor do sources concerned with the history of medicine add any support for your view. In the Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine, there is no entry for "allopathy". Under homeopathy we find, on p. 605 ff., "From [Hahnemann's] single experiment with cinchona, he laid down the axiom in this essay [in 1796] that to cure a disease physicians needed to employ a 'medicine which is able to produce another very similar artificial disease'. This he called the principle of similia similibus curantur (like cures like). Thus, once the effect of drugs were tested and recorded, physicians could compare the observable symptoms of a given disease with the consciously reported effects of the drugs, and select the most appropriate one, which Hahnemann would argue, somehow had the effect of both substituting for the natural disease and then disappearing. Not surprisingly, Hahnemann interpreted the introduction of vaccination by Edward Jenner in 1798 as a confirmation of the law of similars." The first time Hahnemann intimated that others practiced an opposite principle was in his Organon of Ration Medicine, 1810. Hahnemann believed "basic scientists were under a delusion in their search for a material cause of disease. ... To him, the cause of the disease was immaterial or spiritual and dynamic, and the belief in disease being cause by a thing led to faulty thinking with respect to therapeutics. By conceiving disease a 'morbid matter', physicians had administered depleting remedies on the doctrine of contraria contrariis curantur to 'disencumber' these from the bloodstream through phlebotomies, or from the digestive tract through purging and cathartic medicines, etc. ...Although he differentiated the various accepted competing approaches to drug therapy then extant, Hahnemann gave an all-embracing name to regular practice, calling it 'allopathy'. This term, however imprecise, was employed by his followers or other unorthodox movements to identify the prevailing methods as constituting nothing more than a competing 'school' of medicine, however dominant in terms of number of practitioner proponents and patients." (my emphasis). Your notion that relieving symptoms is "allopathic" is unsupported and ahistorical: Hahnemann's 'sameness' or 'difference' was judged in terms of the effects of medications on the healthy subject, not in terms of their effects on disease or symptoms in unhealthy subjects. Hahnemann's goal, after all, was to relieve disease! The principle under which medicine actuallly operates is to discern and treat underlying causes of disease - a concept that Hahnemann indeed opposed, but which was not the one that he chose to name his foes after. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The definition that I posted before was the definition from the OED (2004) edition. That is the most current definition available. What version of the OED are you drawing from (compact, American, etc.)?

In regard to the term "allopathic," it was widely used by the mainstream physicians starting the in the 19th century. Plus, how can you possibly say the term is not being used when we have pointed out its use at a Center of the National Institutes of Health? This term is being used to refer to mainstream medicine. In fact this use of the term is stated explicitly in the Webster's Encarta Edition Dictionary (2004), where allopathy is defined as "the treatment of a disease by using remedies whose effects differ from those produced by that disease. This is the principle of mainstream medical practice as opposed to that of homeopathy." Look it up yourself. It is stated right in the Webster's dictionary (2004 Encarta Edition), therefore quite a few people believe that mainstream medicine uses treatments opposite to the disease. IT IS A Common USAGE! In fact, in your own definition it states that allopathy means the use of opposites and that it is commonly used to refer to mainstream medicine. If the use of opposite treatments tp characterize mainstream medicine is common enough to make it into the dictionary then it should be respected in this article. - (unsigned)

Oxford English Dictionary off-line

I think you will have to consult the current Oxford English Dictionary off-line. The OED is clearly a better source than "Webster's Encarta Edition Dictionary". Unfortunately for Encarta's accuracy, their assertion (as you report it) that allopathy is a "principle" of mainstream medical practice is simply wrong. Fortunately, one can concult a textbook of medicine to determine what principles underlie the practice of medicine, and none of them mention "allopathy" as such as principle. That fact has been added back to the article. And of course "my" (that is, the Oxford English Dictionary's) definition says allopathy means the use of opposites, because that's how Hahnemann defined it when he created the idea. It doesn't, however, say that those labeled "allopaths" by Hahnemann actually practiced by that principle. And no particular meaning has been left out of the article. Your misrepresentation of NCCAM as speaking for the entire NIH is growing tiresome. That a center devoted to "Alternative Medicine" uses the term "allopath" is irrelevant with regard to how often the term is used by conventional physicians to describe themselves. Where's the reference for the "fact" that 19th century pharmacies labelled "all of their products" as "allopathic" or "homeopathic"? . As long as you've added the etymology, I've corrected it: the form "allopathy" is based on form-association with such word pairs as philosophie, philosophe, or astronomie, astronome; the analogy is "merely apparent and opposed to the etymology" - Nunh-huh 00:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose dictionary definitions that you like. As stated on the OED website, the on-line OED is considered the most current source. Furthermore, the definition from the OED second edition that you give dates from 1989. I don't see why you must pick a definition that is 16 years old and discard all the others that you don't like. The Webster's Encarta Edition is Webster's Edition for International English. Therefore, it is probably the second most respected source for international english after the current OED definition given on the website.

I am not saying that the Webster's Encarta Definition or the current OED definition is the last word. However, both of the definitions state or imply that allopathic medicine is conventional medicine and that it uses the principle of opposites. This viewpoint should be respected in the document in order to make the article neutral in tone.

I have also given several examples of cases where physicians use the term to describe themselves. Once again, here are two examples: http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/969989270.html and (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53(1):136-140).

Regarding the NIH, I said "the term was used at a Center of the National Institutes of Health." This is true. NCCAM is a Center. The NIH is comprised of several Institutes and Centers, one of which is NCCAM. Therefore, the term is used at a Center of the National Institutes of Health. What exactly is the problem with using this terminology? It is the exact terminology that the NIH uses itself.

The use of the term "allopathic" by pharmacies is described in the article in the Archives of Internal Medicine that has been discussed above.

Finally, in regard to a medical textbook as a reference for the principles of medicine. I haven't seen a medical textbook that describes the principles of medicine. All of the medical textbooks that I've seen don't discuss principles of medicine, they only discuss specific diseases or treatments. Can you please tell me what medical text book describes the principles of medicine, and what that text book says they are? - (unsigned)

How about "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine" as a start? It's some 2500 pages lonng, so I can't really adequately summarize it for you. But not a single one of those 2500+ pages contains any reference to choosing medications based on an imagined principle of "allopathy". _ Nunh-huh 01:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are the basic principles of medicine, then? If you want to say the use of treatments opposite to a disease is not a principle then please tell me what the principles are.

Use treatments that cure the illness. Who cares if they are oposite or not (the standard treatment for rabies could technicaly be classified as isopathy for example)Geni 08:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All types of medicine (homopathic, allopathic, naturopathic, etc.) use treatments that are designed to cure the illness. The question is what kinds of treatments are chosen. I think in general allopathic medicine chooses treatments that act specifically to counteract the symptoms or root of a disease. I see other types of medicine as acting more indirectly. Your example of rabies treatment is a good example of a conventional treatment that does not act opposite to the disease. However, I wouldn't call it isopathy, because that would imply in acts in the same way as the disease. I see it mediating through the immune system to make the immune system combat the disease.

However, rabies treatment is not a typical case. It is a rare treatment, and there is no other treatment that would act more specifically to kill off the infection. In addition, the treatment doesn't work very well as only three people have recovered from rabies in the U.S.

Isopathy doesn't care how something acts. The same cures the same that is isopathy. I don't are if the treatment is typical or not. All it takes is one while crowGeni 23:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean "all it takes is one while crow"?

It is a phrase from debateing it meant that it only takes one example to prove that something is posible. In this case I only needed one example to show that conventional medicine does not follow that allopathic principleGeni 15:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's possible, but if you think a principle of medicine has to be true in all circumstances then there are NO principles of medicine because every rule has an exception. I'm not saying it is a unbreakable law of medicine, I'm just saying it is a general rule that is true for the vast majority of cases. I also think a principle of allopathic medicine is choosing treatments based on scientific evidence, but I could point to a number of exceptions to this principle.

Look at Mosby's Medical Dictionary

In regard to the use of the term allopathic in medical textbooks, try looking at Mosby's Medical Dictionary, sixth edition. This is used as a required textbook in medical schools (for example, see http://www.bookmarc.com/1styear.htm). It defines an allopathic physician as "A physician who treats disease and injury with active interventions such as medical and surgical treatments, intended to bring about effects opposite of those produced by the disease or injury. Almost all practicing physicians in the United States are allopathic."

This definition is very similar to the entry in the Complete Medical Encyclopedia published by the American Medical Association. It defines allopathy as "A system of treating disease by inducing a second condition that is incompatible with or antagonistic to the disease being treated. This term was invented by homeopath Samuel Hahnemann to refer to traditional medicine which is practiced by all doctors with the medical degree MD." Keep in mind this is published by the organization that supervises the issuance of the M.D. degree.

Another common medical school textbook, Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27th Edition), defines allopath as "A traditional medical physician as distinguished from eclectic or homeopathic practicioners.

So, now there are three mainstream medical references that refer to allopaths as conventional physicians. - (unsigned)

Do you really not know the difference between a dictionary and a textbook???? = Nunh-huh 23:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I consider a textbook to be any book that is used for a course of study that is required to be purchased by students. If a dictionary is required then I think that is a textbook. What do you think of as a textbook? - unsigned

Merriam Webster: "a book containing a presentation of the principles of a subject" (or "a literary work relevant to the study of a subject"). A Dictionary is not a textbook. Stedman's is a valuable reference...for medical secretaries and transcriptionists. It's not something to learn medicine from. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that when a professor requires that a medical student buy the book that he/she will learn something from it about medicine. I don't think a professor has the idea that the medical student will give it to their closest medical secretary or transcriptionist. - unsigned.

[1] Stedman's may or may not be useful in class, but I rather doubt that many professors "require" medical students to buy it. [2] Requiring the purchase of a dictionary doesn't transform it into a textbook. - Nunh-huh 02:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak from personal experience. At Harvard Medical School, the core of the medical curriculum is a problem-based learning system whereby we are given case-studies written by Harvard professors. We discuss the case studies in small groups. No books are required for these discussions. However, many books are recommended for reference books. One of these is Stedman's. In one of the case studies, the term allopath is used in reference to a conventional medical physician. By your definition, I guess Harvard would not use textbooks in their core curriculum. However, it is evident that Harvard Medical School students have required reading that include the term "allopath" in reference to conventional physicians, and they have recommended reference books that define the term in this manner. I suspect that the term is used in more conventional textbooks as well, but I don't have the time to review a variety of textbooks. My copy of Harrison's is in storage at the moment and I can't access it. - (unsigned)

My main objection is that you say "allopath" is not used in ANY medical textbook, and you don't give any proof to back that up. - (unsigned)

Actually, I say that conventional medicine as presented in textbooks has no basis in any "principle of allopathy", which ought to be uncontroversial, because it is certainly correct. All you need do to disprove the statement is to find a single textbook that presents medicine as based on allopathy. Then we could change from "no" to "only one". You are right, handouts are not textbooks, and careless statements by Harvard professors won't alter the fact that medicine which follows an allopathic principle would not be conventional medicine. - Nunh-huh 21:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've given lots of references including dictionaries, journal articles and websites where allopathy is used to refer to conventional medicine, several of these references were written by doctors. Therefore, by these definitions, a principle of allopathy is a principle of conventional medicine. - (unsigned)

No, that's just plain wrong. Meaning and etymology are not the same, and many words "mean" things not implied by their etymology, just as many other words do not "mean" things implied by their etymology. - Nunh-huh 06:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it "allopathy" means conventional medicine. That is what it meant when the word was first used and that is what it means now.

This is also the way it is used in the Medical Textbook "Bonica's Management of Pain," which is considered the gold standard textbook for the medical management of pain (see http://www.ovid.com/site/catalog/Book/697.jsp?top=2&mid=3&bottom=7&subsection=11). In the introduction to Chapter 81, the authors state, "The challenge for allopathic physicians is to provide compassionate health care that encompasses not only the search for a structural lesion, but also consideration of the patient as a human being. We believe that this part provides a comprehensive overview of the treatments employed by pain management specialists." That sounds like two principles of allopathic medicine to me - but there are a lot more than just two. - (unsigned)

Playing a word game hunt

You're playing a word hunt game. The fact remains, no textbook of medicine teaches that "conventional" medicine is based on the principle of choosing drugs based on their effects in a healthy person being the opposite of a disease. The reason they do not teach this is because it is not so. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that medical textbooks do not discuss medicine in terms of a principle of opposites. However, I have pointed out several medical encyclopedias and dictionaries that do use this terminology. So, if you want to say that it this principle is wrong then please give a reference with as much authority as a medical encyclopedia published by the American Medical Association.

I don't really care about whether a principle of opposites enters into this article or not. What I do care about is that the article states that "allopathy" is commonly used to refer to conventional medicine. That is its common usage. I have given a dozen references that use the term in this manner. To me, "principles of allopathy" means the same thing as "principles of conventional medicine." Therefore, when you state that no medical textbook mentions principles of allopathy, you are saying that no medical textbook mentions any medical principles. - unsigned

Yes, we know you don't like the dictionary definitions, and prefer those used by the least authoritative sources on language. If you agree, why did you dispute it for so long? Why do you still persist, in the very next sentence, in claiming medical encyclopedias claim that physicians operate by a principle of opposites when they do not? And the "principle of opposites" is the definition and etymology of the word, so you ought to care whether it's in the article. And no, "allopath" is only used commonly as a synonym for conventional medicine by enthusiasts of alternative medicine—like the NCCAM reference you are so fond of. - Nunh-huh 01:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me address your points one by one. You say I "prefer the least authoritative sources on language." I really don't know where this is coming from. I think the Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative source, and the Webster's Encarta Edition is the second best source on international english. I prefer the concise edition or the on-line edition of the OED because these are up to date. The second edition is 16 years old. Several sources have said the usage of the word allopathy has changed significantly in the last decade. Therefore, I see the OED second edition as comprehensive but out of date. Furthermore, the OED lists the website as the most up-to-date source which is in the process of being incorporated into the third edition. What do you think is the most authoritative source on language and why?

I agree that textbooks do not usually discuss medicine in terms of opposites. I do not agree that NO textbook discusses medicine in terms of opposites. Furthermore, the lack of a discussion about a rule of opposites does not prove whether it is or is not a principle of medicine. I have provided three mainstream medical reference books that say allopathy is the same as mainstream medicine and that it uses treatments opposite to the disease. I quoted a medical encyclopedia published by the American Medical Association that stated mainstream medicine uses treatments that are opposite to the disease.

You say that only proponents of alternative medicine use the term. Please tell me then, why the term is defined as mainstream medicine in an encyclopedia published by the American Medical Association. Do you think the AMA is a proponent of alternative medicine?

Regarding the word "allopathy," I believe the common usage of the word is "conventional medicine." I have given a dozen references that use the term in this manner. I haven't seen a single reference by you or someone else who uses the term to refer to a law of opposites other than to discuss the roots of the word. Neither the OED concise edition, nor the Second Edition mentions the principle of opposites. I simply do not believe anyone uses the word in this manner.

It is very common for the etymology of the word to be very different than the common usage, especially in medicine which has changed dramatically since most of the words were defined. The roots of the word are historically interesting but they are different than the way the word is commonly used. - unsigned

Yes, you prefer an online dictionary to a printed one, and an incomplete version of the OED to the full one. Thus you prefer the unauthorative version. You have not supplied any example of any textbook which teaches medicine according to a principle of opposites, and seem to have no basis for your belief that any textbook of medicine does so. I did not say "only" proponents of alternative medicine use the term: however, they are clearly more likely to. Unfortunately for your belief about the "common usage" of "allopathy", the complete versions of the dictionaries you cite mark this as an occasional or substandard use. And yes, the meanings of words change, and when they do, the new meaning will enter the dictionary as a preferred use. This has not yet happened with regard to "allopathy". - Nunh-huh 06:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that the OED 2nd edition is more comprehensive but the OED Concise Edition is more up-to-date. The Concise Edition (11th) is a direct update to the 2nd Edition, and it is published 16 years later (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concise_Oxford_Dictionary). Therefore, it makes sense to me that the concise edition reflects common usage better than the 2nd Edition. Do you have a reference that indicates otherwise?

Regardless of which edition you look at, allopathy is defined as referring to conventional medicine. I do not see any mention of the rule of opposites in any edition of the OED. So, based on all the definitions given, "principles of allopathy" refers to "principles of conventional medicine." If you disagree then please tell me what source you use to suggest a different interpretation. - (unsigned)

Do not attribute your inferences to the OED. They're yours, not theirs. - Nunh-huh 00:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "inferences." It looks pretty clear to me that both editions of the OED state that allopathy refer to conventional medicine - or do you think "ordinary or traditional practice of medicine," refers to something other than conventional medicine?

An inference is a conclusion you've drawn, in this case one not stated by either dicdef. Specifically, that conventional medicine is based on "principles of allopathy". It's not, and the OED doesn't say it is. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight. You agree that "allopathy" means conventional medicine, but you don't agree that "principles of allopathy" means principles of conventional medicine. If this is true then what do you think "principles of allopathy" are, and what are you basing this definition on?

Is it a revelation to you that words have more than one meaning, and that which meaning is intended is implied by context? I agree that "allopathy" is used, as the definition says by some - mostly those who oppose conventional medicine in some way - in a loose sense to mean "conventional medicine". But in the more accurate sense, "allopathy" is a principle of curing disease by administering substances that produce the opposite effect of the disease when given to a healthy human. No school of medicine has ever operated on such a principle: however, that is the way Hahnemann chose to caricature the basis of the practices of his chosen enemies. The phrase "principle of allopathy" will always invoke the meaning imparted to the word when Hahnemann invented it. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"short search"

I removed this spurious content, as it was unsourced, original research. Nunh-huh: please do not feed the trolls. --brian0918&#153; 16:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am glad to have—at long last—some company in fighting the troll. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tag Removal

I do not see the need for the "disclaimer" tags at the top of this article. If there are no (reasonable, under 5K word) objections I will remove them. brenneman^(t)(c) 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• I vote to remove, although I really don't care. The article is in need of attention, but no more so than other articles that link with alternative medicine. Edwardian 09:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• I think that at least the inappropriate tone notice should go. I don't see where there's a tone problem. NickelShoe 04:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I took off the tone one. NickelShoe 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The opening paragraph of the article contains statements asserting the views of a broad class of people not those of the author(s). It alledges that this broad class of people use the term allopathy as a term of disparagement. This is factually inaccurate. The term allopathy is not a term of disparagement. It is a term used to identify a practice and to differentiate it from other practices.

Some members of this broad and ill defined group of other practitioners do speak ill of those who practice allopathic medicine with disdain. That does not make the term a term of disparagement. And it makes the two sentences factually wrong.

Similarly, many people who practice mainstream medicine speak ill of the broad class of people who practice or even who only use alternative medicine and therapies. This does not make the use of the categorization "alternative medicine" disparaging. The disparging is in the act of the persons doing it, not in the category name.

The sole difference between these two examples is that conventionl medical practice did not choose a name for themselves as a class. I believe it was because they did not that the name allopathy was created - to class as a group those who practice conventional medical treatments, from that which was being set off at the time - homeopathy.

The name chosen was not chosen as a name of derision such as was done by some fringe members of the mainstream view in labeling anyone who practices things outside that view as quacks.

The name chosen was respectful.

As written the article is not written in a neutral point of view.

The opening paragraph needs to have the two offending and unsupported assertions removed.

I believe it is important to maintain the idea that there is disagreement and that mainstream medical practitioners feel put upon by having a label applied. That is more than adequately covered later in the entry.Farseer 15:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Farseer

On the contrary, intentionally misidentifying the basis of the practices of medicine as "allopathy" is quite clearly a device used by some who practice alternative medicine, and is the actual origin of the term. Don't try to rewrite the history of the term to conform to the history you'd have preferred it to have. Read the references, and stop calling the assertions unsupported. And it's "alleged" not "alledged". - Nunh-huh 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This same discussion on AnswerQuest???

I would just like to point out that I found, by sheer coincidence, the very same discussion (points 1 to 16 on an AnswerQuest page under http://aqlogic.com/enc/Talk:Allopathic_medicine )

maybe someone should look into this?! --Eluec5 12:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

AnswerQuest is a content reuser. Perfectly fine under the license. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations from the allopathic authorities

The term may have historically been pejorative, but it is certainly embraced by the medical community now. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) is the accrediting body for residencies. On their website they use the term allopathic to describe their own programs: "The ACGME is a private, non-profit organization that accredits all the allopathic residency programs in the United States and promotes quality education for residents." (http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/medStudent/medSt_FAQ.asp) The American Association of Medical Colleges also refers to the type of medicine they teach as allopathic: "the American Medical College Application Service, a centralized service thru which a person can apply to almost all of the US Allopathic Medical Schools." (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/glossary.htm). The American Medical Association (AMA) also uses the term: "Mean per capita debt for 2003 allopathic graduates excluding students without loans..." (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/5349.html). But the term does not seem to be used only in the US. The Royal College of Physicians uses it in England as well: "Complementary and allopathic schools of medicine share many of the same central values. " (http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/clinicalmedicine/0206_nov_conf1.htm). Reguardless of the history of the term or any dictionary editor's opinion on the matter, the word is clearly embraced by the authorities in the profession.

This entire discussion is absurd and completely misleading. Any claims that the term "allopthic" is in any way disparaging to MDs are entirely undermined by the above links. The MDs themselves--and importantly their leadership--use the term regularly. Any discussion of it being pejorative in the main article is misleading to those who have no prior experience with the term, and is retrograde to the goal of wikipedia: dissemination of accurate information. THOSE WHO INSIST OTHERWISE NEED TO ASK THEMSELVES WHY THE AMA, ACGME, AND AAMC ALL USE THE TERM TO DESCRIBE THE KIND OF MEDICINE THEY PRACTICE.

Just because some authoritative people use the term without any ill intent doesn't mean others don't. As a somewhat extreme example, take the word queer. It's used as a pejorative by a lot of people, while others use it in a neutral way. I also think that dictionaries are probably the best source for word meaning, so as to avoid inadequate sampling and original research. NickelShoe 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the wording of the opening sentence now. Good job editing it. I think it shows both sides (although I am still not convinced that there is a good case for it being pejorative). Hopefully the new edit will end some of the debate. <not signed>

Really, editing should be on the basis of at least some data rather than pontification. Some problems I'm fixing:

• start with the dictionary's meaning, which is historical, first.
• What alternative treatments are called allopathic anywhere but Wikipedia?
• Galen didn't practice, or popularize, allopathy, and it wasn't practiced during the Middle Ages. Allopathy didn't exist until Hahnemann made it up. No system of medicine has ever been based on the principle Hahnemann invented and attributed

to his foes.

• Hahnemann's use of the term was mistated.
• No one believes "the symptoms are the disease"
• protractors measure angles.
• Frankly, by rejecting the dictionary meaning of the term in favor of citing random uses on the web, the article had become an illiterate mishmosh of opinion. (And an encyclopedia of embarassing misattributions, misconceptions and misspellings). It is hopefully now less so. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we are making good progress.

• I hope the current version will meet with approval from both sides of the arguement. Since the article openly discusses the conflict without presenting bias, it doesn't seem like it needs the neutrality flag at the top. What do you think?
• I should hardly consider official publications of the AMA, ACGME, and AAMC in the form of digital information citation of "random uses on the web."
• There should be no exclusion of a dictionary definition. The OED is appropriate no matter what. Presentation of various uses is not mutually exclusive of dictionary quotation. Are there copyright considerations with quoting the OED? If not I think we should include it.
• I think we should come up with some better sources on current antagonistic use. On one hand we have official M.D. regulatory organizations using it in a positive sense, and on the other hand we have only a couple of personal essays discussing its possible negative connotations. There must be some kind of more weighty source for an antagonistic usage--perhaps from a homeopathic or other alternative medicine source.

I think we are too, but homeopaths will never agree to remove the neutrality tag. (P.S. it helps if you sign your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes) so we know where one person's comments end and another begins). The website quotes are actually quite random... someone scoured their websites looking for them, they are not used in a systematic way. As to whether it's antagonistic, you can see from those who want so desperately to substitute their definitions for the dictionary's here that it's a primarily "alternative medicine" usage - which makes sense as no one else really has any need to make a distinction between "conventional" medicine and medicine.Nunh-huh 04:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Donaldal, please sign your posts...it's very hard to follow the discussion when I can't tell who's saying what...

I agree that the dictionary definition is very important, because no matter how good the usage citations are, we are not equipped to do a proper usage survey. The citations show that some people use the term in a certain way, but they do not establish an accepted meaning of the term, because of problems in biased and inadequate sampling.

I don't think there's any problem with quoting the OED as long as it's short and properly cited.

I agree that an example or two of current pejorative use would be ultra-handy. NickelShoe 04:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Does someone have access to the online OED? Donaldal 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for the tilde advice...I wasn't sure how to do that. Donaldal 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, on a personal note, I am rather curious about NickelShoe and Nunh-huh's interest in this article, since we seem (at the moment) to be the most involved. I was actually surprised when I first read it. As a medical student in the hospitals I hear the word used all the time (by doctors, nurses, everyone) so I assumed everyone used it. I did actually know that it was originally used by the homeopaths, but I have honestly never heard of it being used pejoratively. Nunh-Huh in particular seems to take serious issue with the word, which suggests some kind of history with it. I am totally intrigued (and this is coming from actual interest...not antagonism). What experiences have you two (or anyone who wants to chime in) had with it being a negative thing? Donaldal 07:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, we have "alternative medical practitioners" using it every day on Wikipedia in application to those who have offended them by espousing an "orthodox" view. Take a look, for example at talk:mumps, or nearly any of the vaccination pages. (It's ironic that the antivaccinators do so, as Hahnemann, unlike them, thought vaccination was a delightful thing.) - Nunh-huh 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Donaldal 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh. I just re-read the article and it is still misleading. The problem is that the article over represents antagonism toward M.D.s and underrepresents the use every-day of the term from inside the M.D. world. The article sounds like the term is irrefutably negative, with a couple of minor, incidental, positive uses as a rare exception. Obviously this is misleading. Literally all I do all day is medicine and I was totally unaware that a negative association even exsists. While I registered for the MCAT I had to check the "allopthathic" box to show that I was applying to M.D. schools (other kinds of medicine also use the MCAT...podiatric, osteopathic, etc.). When I filled out my applications, I had to go through the self-descrined "allopathic" MCAS service, as opposed to going through the podiatric or osteopathic services. All the way through the entire process the M.D. world described itself as allopathic. Now that I am in medical school, the M.D.s in the hospitals constatnly use the term allopathic to differentiate themselves from everyone else. In school we had some lectures on the history of medicine, so I knew that the word had been coined by Hahnemann, but until a couple of days ago I had never heard ANY innuendo that the word might be negative. So now imagine yourself in my place. Your entire experience in medicine (which you do all day every day) tells you that there is no such thing as a negative meaning for the term "allopathic." You see it used all the time by the M.D. official sources, and your M.D. teachers. Then suddenly you come across this website where non-M.D. editors are making this arguement that the word "allopathic" is not used in conventional medicine! They are insisting that it is used almost entirely alternative and other spurious sources. Wouldn't you object? Wouldn't you see such claims as absurd? So, Nunh-huh, as one of the main proponents of the antagonistic meaning of the term allopathic, I think you are best equipped to make changes in the article which will more accurately describe its current usage. Definitions from official sources are important (OED, or whoever), and examples of current use by both sides are important. But most of all, neutrality and accuracy (not agenda-pushing) are critical. Having said all this, go back and read the article. Every time any mention is made of allopathic sources using the term, there are lots of disclaimers intended to make it clear that these allopathic sources are an extreme minority and are probably not reliable (which is silly since they are all M.D. organizations). I have no issue with clear demonstration of current pejorative use, and obviously the term's non-M.D. origin is essential, but you have got to show with less bias the use from within the self-described allopathic world. Rather than just insisting that it is bad, show sources. Give examples of pejorative use. Give more examples of M.D. objecting to being called allopathic. In summary here are my requests:

• make the article be about the definition of the word. Discussion of its disputed neutrality must be secondary.
• include a medeical dictionary definition like Steadman's (or Doerling or whatever as long as it is a well-known source). I have the 4th edition of Steadman's, copyrighted 2005 (a gift from the AMA when I joined). Under allopathic, the only thing it says is "Relating to allopahy." The allopathy definition is the very next one (bottom of page 50 in my edition) and reads as follows: "A theraputic system in which a disease is treated by producing a second condition thiat is incompatible with or antagonistic to the first. Cf. homeopathy. SYN heteropathy (2). [allo _ G. pathos, suffering]
• just give the dictionary definition--don't comment on how it supports or detracts from either side. (I think it describes conventional medicine just fine but for neutrality's sake I think we should leave all commentary out)
• be more neutral--show both sides of the story WITHOUT discaimers
• show solid sources that back up arguments of it being antagonistic. Insinsting that it is so does not make it so. Show proof.

Finally, I think that we have been making progress. Let's keep it up.Donaldal 18:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Steadman corresponds to the current article. I'm all for adding definitions from reputable dictionaries. They've been added before (by me) and removed. All the definitions note that the primary use of the term was by Hahnemann (to denote a school of medicine that has never existed except in his mind) and some note that the term is sometimes applied to non-alternative medicine today. All of which the article also notes. So no, I don't think the article is misleading, and I think the attempts by (usually anonymous) foes of non-alternative medicine to get it to be misleading really ought to be resisted. And, finally, I'm pretty sure, if you're in medical school in 2005, that I have a bit more experience than you<g>. You may also have limited exposure to "alternate" practitioners. So you should keep in mind that your experience may be of limited use here, and skewed toward recent usage, and go with what the sources say. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi nunh-huh

• You said I should go with what the sources say. Do you mean sources like the AMA, the ACGME, the AAMC, and my attending physicians at the hospital? I think you are exactly right--I will go with what they say. (I know...I can be a little cheeky sometimes.) One of my best friends is a resident in emergency medicine, and tonight I showed him the article. He laughed.
• On a more productive note, do you think the Steadman's definition I quoted earlier would cause a war if inserted into the text? I think it is pretty neutral and should be fine by everyone, but you never know.
• Also, I am still interested in your medical background. You don't sound like a doctor but you do sound like you have some kind of medical interest. Do you work in health care? Donaldal 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The source for what a word means is a dictionary. The AMA knows its limits. (As should a resident in emergency medicine...) As for Steadmans, insert it by all means. There's no guarantee it won't provoke a bizarre response, but by all means let's see. I'm a board certified internal medicine physician specializing in infectious diseases, and was in practice before there was such a thing as AIDS, so if you don't think I sound like a doctor, you need to adjust your view of what a doctor sounds like<g>. - Nunh-huh 05:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree again that dictionaries are the most important source for word meaning, because that's their job--it's not like they can't Google a term either, but they check usage more extensively. It's a lot more reliable and a lot less original research-y. I agree that we can use these others as examples of non-pejorative use, but not as proof of any kind of signficance of that usage (which requires stats)--that's what dictionaries are for. NickelShoe 06:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I just added three dictionary definitions: Steadman's (from my print copy), the OED (as quoted by Nunh-huh in Feb 2005), and the on-line edition of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (which I copied and pasted from their site). I will try to get more definitions. I think inclusion is the only way to get consensus.
• I am going to our library today to get definitions from more sources (Dorland's, etc). If we have a list of hard sources showing a range of definitions it will serve to A) demonstrate conflicting definitions/usages and B) make everyone feel like they are being heard. I don't see how the homeopaths can object as long as they get to have a definition (from a reputable source).
• Are there any major objections to starting out with such a commentary-free list of definitions?
• Nunh-huh, I am particularly astonished at your insistence that the term is not used by conventional physicians given your knowledge of medicine. Have you never noticed its use by the AMA/ACGME/AAMC? (Aside, I wish I could hear about your experience in I.D. through the 80's when HIV/AIDS exploded. You must have been in the middle of everything. I can only imagine how exciting/frightening it must have been.)Donaldal 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

The article really needs to lead with a single sentence explanation of what allopathic medicine is, then explain variations in usage. We need to try and find a fairly neutral definition to lead with, and I think the one we had, which now leads the "history" section would be fine. But bare quotes are evil, and so are articles that don't have introductions. NickelShoe 15:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Here are my objections:

• One neutral definion that everyone likes is going to be impossible to find. The one which now leads the history section is not from a dictionary...it is one we just made up. We must admit that we hardly out-rank the OED.
• An introduction would be nice but, again, one that is truly neutral and does not comment on a preferred definition is (again) going to be nearly impossible. I won't allow anything that suggests that it is not in regular use by conventional medicine, and Nunh-huh won't stand for anything that does. So I think the best solution is not to comment. Just let the contrasting definitions from reliable sources speak for themselves. They demonstrate beautifully that the conflict between me and Nunh-huh is (apparantly) a widespread conflict. Even the authorities differ. In particular, having two Oxford definitions side by side that say nearly exactly opposite things is an exquisite example of differing use. Donaldal 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, including a range of definitions will circumvent the "my dictionary is better than your dictionary" game which has plagued this discussion in the past (see above). Donaldal 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow...breaking news.

• I just looked it up in several dictionaries in my med school's library and I was honestly surprised to find so much discord. Tabor's clearly says that the term allopathy is erroniously used to describe conventional medicine to distinguish it from homeopathy. But the 27ed of Steadman's flatly defines it as regular medicine and the traditional form of medical practice. It also calls an allopath a traditional medical physician.
• Clearly there is good support for the arguement that it is a questionable term as well as good support for the arguement that it is not. The best way to show this is to show the sources.

Donaldal 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think an intro is absolutely necessary. And I think this is sufficiently neutral, but feel free to address or fix any problems you have with it:

Allopathic medicine is a term applied to conventional medicine, with a range of connotations.

NickelShoe 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I vote you put it in.Donaldal 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it places a secondary meaning in primary position. I've fixed it. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What you're calling a "primary meaning" is merely a connotation, and I believe the fact that I used the word "applied to" rather than "describing" is pretty neutral. What you're talking about is the contexts in which the term is used, not the extension of the word. Extension is the best way to go for the intro, then move on to varying ways people use the term. NickelShoe 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. The primary meaning is historical. All other applications, of the word such as extension to a hypothetically similar group of physicians with an imagined similarity to "regular physicians" of Hahnemann's time are necessarily secondary, regardless of which is currently more prevalent. It is the dogged question of which is more prevalent that is the actual question here, not which is primary. As I haven't actually added the primary meaning to the introduction, perhaps you'll comment more specifically on it. - Nunh-huh 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not like "Allopathic medicine is a term sometimes used to characterize conventional medicine in contrast to a variety of "alternative" medicines. The connotation may vary from neutral distinction to disapproval."

I liked "Allopathic medicine is the name given by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, to the methods of his medical foes. The term is sometimes used today to refer to conventional medicine" just fine, but User:Donaldal disagreed.

I personally have no problem making the historical meaning primary. NickelShoe 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I too prefer the opening you've just quoted. Sorry I lost track of who made what changes. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have clearly been over-run by a majority vote on the opening line and I made the change you two wanted. I have to say that I really think this is starting to look a lot less controvercial and a lot more inclusive. At what point can we get rid of the flag at the top? Donaldal 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, do you happen to recall the date on the quote from the OED 2nd ed.? Donaldal 05:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The OED's 2nd Ed. was 1971. If you feel like a "special project", your medical school library most likely has institutional access to the online OED (it's prohibitively expensive for individuals), which would be an improvement over the "concise" edition. You may have to ask an old-fart librarian for help to gain access. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy-and-paste of what the OED-online currently says. It is basically what it said in 1971, and I am pretty sure it is the same thing we would find in a current print edition. It gives both sides of the argument (not surprising when one considers the colossal volume of information in the OED):

• Allopathic:

Of or pertaining to allopathy. 1830 Edin. Rev. L. 513 The allopathic..method..hopes to cure disease by exciting some dissimilar affection. 1844 T. GRAHAM Dom. Med. 330 Some of the allopathic school, who order poisons every day, and almost wholesale. 1870 Daily News 29 Sept., Various medical journals of the allopathic profession.

• Allopathy:

‘The curing of a diseased action by the inducing of another of a different kind, yet not necessarily diseased.’ Syd. Soc. Lex. A term applied by homopathists to the ordinary or traditional medical practice, and to a certain extent in common use to distinguish it from HOMOPATHY. 1842 BLACK Homop. i. 2 The term Allopathy, as a general term, is applied to the present prevailing system of medicine. 1863 J. HOLLAND Lett. Joneses xx. 291 No man of sense believes that allopathy is all wrong and homopathy all right.-Donaldal 17:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the neutrality flag. Donaldal 16:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. There's no guarantees, but it was pretty bogus in the first place, let alone now. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Donaldal 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well this is good...no wars in a while. I think it's a good sign. Donaldal 03:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Allopathy - because there's no other alternative

It's no wonder the M.D. establishment has embraced the term "allopathy". There's no other alternative that doesn't imply rejecting all other medical paradigms as quackery. Terms like "conventional", "mainstream" and "orthodox" are fine as far as they go, but they still reflect a POV within the M.D. community that their paradigm is the only valid one. "Allopathy" is more neutral, hence its growing acceptance. So, I would agree that the article as it stands is still over-representive of a particular POV.

Also, could we move the dicdefs to a separate subheading? Right now they're in the controversy section, but they don't seem to belong there. --Smithfarm 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You can opine that "the M.D. establishment has embraced the term "allopathy", but that of course doesn't make it true. Some bureaucrats use it; that's not an embrace. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "allopathy" is more neutral...it's nicer to other paradigms, but it's no nicer to itself than "conventional" is to others. I have no idea what the actual usage is, but it has to be based on dictionaries to avoid biased, undersampled original research. And since Donaldal used medical dictionaries, I think that's quite fair to the medical community. However, if you see something in the article that's weasly or something, point it out.

I'm the one that moved them there. The reason I put them there is because the definitions contradict each other and I don't like the definitions sitting around without any introduction. Perhaps a different title to the section?

NickelShoe 14:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd suggest putting the history section first and follow that with a section on current usage. The "Current usage" section could start with a sentence suggesting that current usage is ambiguous. Follow that by citations divided into two categories: for, and against a wider definition. Flesh it out with some NPOV verbiage that treats both sides of the issue. --Smithfarm 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone--I don't mind renaming the definition section at all. However, I think it is important to keep it at the top of the page for a very specific reason: it shows up front the differences of opinion in the most neutral way possible. By citing authorities we make it clear that there is a conflict without the risk of weasly language creeping in (a problem this article has had in the past). Our main problem is that there has been some difficulty describing the two sides of the story without coloring one of them as more accurate. Every time an introduction has been written it has gone through this insane process of agenda-pushing editorial, mostly in the form of very weasly language. To stomp this out, I just looked the word up in a bunch of well recognized dictionaries and presented them without comment. (I certainly support more people looking the term up in other reputable dictionaries.) Because there is no comment, there is no weasly language. And because I have included definitions for and against, there is no agenda pushing. As you can see, some companies produced dictionaries with conflicting definitions, and some present two conflicting definitions within the same entry. In the past we have had a lot of conflict over how to keep things as neutral as possible. I really think that our refraining from commenting too much on the dictionaries, while presenting them at the top of the article is the best way. Having said that, I do like having a little history of the term in the opining line (as it is now). I think everyone agrees that the etimology is important. And I believe everyone agrees (or at least they claim to) that avoiding weasly language is important as well. Donaldal 05:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that a list of dictionary definitions isn't really an article, and can't just be thrown in without comment. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When I'm a little more awake, I'll try my hand at neutrally weaving the definitions into a paragraph or something, unless someone else gets to it first. Honestly, I don't mind them being fairly bare in this situation, as long as they're introduced well. But I can see the objection. NickelShoe 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really object too much to their nakedness either, but it's a bit stark when they appear so early in the article with no introduction. And definitely a narrative style would be less arresting. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did it anyway. And now I think the history section is going to have to go first, since I referred to it. And I probably made some grammatical errors and stuff. And I inconsistently italicized, I'm sure. And I maybe screwed up the notes.

So someone please fix it all up mercilessly. NickelShoe 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds pretty good. I was worried about weasly language and you did a pretty good job of avoiding it. Donaldal 18:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks much improved to me. I did go ahead and change the section heading to Current Usage and moved two paragraphs about current usage up from the history section, where they didn't fit in. --Smithfarm 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to play devil's advocate here, but is it starting to sound a little too slanted toward main-stream MD use of the term? (I have always argued that it is widely accepted by MDs, but I am asking this on behalf of the people wo disagree. For the sake of neutrality we have to represent both sides adequately.) What do you think, Nunh-huh?Donaldal 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's gone too far in that direction, but I'm not inclined to fight it. It's only a little misinformative. - Nunh-huh 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that the article says allopathy "has been used in a deprecatory manner" but I don't see any real-world citations of this usage. Can we just say that without any references to support it? (Maybe this has been discussed already; if so, sorry for bringing it up again.) --Smithfarm 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's referenced. Check the external links. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Jarvis article on the NCAHF website? --Smithfarm 10:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A new problem with the word

It just occured to me that there is another problem with the word which I have never seen cited anywhere. Suppose you have two neurosurgeons who work in the same hospital and do the same surgeries. This is what we have been arguing that allopathic medicine refers to--orthodox, mainstream medicine. But supopse one of the two surgeons is an MD while the other is a DO. They are not practicing different medicine. They are doing the exact same surgery in the exact same way. How could one of them be more allopathic and one of them be more osteopathic? Since the DO isn't doing some kind of manipuative thing, does that make him an allopath? Or is the MD who is doing the same surgery as the DO practicing osteopathic medicine? DOs ruin the idea that allopathic medicine is what you call mainstream medicine. Either that or osteopaths actually are allopaths... Donaldal 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I'd just ignore it for the purposes of the article unless you find a citation. Original conclusions don't belong here anyways. NickelShoe 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Osteopaths practice the same as physicians from medical schools, though they may also use their chiropractic training. The homeopaths may label osteopaths as allopaths. The idea about what allopathic medicine means is well addressed in the article. Kd4ttc 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine edit is a copyright violation

Moved here from my talk page:

You just dropped in a passage that was from a manuscript published by oxford university press. You need to paraphrase it. It currently is a copyright violation. Steve Kd4ttc 23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I placed in the article:

The term "allopathy" has had very strong pejorative connotations:

One form of verbal warfare used in retaliation by irregulars was the word "allopathy." Coined two hundred years ago by Samuel Hahnemann, founder of homeopathy, it was taken from Greek roots meaning "other than the disease" and was intended, among other things, to indicate that regular doctors used methods that were unrelated to the disharmony produced by disease and thus were harmful to their patients. "Allopathy" and "allopathic" were liberally employed as pejoratives by all irregular physicians of the nineteenth century, and the terms were considered highly offensive by those at whom they were directed. The generally uncomplaining acceptance of "allopahic medicine" by today's MDs is an indication of both a lack of awareness of the term's historical use and the recent thawing of relations between irregulars and allopaths. - James C. Whorton, "Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America"

This may need to be shortened. It is an on-line book (the whole book). Quoting short passages is usually considered fair use, but I'm not sure where the borderline goes. Let me work on this when I get a pause after work. -- Fyslee 13:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dropped passages are not usually that great an idea when they fall under fair use, either. Quotes should be worked into the article. NickelShoe 13:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting short passages is fair use but only when you are writing a review of the work. It was referenced (and it is just amazing how google will bring you right to the source with a few words in quotes from the passage) so it wasn't that big an issue - it is fixable. Do please make the edits you have in mind. The history of this term having been pejorative in the past but not so or less so now is nice to have as a referenced edit. The issue has generated some controversy around here and the article you used had a nice tone to it. You can put the reference here in the talk page or as a ref in the articel as you think best. I'd lean to something in the article. Steve Kd4ttc 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I shortened it, since part of it was already covered. Only the essential part remains, together with correct observations as to why the term is used so neutrally by MDs and societies nowadays. I couldn't have paraphrased it as well as the original quote, and it would have amounted to plagiarism anyway. Not sure about formatting of the link, which is also placed in the external links section.

The term is still used pejoratively among believers in alternative medicine, but more in the way they always speak negatively of MDs - without an understanding of the historical meaning. To them the word "allopath" is a derogatory label for the evil guys, while "alternative" practitioners and rogue (often delicensed and criminal) MDs are the good guys who are persecuted for their "cutting edge" methods. (Joke: If you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife!) That their methods are usually nonsensical, disproven, and even dangerous is lost on them. They often live in a world of conspiracy theories, with an "us against them" mentality. -- Fyslee 22:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Kd4ttc 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Artifact of Wikipedia

It is interesting that the main strength of Wikipedia can also be its main weakness. The fact that anyone can log on and make changes to an article allows for a level of peer review and scrutiny that should result in the most accurate information concievable. But a small, vocal minority--even a single person--can make as many changes as they want. Everyone has equal say--even people who have do idea what they are talking about. I do think that a lot of the potential for conflict comes from wanting to express personal experience, and not really from raw antagonism, but the Wiki system creates the opportunity for some strange things to be said. I have been astonished at how frequently the debate over the use of the term "allopathic" comes up on Wikipedia. Almost any time the word gets used in an article, someone pops up and protests. I am a medical student (this doesn't make me an authority--it just explains my experience). When I registered for the MCAT I had to check the "allopthathic" box to show that I was applying to M.D. schools. When I filled out my applications, I had to go through the MCAS application service which calls itself allopathic. The core MD regulatory and accrediting bodies use it (the AMA, ACGME, and AAMC). Now that I am in medical school, the M.D.s in the hospitals use it. I had never heard of this debate until I started reading Wikipedia. Only later, while I was compiling dictionary definitions, did I find one single source (Tabors) that supports the argument. It is still the only authoritative source we have to demonstrate any current problem with the term. So on one hand I have the AAMC, the AMA, the ACGME, the MCAS, the MCAT, several authoritative dictionaries, my professors, and the attendings at the hospital all using the term freely; on the other hand I have a couple of people on Wikipedia and a single dictionary claiming that the word is inappropriate. Yet every time the word gets used in any article, a scandal pops up...as though everyone in the medical community knew that the word was rediculous and as though this debate were wide-spread. In my entire medical experience this is the only place I have ever heard of this debate (again, I am only a medical student, but all I do all day every day is medicine (and occasionally Wikipedia)). Only one person has to have an opinion to make a big scandal. I think that our article right now is fine. But this whole experience has taught me to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt (well, sometimes tablespoons of salt).Donaldal 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Donaldal, only two of the dictionaries you cited in the article use a definition which doesn't acknowledge allopathy as being a term made to distinguish from homeopathy. It's not a single dictionary; it's four, and your experience is just as limited as any other person's. People from other situations may have exactly the same opinion of the overrepresentation of your perspective as you have of theirs.

But, yes, Wikipedia has a slight tendency to overrepresent the opinions of minorities, but I don't see this as a detriment when they're simply reported and not promoted, as has been done in this article. NickelShoe 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the question is who represents the vocal minority and who the actual meaning of the word. Opinions differ<g>. - Nunh-huh 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You made my point exactly...I can only speak from my expience. And everyone is in the same boat. That makes this place like trying to herd cats through a fun-house mirror. Everyone is speaking from their experience--what they think they know--so everyone feels like their experience should be well-represented. Some people on here are convinced--earnestly convinced--of some things that I, from my limited experience, consider to be pretty rediculous (not necessarily in reference to this article...I am thinking more of the "vaccinations are evil" people). Obviously these people are allowed to voice their experience because, as Nunh-huh pointed out, who is to say who is crazy and who isn't? So as a result, patching together an article on here is cat herding. The really amazing advantage to this place is that you get a level of peer review on here that is simply not matched anywhere else. Everything that gets said gets edited by hundreds of people. And the advantage of hearing so many different experiences is obviously that you get a really broad perspective on things. I just feel like that that broad perspective can end up looking like reality in a fun-house mirror. And this article is not the only one with a lot of pushing and pulling...Donaldal 22:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Nickleshoe, I am certainly not questioning the history of the term. It was absolutely intended to differentiate conventional medicine from homeopathic and, as Nunh-huh has repeatedly (correctly) stated, it was a poorly devised term to begin with because mainstream medicine was never unified by one "allopathic" principle. However, only one dictionary I found suggested that it continues to be inappropriate today for conventional medicine--which is the opinion I am questioning. I am arguing that the term, however historically/etymolocially incorrect it may be, has been adopted by mainstream medicine and has lost many of its former semantic features. Ironically, it seems to me that the only authoritative source we have for the term being a problem today (Tabor's) was a source that I provided. The other sources for it being an incorrect description of mainstream medicine in modern usage are opinion articles. But all of this was not my point. My point was that this is like herding cats. I am fully cognizant of the fact that I am a cat just like everyone else. And therein lies the problem...the cats are trying to herd themselves.Donaldal 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and so it shall be, as Tom cats with limited experience seldom defer to those with more. <g>- Nunh-huh 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is which of the elderly tomcats are sages, and which are just senile...heheheDonaldal 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Young tomcats who rely on the senility of their more experienced rivals are usually disappointed when it comes down to a fight. - Nunh-huh 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is neat what Donaldal has learned in the exchange. History of homeopathy, reaction to the poor results medicine had up to the 1940's. Allopathy as a term and its usage. Hippocrates and how he left people alone with better results. Well, lots of that is what I learned - generally from poking around on Wikipedia. Not bad topics to learn about in med school. Kd4ttc 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Allopathie"

This article refers to the German article de:Schulmedizin. However, the de.wiki also contains an de:Allopathie page. The two terms appear synonymous in German, so I'd like to change the reference to the literal translation. Any objections? --Illythr 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy, Allopathy & Enantiopathy

"The term "allopath" comes from the Greek roots meaning "opposite" and "disease"-- the form "allopathy" being formed by false analogy with other French word pairs." ??????

"As used by homeopaths, the term "allopathy" has always referred to a principle of curing disease by administering substances that produce the opposite effect of the disease when given to a healthy human." ??????

Some clarification here, from someone who had actually read Hahnemann: http://www.homeoint.org/books5/clarkehomeo/homeoallo.htm "Hahnemann pointed out there were three principal ways of using drugs - the homœopathic, the allopathic, and the antipathic or enantiopathic. The homœopathic is the like - to - like method, in which a medicine is given to a sick person because it is capable of producing similar state when given to healthy one - similia similibus. The allopathic method is that in which the drug given, being "without any pathological relation to what is naturally diseased in the body, attacks the part most exempt from the disease." The enantiopathic is the opposite of the homœopathic, and is the treatment by contraries. This treatment is palliative merely. When a large dose of opium is given to overcome sleeplessness ; or when an astringent is given to arrest diarrhœa, or a purgative is given to remove constipation - these are examples of antipathic treatment. But many diseases, such as inflammation, for example have no "opposites" except health, and these can not be treated by this method, and must be treated, if at all, in one of the other two ways."

Common treatments from the era of heroic medicine were mercury for syphilis, bleeding for fevers, antimony tartrate for pneumonia. These were not 'opposite' to the disease, hence Hahnemann's term. Only a few 'opposites' were used such as opium for diarrhea, and he termed these 'antipathic', not allopathic.

Overall, it looks like someone with a beef about homeopathy is using the article as a platform, not to elucidate the term allopathy. As such it's POV. Jedermann 11:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)