Talk:Arsenicum album/Archive 1

Archive 1

I've changed 'remedy' into 'substance' for no sources of the effectiveness of this 'remedy' were cited. Furthermore, the encyclopedic value of this article is disputable.

This article seems to be full of POV-pushers

I've just found this article, and wouldn't you know that I find many of the most frequent anti-homeopathy editors here. Hello everyone! This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too. This article deserves better than where it is now...let's try to maintain the good wiki-spirit in this process. My apology if I'm sounding a bit arrogant or paternalistic, but coming to this article fresh, I can't help but feel that the editors here are asleep at the wheel (and seem to be proud to be asleep). Eeeeks. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than jumping in and calling people "POV pushers" (which is insulting), and referring to "anti" editors and "pro" editors, can't you just try and open a friendly dialogue and Assume Good Faith. I think you've been reminded of this before. This isn't going to get editors already here open to your point of view (you know, the "POV" that you're "pushing", in your words)--88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a helpful addition to the understanding of homeopathy, especially since "placebo effect" cannot be attributed to the mice. I've corrected the reference formatting by adding {{reflist}}. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, the placebo effect is complex. If the vet or other people around the animals know which ones are getting the verum and which one the placebo, the animals can react to the (unconsciously signaled) expectations. (More likely to play a role with horses or dogs than with mice.) If the vet or technicians evaluating the improvement of the animals are aware of who's who, then their evaluations can be influenced by their own expectations. (Whereby the subjective element for some measures is greater than for others.) There is no excuse for not blinding a study at anything above the pilot level, and the results reported from a non-blinded study should always be treated with caution. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

88, you're right: maintaining good faith is so important to wikipedia. Perhaps then, you and other editors who have worked on this article can show good faith by explaining why this article asserted that there was "no" research testing this medicinal substance. "No research" is a very precise and absolute assertion. I find that it is interesting that certain editors are very good and fast in inserting references to anti-homeopathic literature but ignore and even delete references to good research published in high impact journals when the results are positive. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Defies logic

If a patient is suffering from arsenic poisoning, because they are being exposed, via the water you drink, to arsenic, in the amount of X per day, how is giving dx, where dx is an additional but infinitesimal amount of arsenic, for a total of X+dx, going to "remedy" the arsenic poisoning? It doesn't. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WnEo46h4A, which discuss homeopathic dillution. I will be adding this to the article. TableManners^C·U·T 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source (without the video):

• Williams, Nathan (2002-11-26) Homeopathy: The Test, Horizon (BBC) Retrieved on 2007-01-26 (transcript)

youtube is probably not the best reference, but the BBC is per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press. TableManners^C·U·T 08:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there TableManners. I have no problem with people being skeptical of homeopathy, though I do not yet understand people's skepticism of the primary principle of homeopathy: the principle of similars. I'm a little confused why you don't see the logic to the homeopathic principle of similars (treating like with like). I assume that you know something about and have respect for vaccinations and conventional allergy treatments, two of the few methods within conventional medical care that work by augmenting immune response...and what a coincidence, they utilize that principle of similars. In addition to the logic to using the homeopathic principle of similars is the body of animal and human clinical trials that have been conducted, have been posted here, and have been deleted by people who follow my contributions. Hopefully, you will help me maintain this information here, and perhaps, you can help refine the information so that it incorporates info about the semi-blinding aspect to some studies and the size numbers. As for the BBC's "test" of homeopathy, I suggest that you do some simple reading about the validity of that test. It was supposed to be a "repeat" of the work of biochemistry professor M. Ennis, but clearly, it wasn't: [1] It wasn't until late 2003 (over a year AFTER the BBC had conducted their trial) that Ennis was shown the protocol that was used, and she was shocked to discover that there was little similarity between her trial and the one that was created by a "medical technologist" at Guys Hospital who had never conducted or published reseach on basophils (yeah, it was THAT bad!). Here's some more info about the BBC's and the 20/20 "tv experiments": [2] There is more depth and breadth to homeopathic research than you may realize. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, why do you keep repeating this same arguments when it's been explained to you that they aren't valid on other pages? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ullman's studies

[3] is by homeopathic manufacturer Boiron, published in a minor journal, and which says in the abstract that it's a pilot study ("This pilot study was conducted on 20 males and 19 females of village Dasdiya") where over a third its subjects dropped out. As such, it does not pass WP:RS.

The second article's site is not working at present. However, The New Scientist article and related piece have some oddities, but the one unrelated scientist interviewed says that he is "extremely skeptical". I'm sure w ecould track down response letters.

The third one is claimed to be in a "major journal" (J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987.)

Unfortunately, the journal "Human Toxicology" does not seem to actually exist, and an online search for the title ([4]) comes up with no reliable source. Vanished User ^talk 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanished User ^talk 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your objections. I also disagree with your selective quoting. The article actually stated:

"Although Gescher told New Scientist he is "extremely sceptical", he adds that the study is interesting."

Remember, consensus is an inherent part of the Wikipedia editing process. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Human Toxicology does exist. Not every publication is online (yet).

(2) Just because a homeopathic manufacturer such as Boiron has sponsored research does not make it invalid. Who do you think does the research on new medical drugs before they are marketed? Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As per point (1), in may exist, but it's certainly not a "major" journal, as the text explicitly claimed, as major journals, indeed, almost all minor journals, are indexed and so on so that researchers can find relevant articles. Per point (2) - To some extent, yes, however, strong regulatory binding does mitigate this, as does recent moves to force pharmaceutical companies to announce all trials when they start, so that the ones they don't publish can be known and inquired into. No such restrictions apply to Boiron, as far as I am aware, making their studies far more doubtful. Vanished User ^talk 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is claimed that Human Toxicology is a major, high impact journal. So major and high impact that u+c

It's been 5 years since the New Scientist article. What has happened since? Any follow up? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened since the New Scientist's article 5 years ago? Did you not see the info about the HUMAN clinical trials that not only showed some clinical results but also showed significant objectively measured changes in various lab measurements. It is very challenging to do such human trials, and these researchers were impressively sensitive to the ethical issues involved in the use of placeboes in treatment, though they did have a placebo group in their studies (it was simply smaller than the treatment group). In referene to Vanished U's statement above, I hope that people are seeing that he consistently provides partial information that only supports his point of view. I sincerely hope that we all make an effort to avoid the obvious truncating of quotes. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a self-described pilot study run by the same group as the mouse study. We can mention it briefly, but that's about it. Vanished User ^talk 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The section about "Claims of efficacy" now has provided undue weight to the fringe-minority belief that this substance does something. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address this just. I'm not entirely happy with the study that is currently still there being included. It doesn't prove anything, and the conclusions are so weak--RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting properly sourced scientific data, without reaching a consensus with your fellow editors, is not the best way to edit Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). Using "fringe-minority belief" as justification is simply not acceptable. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to reconsider the AGF notice you have on your userpage. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Linde metaanalysis

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Linde et al, Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy, J Clin Epidemiol Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 631–636, 1999, doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7

Since Linde et al. have rejected the findings of their metaanalysis after further study, I believe the results from it should be considered superseded. Vanished User ^talk 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanished...in THIS case, you are mixed up on the various meta-analyses that this team has published. You're confusing their clinical meta-analysis published in the Lancet (1997) with the one I cite here (1995) which is their meta-analysis on environmental toxicology studies (animal research, not human). The meta-analysis to which I referenced here was published in a major toxicology journal. If you think that I'm wrong (though I'm not), please provide verification. My advice is: slow down a bit. You're getting sloppy (we all get sloppy when we do too much). Also, I deleted the reference to the Shang review because it didn't have any direct research on Arsenicum album (remember: THIS is the subject of this article). Dana Ullman ^Talk 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Dana, but the 1994 (not 1995) study is being misused here all the same. Here's a quote from that article:

"As with clinical studies, the overall quality of toxicology research using SAD preparations is low. The majority of studies either could not be reevaluated by the reviewers or were of such low quality that their likelihood of validity is doubtful. The number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology"

You've ignored the findings of Linde et al, and instead reported the bits of data that suit your point of view. Hesperian 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, you're right...it is 1994, not 1995. Thanx. My writing pointed out that most of the 105 publications used in this meta-analysis were of low quality. I prefer to simply ignore low quality studies and instead only focus on the high quality one (this is not "cherry picking"). There are 9 points that are a part of the abstract to this meta-analysis. #6: "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects" (I reported this, and it was deleted) Point #7 says: "Four of 5 outcomes meeting quality and comparability criteria for meta-analysis showe positive effects from SAD (serial agitated dilutions) preparations. Point #8: Average percent protection over control in these preparations was 19.7% (this research was published in a leading toxicology journal; the authors are highly respected physicians who specialize in analyzing research design; this information is RS and V).

By the way, Hesperian's quote above continues and says: "Our indepednet analysis of high quality studies and meta-analysis of comparable experiemnts did show some surprising findings. First, experiments using the 'high' dilution range had higher quality evaluations than experiments in lower dilution ranges, making their validity more likely. Second, our reevaluation of results form these studies using the raw data showed that over 70% had positive effects. Finally, the meta-analysis also demonstrated positive effects for preparations in which no effect is expected when the data form multiple studies was combined. These studies provide the strongest evidence that 'solution'effects may indeed occur." My previous writing in this article provided this summary, but it has been deleted several times. I am concerned that Hesparian chose to truncate the quote above. I will assume good faith, and you can show good faith by you summarizing this body of information for this article. Is that reasonable? Let's be reasonable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to note one other important fact here which I also previously wrote in the article (but that was deleted): Of the high quality studies, 27 were found to show "a high degree of evidence for activity. In contrast, only 13 sutides were found showing no effective in these dilution ranges." Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to cite Linde et al., is it perhaps worth mentioning that Linde and Jonas don't seem to think that their work has proven homoeopathy effective? In a letter published in The Lancet in 2005 they wrote "Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"; presumably they wouldn't have felt the need to express this regret if their earlier work had established the effectiveness of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation in first paragraph

Friends, the statement "rare reports of arsenic poisoning from poorly-prepared homeopathic treatments have been reported" needs to be striked. First, it is a report from India with such a low dose of arsenic that it would be illegal to have in the U.S. or any European country. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a V RS backed statement, perhaps it could use some rephrasing? —Whig (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be V and RS, but it needs to be significantly changed or deleted because it suggests that a medicine that is impossible to buy or get in the US and Europe has undue weight. See, I'm learning Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the V and RS statement because it shouldn't happen where you live sounds a bit like suppression of information. That doesn't tend to go down well on wikipedia. How about just adding a bit of context, if required? Then again, the statement is factual and this is a real scientific paper, and it is clearly notable that some (incorrectly) high doses are toxic --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This "V and RS" statement is a reference to a 1X potency, and yet, in the US, the OTC dose of this medicine is a 6X. Although I recommend deleting reference to this statement, I'm open to keeping it if there is adequate consensus, but you need to mention that this patient's experience took place in India with a 1X dose, and the American and European laws do not allow the over-the-counter sale of such toxic doses. In fact, the lowest potencies allowed of this medicine are 1,000,000 more dilute than the dose in this statement. Because my editing tends to be reverted, often without comment, can I ask you to make this change? Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the information you've provided, but we need a source for the legal levels --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source: Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, published by the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the United States, it is updated yearly. This book is recognized by the US FDA as one of the compendiums of drugs. Once again, the dose in which Arsenicum album is an OTC drug is 6X. By the way, I appreciate your thoroughness. I really do. I hope that we can collaborate more together. Despite our differences, there is a lot upon which we can agree.Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

An important study was deleted

The below statement was deleted without comment. This is a RS (the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field): Another animal study testing various homeopathic doses of arsenic on mice was published in a leading toxicology journal and showed statistically significant effects.

Based on the paragraph above that describes one more study, it seems a little funny (and inaccurate) to refer to all three studies as "preliminary." As for the mechanism of action, it wasn't until somewhat recently that we began to understand how aspirin works...and this didn't influence its acceptability. The reference to the "mechanism of action" has no place here. This article should emphasize what is known, not necessarily what is unknown (if we were to say what we don't know about something, then most of each article would discuss the various things we don't know. Further, this is an article about Arsenicum album, not the entire field of homeopathy. The reference #3, #6, and #7 and the partial sentence connected to it have no place here.

Here's what is presently written with my recommended changes (I suggest that we add the above study after reference #5): Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album;[4][5] however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect.[3][6][7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, among other things, says we cannot delete the mainstream view. No large-scale trials of the remedy itself have been done. However, there is strong consensus on homeopathy as a whole, and we can't weight small trials, at least one of which i s self-described as a pilot study, over large-scale analyses of the purported mechanism by which they would work. Vanished User ^talk 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the study you advocate is from an obscure journal that is not available online, is not pubmed indexed, and which only gets 7 google hits under its title: [5], all seven of which are the exact same opinion piece which cites the article at the end. Calling this a "major study" being unfairly ignored is hyperbole of the most excessive sort; indeed, it's not even clear from the online sources if this is, indeed, on Arsenicum album or on some other arsenic-containing remedy. Vanished User ^talk 08:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the description of that study in that opinion piece, which is similar to wording you have previously used, two questions: #1. Is this opinion piece your source for discovering this study, or are you the one who informed Mr. King of it for his opinion piece? #2 If not, then how are you aware of such an obscure article? Vanished User ^talk 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Vanished...please remember that not everything that is available online, and how you searched came up with much fewer references than when I just searched under Google Scholar using: Cazin "Human toxicology". It is referenced in several journal articles and in several books published by leading medical/scientific publishers. Further, this study in this respected journal was a part of the Linde meta-analysis (1994). This study was recognized by Linde et al as one of the high-quality studies, even though I didn't find it via Google as cited in this article (but I have a copy of it, and I not only see it there, it is highlighted by the authors). By the way, I previously erred. The "new" name of this journal is "Human and Veterinary Toxicology". Let's be fair, especially nowadays. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that not everything is available online, but such low numbers of references to it - your method gives 20, and none of them look particularly impressive - does seem to limit what claims can be made about its importance to somewhat less than what you are making it out to be. A search for "Human and Veterinary Toxicology" stops at #14, although it suggests that there are really about 365.

In short, it becomes somewhat difficult to consider this study notable unless you can provide some really good reason why. Vanished User ^talk 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasons that the Cazin (1987) study is notable is that it was published in one of the leading journals in toxicology. It was conducted at a major French university and department of pharmacology. It showed a statistically significant result. It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial." It has had several replications that have confirms its results. It has V, RS, and 3rd party confirmation...it has them all. At this point, it is your responsibility to assert why it should not be in there. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying it's a leading journal of Toxicology, without offering any evidence to that effect, and it is missing most of the trappings of a major journal - pubmed indexing, actual mentions in the literature online. Vanished User ^talk 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports lists 76 journals in the "toxicology" category. It doesn't list journals entitled "Human Toxicology", nor "Human and Veterinary Toxicology", but it does list a journal named "Veterinary and Human Toxicology". When listed in order of impact factor, H&VT ranks 68th out of 76 journals. Hesperian 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This journal gets more and more mysterious. Who publishes it? Vanished User ^talk 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not mysterious at all. The correct name is Veterinary and Human Toxicology. I'm glad that you've confirmed that it is a recognized peer-review journal in toxicology. We can strike the word "leading," but it is still a NPOV source, and the various 3rd party referencing of this study make it notable. Oh...and here are some more new and NPOV references:

--BELON P., BISWAS S.J., KARMAKAR S.R., BANERJEE P., BANERJEE A., DAS J.K., PATHAK S., CHOUDHURY C., BHATTACHARJEE N., GUHA B. Is an elevated anticuclear antibody titer in subjects living in two groundwater Arsenic contaminated villages indicative of a time-dependent effect of Arsenic exposure? Environmental Science (2007) , vol 2 (1), 10-16 --BANERJEE P., BHATTACHARYYA S.S., PATHAK S., BOUJEDAINI N., BELON P., KHUDA6BUKHSH A.R. Comparative efficacy of two microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum album, to ameliorate toxicity induced by repeated sublethal injections of Arsenic trioxide in mice. Pathobiology 2008 in press Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, it was you who initially described the journal of the Cazin paper as "one of the leading journals in toxicology". While I note you have now said " We can strike the word "leading,"", I would like you to tell us why you chose to describe it as "leading" in the first place. On what basis did you make that assessment? Once again I thank you in advance for your prompt reply.OffTheFence (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... it's not in press, as far as I can tell. Pathobiology publishes the contents of their next issue online: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=Ausgabe&Ausgabe=234549&ProduktNr=224272 and it's not listed there. In any case, science usually requires replication by independent groups. These articles are by the exact same people who did the other two studies already in this article. Vanished User ^talk 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanished, for now for providing an explanation for why you have been so adamant about deleting the 1987 study by Cazin, et al, published in "Human Toxicology" (previously mentioned). This newer work are the replication studies of the pervious work...and now, there are several replication studies...and further, there are a confirmatory human trial. This body of work follows ALL of the RS and V and NPOV that wiki loves. Will you now recognize the Cazin trial, and if not, how many more trials do you now want to delete from wikipedia on the similarly flimsy grounds that you have suggested for not accepting Cazin? Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I refer to the varying ways in which you have cited the journal in which the Cazin paper appeared- "the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field"; "The "new" name of this journal is "Human and Veterinary Toxicology". Let's be fair, especially nowadays."; "It is not mysterious at all. The correct name is Veterinary and Human Toxicology". Please can you explain why you were unable to cite title of the journal correctly. Please also specify how the blinding was performed in this study. You wish it to be regarded as a "high quality study" and for it to be sufficiently reliable to be included in the Ars Alb page, the nature of the blinding and the adequacy of the controls are vital. I thank you in advance of your prompt attention to this.OffTheFence (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The abstract of "Is an elevated antinuclear etc", available here, appears to have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy. What makes you think it is a replication of Linde et al? Perhaps, Dana, you could lay out for me all the relevant published studies into this preparation, indicating the significance of each? Hesperian 04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, Environmental Science: An Indian Journal appears not to be indexed by any body at all. As far as dealers in reputable journals go, it apparently doesn't exist. Hesperian 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, you're right...THAT study is not a replication study. It verifies and specific problem, and THIS study shows the effects of homeopathic Arsenicum in help reduce the problem.[6] This study was previously deleted from this article. And please slow down a tad and read my posts properly. I never said that this study was a replication of Linde's. My reference to Linde was that he referenced the Cazin study and confirmed it as a high quality study and one with significant results. As for that Environmental Science pub, it is a new pub and is not presently notable. Now, do you want to put in the Cazin study or shall I? Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether the Cazin study should or shouldn't be included, as yet. I'm trying to form an opinion, but I am confused. I imagine it is at least possible that my confusion will not be resolved by "slowing down a tad and reading your posts properly." Considering you gave a wrong year above, a wrong journal title above, a wrong journal title in the article citation under dispute, and put forward a reference that turns out to be unsuitable for this article, I think you may bear at least a small portion of responsibility for my confusion.

I really think we could all benefit from you doing as I requested a post ago, and laying out all the relevent published studies into this preparation, indicating the significance of each. If I only had a clear idea of what had been published, what was a replication study of what, and the quality of each journal, then we might be able to get to the bottom of all this.

Hesperian 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for some of my errors (it proves I'm human). My initial posting made reference to several important studies and I provided some detail about them [[7]]. Please note that Linde, et al (1994) is an important meta-analysis. Typical of virtually all scientific research, they found that most studies were not a "high quality." I recommend that we only evaluate and write about the results of the "high quality" studies. Cazin's work is mentioned specifically as one of the high quality studies. There have now been several replications of this work, and now, there have been human clinical trials (please note that this clinical trials not only found reduction of arsenic in the treatment groups, as compared with the control groups, the researchers also found certain increased laboratory measures that confirm a physiological effect experienced by those given homeopathic doses of Arsenicum album. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have finally found the absolutely correct reference to the Linde meta-analysis on homeopathic doses and environmental exposures. Here's the link: [[8]]. The correct title of this journal is: Human and Experimental Toxicology. My apologies. On a different but still important subject, anyone interested in basic science evidence on homeopathic doses might benefit from reviewing: [[9]]. You will note that his is a review of 67 in vitro studies, 1/3 of which of the trials reviewed here are replication trials. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I am curious and would appreciate a clear explanation. On 29th Jan 2008 you wrote, "Hesperian, you're right...it is 1994, not 1995. Thanx. My writing pointed out that most of the 105 publications used in this meta-analysis were of low quality. I prefer to simply ignore low quality studies and instead only focus on the high quality one (this is not "cherry picking"). There are 9 points that are a part of the abstract to this meta-analysis. #6: "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects" (I reported this, and it was deleted) Point #7 says: "Four of 5 outcomes meeting quality and comparability criteria for meta-analysis showe positive effects from SAD (serial agitated dilutions) preparations. Point #8: Average percent protection over control in these preparations was 19.7% (this research was published in a leading toxicology journal; the authors are highly respected physicians who specialize in analyzing research design; this information is RS and V)." You have now written, "I have finally found the absolutely correct reference to the Linde meta-analysis...". When you wrote what you did on 29th Jan, were you in possession of the full paper or only the abstract? I thank you in advance of your prompt reply.OffTheFence (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic Clinical Trials Are a Higher Quality Than Conventional Medical Studies (Lancet, 2005)

First of all, the Lancet (2005) article was not a "meta-analysis." It was a comparison of studies (conventional vs. homeopathic). Although many physicians and scientists have reported sharp critique of this study that has no external validity, this article ignores one of its important conclusions. The researchers found that 21 of the homeopathic clinical trials were "high quality," while only 9 of the conventional medical studies were of a similar "high quality." Because people in this article on Arsenicum album include a statement about the quality of homeopathic research, we need to have a statement that a more recent analysis and comparison of homeopathic and conventional studies found that "more than twice as many of the homeopathic studies were of high quality as compared to those testing conventional medicines." Although I suggest that the reference to Lancet and Int'l Journal of Epidemiology articles should be deleted, we should include this observation from the Lancet article if we are going to include them. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You and I must be reading different articles, or I'm just not getting what you're saying. But to quote the Lancet article, the conclude "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." Which means, homeopathy is no different than drinking water. Ooops. It is drinking water. There will NEVER be evidence that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo because 0 molecules of anything can't have any clinical effect. Although drinking that water is probably good for the kidneys and bladder. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the Shang analysis found several medical trials to be inadequate for one reason or another as it did with the homeopathy trials. That is not surprising or important. The important conclusion is that as the quality of trial increased, the medical trials showed significant effects against the placebo while the homeopathic preparations showed little difference from the placebo. Acleron (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I know what article I'm reading, but it seems that you're only reading the abstact. Because you are chosing to being prolific in editing homeopathy articles, it would be helpful if you read the research, not just their abstracts. My statement above about how many trials Shang defined as "high quality" is absolutely correct. What is interesting (VERY interesting!) is that he never provided any statistical analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality conventional medical studies (luckily, a major journal will finally publish this analysis shortly). Instead, Shang asserted that although these high quality studies were all randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled, they were "biased" because they had under 80 subjects in them. By choosing to include only larger studies, he then limited the inclusion of studies to those that used only ONE medicine (or a placebo) for the treatment of everyone with the same illness (despite homeopathy's insistence upon individualization of treatment, except in a select minority number of conditions). In order for Shang's analysis to show homeopathy in a bad light he had to ignore two of the large 300+ clinical trials on the treatment of the flu with Oscillococcinum (he used only 1 of the 3 studies; and he used one pilot trial of using this medicine in the prevention of the flu...this trial was conducted by a competitor to the makers of Oscillo!). Shang also didn't include any of the high quality studies of Reilly at the University of Glasgow, and he didn't include the Jacobs' trial published in PEDIATRICS. As the Church Lady said, "How convenient." Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your personal opinion of the Shang analysis, it has been accepted by the scientific community and no good criticisms of its conclusions or methodology have been published in the literature. I know you're aware of discussions that have rebutted your claims (a cursory Google search will show you've participated in these discussions and been shown to be wrong). --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In DUE respect, there have been a significant amount of critique of the Shang article, unless you now consider the Lancet to be non-RS. In fact, the letters published ripped up the Shang analysis, and Shang's response was inadequate. In addition to the published letters in the Lancet, several other peer-review publication have also published strong and credible critiques. Are you saying that you haven't seen these critiques. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that letters are just letters, no matter who publishes them. I'm also sure you're aware that all these criticisms have been addressed, unless you don't understand, or are refusing to understand (cf. serial dilution), the issues. This is understandable if you've had no scientific training. Why don't you ask for help on the bits you don't understand? --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand and don't need your help here in seeing the lack of external validity that the Shang paper had. Shang never responded to that critique, nor did he (or you) give us an analysis of the high quality trials. Do you or do you not have this analysis? Please give us this information or acknowledge that Shang purposefully left it out because it would give credence to homeopathy...or are you now saying that high quality randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials are "unscientific"? As for critique of the Shang paper, there are so many good critiques that there are even editorials about the junk science that it was: [10] Are you now choosing to ignore editorials too? Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes the Journal of CAM, hardly a RS for criticisms of Homeopathy; no bias there! --DrEightyEight (talk)

Just because a medical journal doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that it isn't RS. There has already been a lot of discussion on this topic, and this peer-review journal is a RS. Further, I couldn't help but notice that you did not answer my previous question: What was the analysis from the 2005 Lancet/Shang study on the 21 high quality homeopathic trials and the 9 high quality conventional trials? Further, now that others have brought up the issue of the quality of research at this article, this 2005 Lancet article shows that more than twice as many homeopathic trials are recognized as "high quality" as conventional medical trials. Should you make this editorial change or shall others? Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you banned from editing the mainspace, Dana? That paticular finding of the Shag analysis is irrelevant here, and I know you're aware of previous places where this has been discussed with you. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If others have accepted the issue about research quality, this opens to door to a reference to Shang's Lancet article that showed that homeopathic research is more than twice as likely to be of a higher quality than conventional medical research, unless you prefer to delete all of the references to Shang's questionable "study." Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shang took the best homeopathic trials they could find. Why do you find this remarkable? The main point is that when the the best trials where examined they showed the inadequacy of homeoptathy.Acleron (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge target

There seemed to be consensus at the AfD that this should be moved somewhere. Shall we try to establish a consensus where? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision was to KEEP this article, not to merge it. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana: what part of "The result was keep in the sense of "not delete". There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles, but that is a matter for editors to work out." did you fail to understand? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that merging it to arsenic trioxide or water (or more accurately lactose) would be violently opposed by pro-homeopathy editors, and given that homeopathy is already quite large, would it be appropriate to suggest List of homeopathic preparations as the first candidate for an up/down vote on merger? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be merged since it is notable in its own right. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and having just gone through AfD it would be pointless to continue the debate. Let's work on making this a good article, it is clearly notable, but if there is insufficient content to justify it being separate from a larger article of homeopathic remedies it can be merged at a later time. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The result of the AfD specifically noted that almost all !votes were to merge it somewhere, but that merge is considered keep as opposed to delete. If there really were two or more plausible merge targets, then keeping the article would still be appropriate, even if the consensus were to merge. And there was no finding the subject is "notable in its own right." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that you failed to provide a reason for your own vote and did not respond to a request for clarification, you should know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Whig (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no justification in the AfD for the subject being notable, either (although there's a slight justification on this talk page, not in the article). And my "explanation" would be that the reasons given in the "keep" !votes justify my proposed merge, instead. (Which should have been clear to any readers.) Unless this is the prinicple homeopathic remedy, it should be merged into the list and then (if too long) be separated on other grounds. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It hardly matters, there is no rush to merge. If you think a merge is appropriate then propose it and post the banners. —Whig (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. We need to decide where to merge the article, before the detailed proposal is posted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to merge, I oppose your merge proposal. If you don't even know where you want to merge it, then I think that it is premature to discuss. —Whig (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An objective observer would probably find consensus to merge. As no such (objective observer) has appeared, we'll have to agree to disagree until the merge target has been specified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no merge target has been specified, so your desire to merge...somewhere...but nowhere in particular, seems just to be a desire to override the vote to keep. Please stop being disruptive. —Whig (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a number of potential merge targets were listed in the AfD; Arsenic trioxide, list of homeopathic preparations, water, homeopathy, bollocks, urine, alcohol, .... List of homeopathic preparations seems best. One could make a case for Arsenic trioxide, but I don't think it would be correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I could propose an appropriate merge target, but would interested in feedback as to whether there is a better target. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I have reported this disruption. Please stop. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I have reported your action as disruption. Please stop. Seriously, does anyone else have a suggestion for a merge target? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge it to the list of homeopathic preparations. I previously voted to keep it as an example. Seeing the edit responses, it would be better merged. Acleron (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nominator TableManners banned

I don't have a horse in this race, but, FYI, the person that nominated this article for deletion has been identified as a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinately. See [11].--Hjal (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo again??? Sheesh. That bugger has hundreds. Suppose it might have been more obvious had I been watching Richard Sternberg. Vanished User ^talk 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside, uninvolved opinion from User:Keilana

Hello. I've been asked to provide my uninvolved opinion on whether or not a merge is appropriate, so here I am. Looking at the AFD, which was quite recent, it seems that the majority of editors wanted to keep the article. In my opinion, as there are so many potential merge targets, a merge would be quite lengthy and difficult to perform, and some of the content would likely be lost in the merge process. There is also the possibility of upsetting the currently shaky balance on other Homeopathy articles, causing more drama. Arsenicum album seems to have enough references to establish notability and verifiability, yet another reason to not merge. To boil this down: I do not think a merge would be appropriate at all. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Active sock puppetry by User:DrEightyEight and User:RDOlivaw here

Friends, it was discovered yesterday that these two editors were sock puppets of User:Unprovoked. I think that any and all of the comments that they have made above can now be ignored, and any and all edits and deletions that they did can now be undone. Is that right? It is more than a tad ironic that people who assert themselves as being definers of science, as arbitrators of what is a "reliable source," and as defenders of mainstream medicine are themselves not very reliable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, thats not really how things work around here. Most of the things that they (singular I guess) brought up had some support from other editors. And even though they resorted to sock puppetry, lets stop with attacking them anymore. They already have egg on their face. Baegis (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of those accounts have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:Unprovoked was blocked for 24 hours, and may choose to return to edit constructively. —Whig (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Baegis. It was not my intention to "attack" them anymore. I have only been actively editing on wiki since late November and am unclear on certain policies. I also felt that it was important to let other editors know about these socks because they were very active here and seemed to create the illusion of much greater support than really existed. Further, I am still concerned that some good references that I have given have still been deleted from the article (such as the study by Cazin). Other problems with this article:

-- The second half of the following sentence from the article is without substantiation. There is no specific reference to the research on Arsenicum album in any of the cited references. This half of the sentence needs to be deleted: "Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album;[4][5] however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect.[3][6][7]"

-- I am not clear why this sentence is in this article because there are numerous studies using this medicine in animal trials. This sentence should be deleted: "It is generally accepted in medicine that conclusions as to the efficacy of any preparation cannot be made from a single study."

-- I have previously placed information in this article that was deleted without discussion. It should be re-inserted: Besides the above arsenic trials, there is a body of animal research using homeopathic doses of various toxic substances to reduce the effects of crude, toxic doses of that specific substance. A meta-analysis of 105 trials was published in Human and Experimental Toxicology.[Linde, K., Jonas, W.B., Melchart, D., et al. (1994) "Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology," Human and Experimental Toxicology, 13:481-92.] Although most of these studies were not high quality research, the studies that tended to show the most significant effects from homeopathic doses were the high quality studies. The researchers found that there were 40 high quality studies, of which 27 showed positive results from homeopathic doses (there were 50% more positive results than negative results). Of special interest were nine studies on mice which tested homeopathic doses beyond 15C that demonstrated a 40% decrease in mortality compared to mice in the control group.

Many people here may be familiar with the high standards of research for which Linde and Jonas are known. Their metaanalysis is WP:RS and WP:Notable. 24.5.193.22 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Dana Ullman ^Talk 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards the sentence you thought did not belong in this article, I agree and deleted it. If reliable sources were removed without discussion then they should be reinserted or discussed. —Whig (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still many problems with this article, and my statement above describes some of these problems and gives specific suggestions for improving it. Unless anyone provides reliable and verifiable information for why the above changes should be made, these changes will be made. Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana - have been busy, but better late than never... It sounds to me like the material you propose should be added.

As for User:DrEightyEight and User:RDOlivaw, it's not clear they're socks... they may simply have been using a common, public wireless connection. But we should discuss adding material on the merits alone, and again, the ones you propose look fine.

Regarding the sentence "It is generally accepted in medicine that conclusions as to the efficacy of any preparation cannot be made from a single study", that's true but not entirely relevant here. What might be noted is any findings of reviews of Arsen. Alb., or if none exist, that fact should be noted. regards, Jim Butler (t) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim, multiple checkusers and multiple arbitrators have already looked at the evidence and said it is convincing. On at least one occasion they used the same private IP, not a common, public, wireless connection contrary to the statements RDOlivaw made. There is not much chance of them being unblocked.[12] —Whig (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Was speaking from old information. This place moves fast! cheers, Jim Butler (t) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Claims of Efficacy"

I don't mind the link to "Evidence based medicine" but find the link to the homeopathy article doesn't provide adequate NPOV. I also find it curious that this section quotes from the New Scientist article and uses only a skeptic's viewpoint, not the primary researcher's point of view, for which the article primarily focuses. I hope to find an appropriate quote and place it here. Any objections? Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it... --Jim Butler (t) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing information?

Did we reach a consensus that this edit was acceptable and I missed it? PouponOnToast (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

and this? PouponOnToast (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. We cannot have this article completely gloss over the fact that homeopathy has very little serious proving of it's efficacy. Completely removing all detracting evidence is a serious violation of UNDUE. All of this has already been covered way up at the top of the page. Also, I have serious misgivings about the Linde study, especially in light of what has already been covered (see above, again). Baegis (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it was appropriate to remove that irrelevant material. The problem is that material had been added with the intent of "debunking" and discrediting homeopathy in general, and has no place in an article on arsenicum album. We should never underestimate the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, but do you see existing consensus to remove it? Was there a discussion I missed? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that Dana's probation apparently allows for edits that are good but not discussed, I should be clear - I do not believe the entire section on effectiveness adds any value, but if we have to include the fringe studies by true believers, we also need to include the meta analysis that debunks them and the standard view that it's placebo. I consider Dana's edits to provide undue weight to a fringe view that this substance does something by removing any and all mention of the cited view that some people believe the substance does nothing. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana is not on probation. —Whig (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dana is. [13] and [14]. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you are mistaken to call that probation. —Whig (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Boldness

Per WP:BRD I have removed the difficult section on "Claims of efficacy" as it doesn't add much to the article generally and is the locus of dispute. I will not take reversion of this edit as edit warring whatsoever. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing research data that is WP:RS and WP:V does not improve this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert only some of the removed data? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

General studies on the homeopathic research should not be in this article, (unless, of course, you intend to merge the article into homeopathic concoctions, or whatever the appropriate article name is....), only studies related to this substance. I'll remove all comments, positive or negative, about homeopathy in general, unless there's some objection. (But that may be a different edit than PouponOnToast is talking about. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I supported your edit - in fact, I made it first. Arion reinserted only the positive statements about homeopathy in general. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the general Homeopathy probation, I don't think either of us can take further action without further discussion, especially, since I'm just coming off a 3RR block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article once, perhaps twice today. I don't intend to edit it again this week. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that general studies on homeopathic research should not be in this article, especially a meta-analysis which did not evaluate or include studies mentioned here on arsenicum album. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you reinclude them in this edit? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I only added back the studies on arsenicum album. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you review the edit I linked to? How was that edit adding back studies about arsenicum album? PouponOnToast (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Linde meta-analysis on environmental toxicology deleted

Arthur Rubin deleted this meta-analysis that includes information about the arsenic studies and confirms the [notability] of this high quality research. The meta-analysis provides a good review of animal research on environmental toxicology and has direct meaning/value to this article (please note that I am NOT referring to the Linde meta-analysis in 1997 on clinical trials...that is a different article). I recommend that we re-insert Linde meta-analysis on enviromental toxicology. The difference between THIS meta-analysis and the Shang (2005) comparison of studies is that the Shang meta-analysis does not include any of the research on Arsenicum (the subject of THIS article) nor on environmental toxicology. I recommend removing of those references unless someone can specifically cite that these articles reviewed and condemned this research as invalid or not notable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman Talk 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article doesn't mention the subject, "Arsenicum album", or indicate that the meta-analysis mentions it. Even if it does, extacting information from a subclass of a meta-analysis is even more meaningless than the orginal meta-analysis, which is pretty meaingless, itself — at least according to the authors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, further up this page, I asked you a very specific question concerning your advocacy of that Linde (1994) paper. I shall, "assume good faith" and infer that you have failed to notice the question. Please could you attend to it.OffTheFence (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant Dana, rather than me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. I also agree that the removal is sensible regardless of one's opinion on homeopathy. If it was included here it could be included in every page that mentions homeopathy (to just as little useful effect). Mind you, that opens the larger problem of mentioning homeopathy on any pages in Wikipedia where they are shoe-horned in. See what happened here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_dichromate. If a perfectly innocent page about chemistry gets invaded by homeopathic fictions then they can legitimately be inserted anywhere. There are homeopathic remedies made from peregrine falcon and the light of Venus! Do we want homeopathy on pages about ornithology and astronomy. I'd have less objection if they were created under their cod-Latinate remedy titles then at least the reader knows what they are getting and can treat the information accordingly. On the other hand, regardless of what our friend Ullman claims there is simply no valid reference to support the clinical use of any homeopathic remedy so an honest NPOV statement can only be to say that they are used and leave it at that. No NPOV statement can be made to assert that their use is validated and I cannot see that Wikipedia's editing standards would allow the attempt to develop an argument about the validity of their use. The hurdle they must then get over is the "notability" of any particular remedy. OffTheFence (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for AGF. Back at ya. The Linde/Jonas metaanalysis (1994) was published in a WP:RS. Because I sometimes write from home (where I do not have copies of the specific papers in front of me), I sometimes write from memory. I mis-remembered the changed name of the journal in which this article was published (no big deal). The high calibre work of both Linde and Jonas is highly recognized. Reference to this meta-analysis is important in THIS article because it verifies that the animal trials with Arsenicum album mentioned here are recognized as "high quality" trials. Because some editors here insist upon evidence in reliable sources and notability, reference to the Arsenicum trials AND the meta-analysis are important. I'm not clear with any logic to delete either. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, you have not established that Jonas and Linde's work is high quality. The Linde meta-analysis is trivial and peripheral to the topic of this page unless you can cite an exact quotation from it that directly supports its relevance.OffTheFence (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:OffTheFence. And, further, even if Jonas/Linde is high quality, it cannot be used in this article unless it states a conclusion with respect to Arsenicum album. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence, I am a tad confused by your reference to Potassium dichromate above. I do not know a single wiki-editor who has suggested that reference to homeopathy be placed in articles on astronomy or on falcon. Unless a substance is quite notable in homeopathy and/or from controlled research, it should not be mentioned. Let's avoid making the straw man argument. However, there IS high quality research testing homeopathic doses of Potassium dichromate published in one of the most respected medical journals in the world ("Chest") in the treatment of COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die!) and which was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. This study was so notable that two (!) other universities are presently working to repeat it. I believe that the only reason that this information is not included in the Potassium dichromate article is for POV reasons...the wiki-spirit was lost here. Can I ask you to show good faith and for you to re-insert the information about this study? Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, good journals sometimes let through weak papers. Your tendency to hyperbole does not help gain support for that Chest paper. It was at best a very indirect and poor test of a homeopathic remedy in COPD. Is that specific study really the model system you would have chosen? COPD was a co-factor amongst too many other variables. You need to get a better sense of proportion. Overall, the homeopathic research record is exactly what you would expect from a placebo therapy. Weak effects in poorly designed studies will inevitably turn up. These effects are not notable in any sense of the word.OffTheFence (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The results of the CHEST study showed "substantially significant" results, and every patient who were received the homeopathic medicine, except one, got significant improvement, as measured by three different measures. I'm not clear why you do not consider these results notable, especially since there were no statistically significant differences in the treatment and control groups prior to treatment. Further, the published critique of this study by David Collquon (spelling?) didn't question or criticize its statistically analysis. Our conversation here is off-topic, and I hope that you will also consider responding to the 1994 Linde/Jonas environmental toxicology meta-analysis. I assume that we are on the same page with this paper. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, the phrase "substantially significant" does not appear in my copy of the Frass paper. Where exactly are you quoting from? Agreed this is off-topic, but serving to illustrate the point that not every published paper is notable and especially when it is not a proper test of the hypothesis you wish to prove. The scientific literature is full of odd and incorrect results. The paper that first showed something important that was subsequently robustly replicated may then achieve notability, but not before. The page I am on with Linde (1994) is the page that says it should not be included unless it contains something germane to the topic of the page. You have not given us an adequate quotation from it to make your case and you are the one that presumably is in possession of the full text. OffTheFence (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the Frass study on COPD, here are its results: The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]). Correct me if I'm wrong: when p < 0.05, this suggests statistical significance, but when p < 0.001, it is substantially significant. These results were beyond this result. These results were impressive. As for the Linde comment, I will get the specific quote from the Linde/Jonas (1994) meta-analysis about the arsenic studies shortly. DanaUllman^Talk 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I ask again, with regard to the words in quotation marks, which are implied by that punctuation to be a quote from the proximately cited reference do you now confirm that the phrase "substantially significant" does not, in fact, appear in the paper but is your interpretation?OffTheFence (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, meta-analyses are tricky. Only if Linde specifically states the results are significant with respect to Aresenicum album, can we list it in this article. Including it here because a study included in the meta-analysis would be significant if considered alone is clearly WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Frass et al study was severely criticised because of the clinical difference between the placebo and treated groups before treatment[15]. These problems do not make this study notable or its results remarkable Acleron (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Acleron...you made me laugh with that one. You are quoting a blog. Because I do not think that you are now proposing that wikipedia changes its RS rules, I encourage other editors to ignore that one.

As for the Linde (1994) meta-analysis on environmental toxicology, page 485-6, it says {note: the words in these funny parenthesis are mine, for clarification purposed only}: "Twenty-six SAD (serially agitated dilutions) tests (11%) met the critera for meta-analysis (same toxin, dose, route, SAD, outcome measures and QE over 50%) and had at least 3 experiments with these characteristics {the Cazin trial was one trial referenced here}. These experiments warrant detailed description. 12 independent tests used the C7 SAD preparation of arsenic. These tests were conducted at the laboatory of Professor J.C. Cazin, University of Lille, France {Cazin trials cited again}.... Protective Indexes calculated independently from the combined raw data revealed increased arsenic elimination in the SAD groups over controls by 19.6% (95CI 6.9-32.4%) in urine, and 25.5% (95CI 8.9-42.1%) in faeces. Blood levels of arsenic were reduced by an average of 6.1% (95CI 3.2-9.2%) over controls in the SAD groups. The C7 SAD preparation used in these experiments had a calcultaed arsenic concentration of 5 times 10 (-18){to the negative 18th power), a 'medium' dilution by our criteria, but well below the concentration of any previously reported effects from this toxin." DanaUllman^Talk 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is proposed that the blog Acleron mentioned be quoted in the article - it is just being cited here as a critique of a paper you have repeatedly cited. Do you have any response to the criticisms of the study expressed in the blog post in question, or in the comments to it for that matter? Merely saying that they are not good criticisms isn't really good enough (nor is claiming that the authors of the original paper "blew his weak critique out of the water" if you can't provide a reference to this). Brunton (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(to Dana) that doesn't state signficance. It would be clearly OR to state such in the absence of such a statement in the paper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Brunton...Actually, it is YOUR responsibility to make the case that the critique given at that blog is notable and is a reliable source. If not, move on to a critique that has that.

Arthur...my point in referencing the Linde meta-analysis is that they recognize the Cazin study as a "high quality" and the fact that they (and others) make reference to the Cazin study verify its notability. The fact that several other studies have verified the efficacy of homeopathic Arsenicum album in helping to excrete crude doses of arsenic showed that this research has been repeated by independent parties. At this point, it would seem that resistance for inclusion is stonewalling. A strong case has been made. DanaUllman^Talk 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So reference Cazin. Linde should not be included in this article except to support comments on Arsenicum album. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand why you had to admit the Cazin trial, though I'm confused by your words about Linde. Meta-analyses are even more notable than single studies, and the Linde article makes specific reference to Arsenicum album studies and even gives specific % benefits. What is missing here? DanaUllman^Talk 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the Linde meta-analysis, how is the reader to know that the Cazin trial was of high quality? —Whig (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically if Cazin is a high-quality study, and Lynde specifically says it is, then Lynde should still not be named in the text. It should read something like: In a high quality [Lynde] study, Cazin found ... [Cazin]. The general conclusions of Lynde are irrelevant, and there are no claims that Lynde specifically found AA effective. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[To Dana] It is not proposed that the critique from the blog be used as an authority in an article: it is being put forward here to question whether the Frass study is as notable as you seem to think it is. The notability or reliability of the blog do not affect the validity of the criticisms (which you appear to be unable to rebut). Brunton (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we debate what people write on their blogs here? This is not a chat room, this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the Arsenicum album article. I realize you addressed this to Dana but I simply don't think it's appropriate. —Whig (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because criticisms of the Frass paper are relevant to whether it is notable, whatever their source. We are discussing the notability of the Frass paper, not of the blog. If an editor had posted the criticisms themselves without referencing them, rather than for convenience linking to somewhere else where they can be read, would we have to ignore the criticisms because they weren't from a RS? That would rather stifle debate, wouldn't it? Brunton (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur_Rubin, sometimes each of us does so many things that we do not read accurately. My quote above from the Linde paper gives a specific statistic about the efficacy from using Arsenicum album. As for Brunton's obsession with a blog, please note that CHEST published a critique of the CHEST study on COPD, and the authors of the study responded to this critique adequately and effectively. I do not consider the blog notable or a reliable source, nor is there evidence that it is. DanaUllman^Talk 15:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it in Linde, at least not as quoted here in any of the incarnations that I've checked. But even if it is there, we shouldn't use it unless Linde makes a conclusion about AA. Selective quoting from meta-analyses is one of the best examples of WP:OR by selection that we have. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will simply quote the statistics that the Linde article has found. This is not wp:or. Based on what you've written, it sounds like you do not even have the Linde (1994) article. Please be careful of stonewalling. DanaUllman^Talk 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"WP:OR by selection" doesn't even seem to make sense. —Whig (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Excerpts from a meta-analysis, except a stated conclusion, and possibly statements on the quality of the underlying analyses, will almost always be incorrect. We need to take note of that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that your non-answer to my question means that you do not have the article. Any quote could be accused of "selective quoting," especially if you don't have the article. Please be careful here. DanaUllman^Talk 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Research Studies improvements

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states: "however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community.[3][7][8]" Because none of these 3 references make specific reference to the Arsenicum album studies, this part of the sentence has no place here. As my friends might say, this is [WP:OR].

Under "Research Studies," the New Scientist article starts by referring to this study as having the researchers describing their study as having "highly promising results." It is strange that our article here only quotes the skeptic rather than the researcher. Further, the article at present says: "However, Andreas Gescher, a biochemical toxicologist interviewed by New Scientist, said "This kind of study uses a dilution so high there is hardly anything there... Is it really possible?" and went on to say that he was "extremely skeptical".[11]" The New Scientist article noted that although Gescher was "extremely skeptical," he also referred to this study as interesting. DanaUllman^Talk 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important we make clear that criticism exists of homeopathy generally, but mainly this can be summarized in a short sentence and directed to the main Homeopathy article for studies that are not specific to Arsenicum album. —Whig (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cazin (1987)

Friend Dana, I think it would be helpful to consolidate discussion of the Cazin paper and bring it to a final conclusion as to whether it should be referenced in the Article. 1. Was the study randomised and blinded? 2. On the basis that a series of 'potencies' was used, did the study show that there is a monotonic increase in effect with increased 'potency' (i.e. increased dilution/repeated replacement with solvent)? The importance of the second question is that, if the study was well-performed, as will be resolved by reference to the first question, then its results may be consistent with an effect of supra-Avogadrean dilution of white arsenic but it would also give strong evidence against one of homeopathy's core doctrines. A secondary issue arises, that if the study was not well-performed then the credibility of your Linde (1994) meta-analysis is undermined despite your having said, "It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial."... Dana Ullman Talk 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)". I would be grateful for the page, paragraph and line in the Linde (1994) paper where the phrase included in your quotation marks was used in relation to the Cazin paper. In passing I note that Linde reported that "1.3" percent of the papers they examined (Table 3b) reported randomization of their samples. I am intrigued to know how that figure of 1.3% was achieved given that the denominator of the fraction was either 105 studies (Abstract, point 3) or 116 studies (Pg 484, Para 1, Line 8). Linde and his colleagues seem to have invented a non-integer way of counting research papers.OffTheFence (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottomline is that the Linde (1994) described the Cazin trial as "high quality." Blinding is a necessary (!) component of high quality. I could re-review the paper to find out if it was randomized, but before I do so, can you clarify how randomization of mice would help or hurt an experiment of this type? (You got me laughing at that one.) I reported above and gave the exact reference to the Cazin paper, along with the page number for the quote. This paper doesn't deserved to be 88ed, I mean, 86ed. DanaUllman^Talk 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! OK then. Experimental Methods 101. I'm sorry, I can't believe I have to explain this. You do understand that experimental statistical methods came out of agriculture where exactly the same thing could have been said except that smart people realised that if you don't randomise experimental 'plots' some subjects get different growing conditions to others. In this example we are talking about hundreds of live animals who have to have been husbanded in a laboratory. We don't know if the rats all weighed similar amounts. We are not told that their ages were comparable. All sorts of things may affect the elimination of a toxin from a system. Hydration, food supply, temperature. We don't know the time period over which the experiments were run. Were the rats all bought in one batch then used sequentially, so their ages would be significantly different between the beginning and end of the experiment? The assays have to be be run by real people who can systematically introduce errors during the running of sequential batches of test samples. The list is endless. But, you don't need to worry about every item on the list of possible confounders if you apply sensible randomisations. If it was not randomised then it was not of high quality. If it was not of high quality, and only "1.3" percent of Linde's reviewed papers were randomised then what were they counting as "high" quality? They do not seem to specify how many "high" quality studies they had, but if it was more than 1.3% then their definition of "high" quality does not match that of anyone versed in good experimental practice. In which case, the bottomline is that although "Linde (1994) described the Cazin trial as "high quality."" Linde was not a competent judge. OffTheFence (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that in relation to their weights, the rats are described as "approximately 70g" (Pg 316, Para 4, Line 2- do you see how quotation marks work?) and they are "young, male Wistar rats". If they were only 70g then they were very young and and time delay in running different batches would result in biologically significant changes in their physiology, which emphasises the point I was making above about randomisation.OffTheFence (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is all original research, and this kind of debate should be sourced to a verifiable, reliable source. —Whig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's jargon, that is correct and I have no desire to put in in the article. Friend Dana requires Cazin to be of high quality. It is not. All I have done on this TALK page is to show why it is not. He requires Cazin to be notable. Cazin might be notable if it was cited in a notable meta-analysis. Linde's meta-analysis is not notable because it is hopelessly badly done. So, neither Cazin nor Linde can appear in this article. That's all I have been trying to achieve. Well, and try top call our friend to account on his unverifiable quotations.OffTheFence (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered whether Cazin showed a montonic increase in effect with potency. Please address this issue.OffTheFence (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also keep asking you to say where you get the contents of your quotation marks from and you keep failing to answer. We had this same problem with your use of the phrase "substantially significant" which you placed in quotation marks, but turned out to be your gloss of the results not an actual quote. Quotation marks are for quotations. Please try to follow this simple rule. Persistent failure to do so may imply that you are attempting to pass off your own interpretations as quotations from your verifiable sources. Where exactly does Linde use the precise phrase "high quality" in relation to the Cazin paper?OffTheFence (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We do need to know that Linde calls the Cazin paper high quality. We do not need to evaluate its quality for ourselves, and should not do so inasmuch as our evaluations are unqualified and original research. If Dana can supply the direct quote from Linde regarding Cazin then perhaps that may be the thing to use. —Whig (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Whig, Dana does need to supply the direct quote. One problem is that Linde does not define the actual term "high quality" and nor does he use it in relation to Cazin. We may infer from Linde that they reagrded "high quality" as a quality evaluation (QE) score >50%, but this is not said explicitly. It is not specified exactly what is required to achieve this score. The score of the Cazin paper is not given, though it must be in the >50% class from Pg 485, Para 4. Be that as it may, I have demonstrated above that Linde's implied definition of "high" quality is objectively wrong. Would it help a Wikipedia article if a verifiable source could be found to say it rained potatoes on the Moon? Wiki articles must have verifiable sources, but it cannot be reasonable to included verifably sourced falsehoods or misrepresentation without qualification. That must be part of the purpose of these Talk pages: to eliminate the "verifiable" but untrue.OffTheFence (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand Wikipedia policy, we do not concern ourselves with truth, only verifiability. —Whig (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to believe me when I tell you that I predicted that would be your response and had just come back to the computer to pre-empt it. I will now answer you directly. I am well aware that Wikipedia's rules will admit "verifiable" untruths. If Dana will admit that he wishes to engineer the inclusion of untruths by exploiting this vulnerability then so be it. I will however "assume good faith" and trust that no editor would deliberately wish to include untruths no matter how "verifiable" they were. We have seen so far, that even his alleged quotations are not verifiable, so the point is currently moot.OffTheFence (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new at this game, I see this is all covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Neither Cazin nor Linde are reliable sources because they are demonstrably of poor quality. They were in "peer-reviewed" journals, but not good ones and they have not been "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community" by virtue of appearing in such low-quality journals. The fact these two papers specifically are of low quality is illustrated by the many failings I have revealed them to have.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take your arguments to WP:RSN, and get some other opinions on whether Cazin and/or Linde are reliable sources for the purposes to which they are being used here. —Whig (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong to claim that your interpretation is the only possible one. I think Dana's interpretation is perfectly valid and by your own analysis above Linde considered Cazin to be in the >50% class, therefore by a verifiable, reliable source this study was high quality and I have no reason to believe it is untrue. I do not regard your meta-analysis as reliable at all and do not consider it appropriate or persuasive. —Whig (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, we are getting somewhere at last. "Dana's interpretation is perfectly valid" But he keeps putting things in quotation marks. I keep asking for the exact place where these quotations are drawn from and I have been unable to elicit an answer. I was similarly unable to elicit an answer about where the phrase "substantially significant" came from and that was because it was also Dana's interpretation and not an actual quotation from his source.OffTheFence (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say, that nowhere in Linde's paper do the authors explicitly state that QE>50% defines "high quality".OffTheFence (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Does OffTheFence still want to know if randomization took place in the Cazin experiment so that we can know with certainty if blue-eyed mice just happened to be in the treatment group in greater numbers than the brown-eyed mice (because we "know" that blue-eyed mice live longer). On a more serious note, the Linde paper required that the studies included in their final meta-analysis had to have a QE of 50 or greater AND had to have "no major methodological deficiencies." Let's move along. And please, OffTheFence, stop your personal attacks. If my edits have untruths, please provide verifiable of them. Show us your evidence...and please do not allege that my quotes above are not "verifiable" just because you personally do not seem to have a copy of the article. DanaUllman^Talk 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do want to know. Thank you.OffTheFence (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to confirm that I do have the paper in front of me, how the heck else do you think I have been giving the precise citations that I have been using? I am telling you that nowhere in that paper does Linde call Cazin's paper "high quality". You keep putting that phrase in quotation marks, please tell me from where you are quoting it in relation to Cazin's paper specifically. Remember, to be in quotation marks it must be an actual quote not your inference of the author's meaning.OffTheFence (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. The potential untruths are whether the things in your quotation marks are actually quotes from the contexts you are citing and also the larger issue of whether the papers' conclusions are true or untrue. The former can be easily resolved by you giving the correct citation from where you are deriving the quotation. The later is the subject of reasonable debate. I cannot prove that the author's findings are untrue, but I have shown enough that you should not reasonably cite their findings as true. I am meaning true as in logicaltrue/logicalfalse, not true as in truth/lie.OffTheFence (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence seems to be stonewalling. He claims to have the paper in front of him, but he seems to have not noticed or admitted to have read the Abstract. Point #6 here says "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects." You can say "whooops" now so that we can move on. In the article (page 485), these numbers are described in more detail, and the studies described have aQE of 50 or greater. Further, on page 483, in the discussion on "Quality Evaluation," the authors noted that their QE system "consisted of between 24 and 31 criteria (depending on the model studied) and evaluated. Are we finally ready to move along? DanaUllman^Talk 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if that was your problem. The quotation from the abstract asserts the phrase "high quality" but does not define it. What it does say is that "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects." That "50%" term is not being defined in that line as the criterion of "high quality" it is saying something about the character of high quality studies in relation to effects reported within them. On page 485 it says "Only 43% had a QE score over 50%". It does not define a class of studies called "high quality" if their QE exceeds 50%. On the same page it says, "Twenty six SAD tests (11%) met the criteria for meta-analysis (same toxin, dose, route, SAD, outcome measures, and QE over 50%)". It does not include the phrase "high quality" that you placed in quotation marks. QED. By the way, you have now accused me of lying about whether I have the paper. I hope this has effectively demonstrated that I do have it. I will accept your apology graciously.OffTheFence (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if OffTheFence still has any objection it should be taken to WP:RSN. —Whig (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have drifted away from my first question. Was the Cazin study blinded and randomised?OffTheFence (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we say that it was blinded and randomised? —Whig (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, but I just spotted what you said here. No "we" have not said it was blinded and randomised. But if it was not then Dana should withdraw it anyway having come to the obvious conclusion that it is a bad study. If he still wants to include it because it is "verifiable" and from a "reliable source" (by Wikipedia's narrow definition of "reliable") then we should add the verifiable and reliable fact that it was not blinded and randomised or that it it did not specify whether it was. The article then gets to look just plain silly as does Linde's supposed finding that it was "high quality". Heck, it doesn't bother me if we report verifiably that Cazin was a bad study but Linde called it "high quality", but it all gets a bit messy when the simpler option is to withdraw mention of both studies. I have the Linde paper and if necessary I can cite extensively from it in its own words to show its uselessness, but I'd rather not do that. It would not make for a very tidy article. Try this for size, "Linde (1994) derived a quality evaluation (QE) score for the papers. How the score was created was not reported. They reported that "only 43% had a QE score over 50%". Cazin (1987) had a QE>50%. But areas "where the methods were especially weak" were that only 1.3% were randomized; 12% described the manipulations between diluting steps; <1% described adequate precautions against contamination during the dilution process; 7.8% were blinded. Linde does not report which, if any, of these applied to the Cazin paper.". This is all true; it is all verifiable; it is all direct quotation so it is not "original research"; it is all from the same source that is implicitly accepted as reliable if the Linde paper is to be cited at all. Cite Linde and include all this if you want. Better to withdraw Linde.OffTheFence (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We need Dana to tell us if it was blinded and randomised. If it is neither then it is not a "reliable source", so we need Dana because he has the paper.OffTheFence (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not need Dana to perform a meta-analysis. If we wish to say it was blinded and randomised, then we must have a reliable source which says so. Otherwise, we can only say what the sources say. —Whig (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. Dana has the Cazin paper so he can tell us whether it says it was blinded and randomised. I don't know where else that information could come from. This is not asking him to do a meta-analyses or original research, it's just asking him to quote accurately from a paper of which he already has a copy. All we're asking him to do is read it and quote from its Materials and Methods section.OffTheFence (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pending Dana providing verification of the reliability of the Cazin study I have altered the article text to a more modest form. If Dana cannot demonstrate that the Cazin study was blinded and randomised then it is confirmed as not reliable and I shall remove reference to both it and the Linde study. Linde would have to be eliminated because it would have proven to be non-reliable.OffTheFence (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed as not reliable. You may be unfamiliar with our verifiability policies, which do not require sources to be double blind randomized control trials. However, if this is a valid criticism of the study then surely you can find a third party reliable source that makes a similar case which can then be included -- assuming it's even an accurate criticism. —Whig (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is confirmed because despite repeat visits to these pages our friend Dana has not replied to some simple direct questions. I have made myself familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability policies and please do not patronise by implying that the problem lies with my failure to understand them. Wikipedia's policies patently obviously allow the encyclopaedia to contain information that is objectively false provided it is "verifiable" from a "reliable source", this is the trade-off to make collaboration feasible and against requiring it to work like an old-fashioned encyclopaedia with a single authoritative and genuinely well-informed editorial voice, but which has other disadvantages. The point I have been making is different. If a study can be shown by the normal standards of scientific literature analysis to be unreliable by the normal definition used the in non-Wikipedia world then it is just plain dishonest to use Wikipedia's rules to deliberately engineer the inclusion of such a study. All I have asked Dana to do is to show the study was performed according to the normal standards of science and blinding and randomisation are essential parts of this. This is not demanding special standards for homeopathy. It is normal practice. Dana has accused me of lying about whether I have the Linde paper in front of me. I am not accusing him of lying or deliberate dishonesty and I am sure Dana would not want to knowingly allow Wikipedia to contain information that is unreliable by dishonestly concealing facts that would undermine the reliability of the information. That is why this discussion is on a Talk page, where this can be ironed out and frankly should have been ironed out before friend Dana pre-emptively inserted this information into the article. But we are where we are, so let's move on. I am going to put the next bit in CAPS in case Dana has genuinely missed the question: WAS THE CAZIN (1987) STUDY BLINDED AND RANDOMISED? PLEASE GIVE THE DIRECT QUOTATION AND PAGE REFERENCE FROM THE MATERIALS AND METHODS SECTION WHERE THIS IS CONFIRMED. I thank you Dana on the assumption that you will answer this question clearly and succinctly.OffTheFence (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend Dana, I'll add another question in CAPS in case you missed it earlier: DID THE CAZIN (1987) STUDY SHOW A MONOTONICALLY INCREASED EFFECT WITH INCREASED 'POTENCY', i.e. INCREASED NUMBER OF DILUTION STEPS?OffTheFence (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend Dana, I think it might help if we clear something up. Why have you not answered the questions about the Cazin paper? Have you read it or only the reference to it in Linde? Do you currently have access to the Cazin paper so that you can answer questions about it? It should be simple to answer these questions by direct reference to the Cazin paper, but we are just shadow-boxing if you don't have the thing from which the answers need to come. I created this section specifically to resolve these issues, but we have not done so. Can we finally clear this up, please. Thanks.OffTheFence (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed "found" to "claimed" in the article, because "found" is an interpretative expression implying that the editor infers objective truth from the paper. "found" cannot be used where there is any doubt over a study's validity. "claimed" simply allows a NPOV statement of the paper's result.OffTheFence (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this, per WP:WTA#Claim. —Whig (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, I was just thinking that. However, you cannot "find" a thing that is objectively untrue, so "found" is not NPOV in this context. I have changed it to "reported". I hope we can agree on that.OffTheFence (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "found" is more correct, in that studies make findings, that does not mean all findings are confirmed by other studies. Your assertions of objective untruth are unhelpful. —Whig (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A study's "findings" are its factual results not the analysis and interpretation. I am not making any assertions about objective untruth. I am not saying that Cazin's specific interpretation is provably objectively untruthful. It is my opinion that the results are objectively wrong, but I cannot prove that. It is not provable in principle. I am saying that you cannot "find" something that is objectively untruthful so "found" is not NPOV in this context. I thank you for not reverting "reported" and hope we can leave it at that.OffTheFence (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll let someone else come along and revert you. You seem to be making a religious argument here. —Whig (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with this tar baby, but how about "observed" instead of "found" or "claimed"? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think "reported" is properly NPOV. It would be hard to think of observing something that was untrue, so it is making a definite inference as to the validity of the study's results. I would acknowledge that restricting the vocabulary in this way would make the encyclopaedia a bit dull and repetitious, but variations in language carry variations in meaning and Wikipedia's other rules so tightly constrain editorialising in the articles that such dullness is probably the price to be paid when contentious material is being included in articles.OffTheFence (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aid to Dana here are the questions that need to be addressed about Cazin. In CAPS again. HAVE YOU, DANA, READ THE CAZIN (1987) PAPER? WAS THE CAZIN (1987) STUDY BLINDED AND RANDOMISED? PLEASE GIVE THE DIRECT QUOTATION AND PAGE REFERENCE FROM THE MATERIALS AND METHODS SECTION WHERE THIS IS CONFIRMED. DID THE CAZIN (1987) STUDY SHOW A MONOTONICALLY INCREASED EFFECT WITH INCREASED 'POTENCY', i.e. INCREASED NUMBER OF DILUTION STEPS? Enough CAPS!! I thank you in advance for your attention to these questions and the clear answers you will give to them.OffTheFence (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent Meta-Analysis

Should we even be calling the Linde study an "independent meta-analysis"? Being that Linde is a member of the Centre for Complementary Medicine Research at Technische Universität München (conflict 1), he has been quoted elsewhere supporting other alternative treatments (acupuncture (conflict 2)), and a sizable number of his publications are of the support for alternative treatment variety (3). Does anyone else see an issue with calling this independent? It also doesn't help that it was published in a journal with a low impact factor and a fairly dismal rating. As mentioned by OffTheFence, this does not help it's overall quality. Not everything in a "peer-reviewed" journal is necessarily an RS. Baegis (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I had been meaning to remind others of this, but with poor quality papers in "peer-reviewed" journals, the peers are by definition peers of the authors. Peer-reviewed has come to mean "high quality" but that is a false equation. It simply means reviewed by peers! Always ask, "Who are the peers?".OffTheFence (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is sheer namecalling at this point. Take it to WP:RSN if you think it is not a reliable source, and make your arguments there. —Whig (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN won't answer the problem of calling it independent. And this is a perfectly legitimate place to argue the merits of this study, because it will greatly help the article once it gets resolved. Continually referencing a study that only one party has a full copy of is not how things should function. Baegis (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence says that he has a copy. As for Linde, if you review his publication history, you will find that he has been published in many WP:RS journals with a high-impact and that he reports his findings objectively. The word "independent" is accurate in the context used in this article because they were not analyzing their own research but that of others...and they used a significant and impressive body of criteria for this analysis. DanaUllman^Talk 23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think his objectivity is highly suspect considering his other published support for alternative medicines. Just because he published some things in a quality journal by no means everything he publishes is gold. Same thing applies with Martin Chaplin, as I have told you previously. This particular study, in a low impact and low rated journal, regardless of it being peer-reviewed, is hardly independent, considering its lead author. I don't take issue with it being present, if and only if the questions brought up by OfftheFence are answered. If this was such an important meta-analysis, why is it 14 years old and no subsequent ones are discussed? Also, I have seen it constantly cited in nearly every homeopathic article on the web. One can only guess as to why it is held up as glorious proof. Baegis (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Linde meta-analysis that is cited by homoeopaths all over the web is the 1997 Lancet paper, of which Linde and Jonas have written in a letter published in The Lancet in 1995, "Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". The 1994 paper discussed here is comparatively obscure. Not that this makes any of your other points invalid; in fact if the 1994 paper is so authoritative about the efficacy of homoeopathy, it is a little odd that it has so rarely been referred to. Its lead author is hardly obscure in homoeopathic circles. Brunton (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have you got those dates right? Wrote in 1995 about a 1997 paper? Were they precogs as well as homeopaths?OffTheFence (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that would be more or less likely than homoeopathy working? I meant 2005, of course. Brunton (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis...in due respect, it seems that you haven't read the article here, but are just trying to argue. The fact of the matter is that there have been numerous follow-up studies to Cazin's set of studies...and they are referenced here. Further, there was a follow-up human trial...with clinical results and objective finding on liver enzymes. Please avoid stonewalling. And Linde seems to be an "advocate" for good science and for differentiating high quality vs. low quality research. He is an expert physician/epidemiologist who reports with sophistication on trials. Please cite RS that claims that his objectivity is in question, and stop your OR. Stop the silliness...your credibility is going. DanaUllman^Talk 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am trying to better the article, as opposed to inserting pro-homeopathy cruft into the article as you have continued to do. I am not discussing the Cazin study, but the Linde study. Stop referring to anyone who disagrees with you as being guilty of stonewalling. It is getting very tiresome. Not everyone is so jolly happy to see pushing of a pro homeopathy bent into every article while completely disregarding any problems with the whole practice of homeopathy; some of us actually want these articles to be encyclopedic. I have not seen any evidence than Linde is anything more than a single person who promotes alternative medicines. Instead of appealing to his degrees and positions, perhaps you would be served by actually acknowledging the fact his publishing history shows he has a vested interest in the furtherance of alternative medicine. The way that Arthur Rubin phrased it sits much better. I do not need to cite an RS to show how he is not independent, because there is no need. His position and publishing history make a clear enough case. Off topic, but still relevant, I have noticed that you have become much more bold in your attacks on other editors now that Whig is backing you up and your mentor has taken a long wiki break. Unless you wish for you time here on this project to be cut short (again), you need to seriously alter your editing habits. Do not attack other editors, as you have done so many times on this page. If you can't work with the other editors, your time and talents would prove to be more useful elsewhere. Baegis (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, as you know Dana is a relatively new editor. Inasmuch as I have been very pleased to have someone with actual knowledge of the subject here, I have tried to help him as well as I can, but I am not his mentor and anything that I say is my own opinion which Dana may or may not agree with. Contrary to your statements, LaraLove is still Dana's mentor and if you bring something to her attention I'm sure she will respond. In the meantime, you are not advancing the discussion here with your own opinions, if you have no reliable sources to back them. If you would like me to initiate a request on WP:RSN I will do so, or you can ask there yourself whether Linde is a reliable source for the purposes he is being cited. If you continue to make unsubstantiated criticisms here, you are disrupting in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But, Whig, you cannot describe yourself as an uninterested party when it comes to homeopathy, can you?OffTheFence (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because I used a homeopathic remedy and it worked for me? —Whig (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Did it? That, of course, is the unanswerable question.OffTheFence (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it unanswerable? I repeated it over 30 times, and made careful observations. However, that is OR and not for Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, because it was not blinded, randomised or controlled. The Aztecs carefully observed that the Sun rose reliably and verifiably each time they sacrificed at dawn. {very funny}They did not blind, randomise or control that observation and were wrong.OffTheFence (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What, the sun stopped rising? I wonder how a steak tastes without blinding, randomising and controlling it. —Whig (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that was a joke. They were "wrong" in that they had made a false inference based on inadequate data. You are now making a false analogy by introducing that idea about taste. Is this intended to be some kind of fallacy parade?OffTheFence (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this has been a lot of fun, but I need to go and do other things now so it is not rudeness if I don't acknowledge further comments for some time.OffTheFence (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just got time for this. Yes, it's only a web-page. Feel free to find a "reliable source". http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Central_america/aztec_gods_and_goddesses.htm. "According to Aztec legend, Coatlicue, goddess of the earth had given birth to the moon and stars. The moon, Coyolxauhqui, and the stars called, Centzonhuitznahuac, became jealous of Coatlicue's pregnancy with Huitzilopochtli. During his birth, Huitzilopochtli used the "serpent of fire" and the sun's rays to defeat the moon and stars. Every day the battle continues between day and night. The Mexica saw the sunrise as a daily victory for this deity over the forces of darkness. Huitzilopochtli can only be fed by Chalchihuatl, or the blood of sacrifice, to sustain him in his daily battle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OffTheFence (talk • contribs) 09:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in mythology, we have an article on Huitzilopochtli. It has no relevance here whatsoever except for your own bringing up a false analogy in the first place. You may however note that it does not confirm your account of the Aztecs making careful observations of sunrises being dependent upon daily sacrifices. As if they were stupid. —Whig (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that reference, it does not alter the logical basis of my analogy. It was not a false analogy. The facts of an analogy are not the same thing as its logical consistency and relation to the thing with which it is being compared http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy However, I would not want to use wrong or dubious facts egregiously, so you may have a choice of wordings, which still bear the same logical weight. EITHER The Aztecs carefully observed that the Sun rose reliably and verifiably because they regularly sacrificed at dawn. OR The Aztecs of the popular imagination carefully observed that the Sun rose reliably and verifiably each time they sacrificed at dawn. THE PUNCHLINE STAYS THE SAME They did not blind, randomise or control that observation and were wrong. This is a correct analogy. Your analogy that compares the subjective taste of steak with determining whether an intervention does or does not create a particular measurable outcome is so wrong it doesn't bear even trying to examine all its deficiencies. But this is all just shooting the breeze until Friend Dana returns with an accurate report of the content of the Cazin paper. I still thank you for leaving the word "reported" where I put it. We are dependent on our friend to allow us to decide whether any reference to Cazin or Linde is permissible.OffTheFence (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am purposefully not responding to your queries because the Linde paper confirms, according to their review of 30+ criteria, that the Cazin study has a greater than 50 QE, making it a high quality study. Anything else is simply OR. (By the way, it was your friend Dr88 who taught me how to speak wiki language. Bless his soul.) DanaUllman^Talk 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem not to be speaking it as a native yet: interpreting Linde is OR. Citing accurately from Cazin itself would not be.OffTheFence (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask on WP:NORN if you don't like WP:RSN. Figure out where you want to take this dispute or start an RfC or do something other than this repetitive harassment. —Whig (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, please be so kind as to give an honest answer to a direct question. Have you read the Cazin paper itself or not?OffTheFence (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that he has read the Cazin paper, and does not wish to engage in meta-analysis for your benefit, which is not the proper role of editors here. We use secondary sources for meta-analyses, and in this case the secondary source we have is Linde. —Whig (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, he hasn't indicated he's read the Cazin paper, and we cannot use Linde to state that Cazin is a "high quality study", because it (at least, according to OffTheFence), doesn't say that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Further up the page Dana said of the Cazin paper, "I could re-review the paper to find out if it was randomized". That does imply he has read it. However, having looked at all the information that seems to have been drawn from Cazin it all seems to be from Linde's references to Cazin. There is no evidence of anything being directly from Cazin. He has said "The bottomline is that the Linde (1994) described the Cazin trial as "high quality." Blinding is a necessary (!) component of high quality" That implies that Cazin must have been blinded but Dana's statement seems to be an inference drawn from Linde not a quote from Cazin. He has also said in response to further questioning about randomisation in the Cazin paper" the Linde paper required that the studies included in their final meta-analysis had to have a QE of 50 or greater AND had to have "no major methodological deficiencies."", which can only mean that a lack of randomisation would be a "major methodological deficienc[y]" and that Cazin was randomised. But again Dana has drawn an inference from Linde's meta-analysis, or, in your incorrect phraseology, done a meta-analysis. In other words with respect to the blinding and randomisation issues Dana seems to agree that their absence would be major flaws in Cazin, but he is using indirect evidence from Linde that Cazin's paper lacked these flaws. So much simpler if he were just to give us a quotation directly from Cazin then it could go straight into the Article to support its importance.OffTheFence (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, I am sure that Dana can cite directly from the Cazin paper. I'm not sure why you think this requires a meta-analysis of the Cazin paper. It would benefit the points he wants in the Article to get closer to the primary source of the information. With respect to those Aztecs, you were keen to bring me closer to primary data on a matter that only appears as an aside and only on this Talk page not an Article page. The primary source is "verifiable" and in Wikipedia's narrow sense it is "reliable". Would you really want to stand in the way of using it? So, please, allow Dana to answer for himself.OffTheFence (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New clinical trial to report

I found this other double-blind and placebo controlled "pilot study." Although the researchers seem to be a similar group as the other human trial, the numbers of people involved in this study seems to be different and suggests that this is a separate and additional clinical trial. [16] As in the other clinical trial, the researchers found dramatic objective changes in toicity biomarkers and pathological parameters in blood. This journal is notable, and so is this study. DanaUllman^Talk 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

" but as many as 14, mostly placebo-fed subjects, later dropped out." What? Like it was 13.7 subjects that dropped out. Good to see you have a sense of humour.OffTheFence (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm unclear when you "found" this "New clinical trial to report", but its use was criticised on the 27th January 2008 if you look back up the page.OffTheFence (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, considerably more patients taking the placebo dropped out...which provides additional evidence of a clinically beneficial effect from the homeopathic treatment. Thanx for that supportive comment. And I didn't find that critique of this study. Where precisely?DanaUllman^Talk 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First para of the section "Ullman's Studies". Now, if you would please turn your attention to the Cazin/Linde problem. I shall helpfully pick out the issues at the bottom of the Cazin section, for the umpteenth timeOffTheFence (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's evidence of experimental problems, rather than efficacy of the treatment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure OR Dana, that is pure OR. No quality researcher would EVER, I repeat, EVER make that case. Baegis (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The journal, Science of the Total Environment, is a respected journal with an international editorial board and with a reasonably good impact factor of 2.359. The above editors can say what they want about this study, but I'm more interested in what reliable sources say. I trust the peer-review process much more than anonymous wiki-editors. I agree that I cannot say with authority why more people taking a placebo in this trial dropped out, even though one might assume that the reduced drop-out rate in the treatment group might have been because the treatment group was getting more benefit. However, one can say that the patients in this trial who were in the treatment group experienced therapeutic benefits AND have dramatic changes in toxicity biomarkers and pathological parameters in their blood. Unless an editor can make reference to a published critique of this study, it deserves a short acknowledgement in this article and a reference to it. DanaUllman^Talk 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what happens when you assume Dana. You can say whatever you want about the results, but this was a pilot study with only 39 total people partaking in the study. 14 of them dropped out during the duration. That's nearly a 36% drop out rate. This study is of far too poor quality to be included in any discussion about the topic. Plus, as mentioned above, it was funded and researched by a homeopathic supplement manufacturer. Would you seriously expect an objective bit of research? We already went through this once. Just because Vanished User is no longer here, does not mean you bring the same thing up less than a month later. Baegis (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not discuss that person. —Whig (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, neither you or I are on the editorial board of the prestigious journal in which this study was published. You accurately stated that there was a higher drop-out rate in the placebo group. Of the group that completed the study, there was various objective measures that showed results in the treatment group that were significant different than the placebo group. Yes, this was a "pilot" study, and this pilot study adds to the body of research for this medicine. It should be mentioned just as the other human clinical pilot study was mentioned. Please avoid OR. Was there a letter to the editor or a subsequent article critique this study that I missed? DanaUllman^Talk 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop with the platitudes about this journal. It may have a good impact factor but it is hardly prestigious. It is the 28th best journal in its field (Environmental Sciences), rated by impact factor. I also noticed that in all of the other issues of the journal, nowhere does another homeopathic article appear. With such a ridiculously high drop out rate, there are no quality conclusions that can be drawn. If, as the article states, most of the drop out happened in the placebo group, this causes any comparison between the two groups to be highly suspect. Going from the article, they had a group of 22 that received the AA30 and a group of 17 that received the placebo. When time came to recheck the participants urine, only 5 of the placebo group showed up. Five people. Statistically, it is impossible to make any conclusions about the placebo group based solely on 5 people. So no, this poor quality study does not add anything meaningful to the article. One final parting shot, I also found it interesting that the participants were asked to participate only if they showed signs of arsenic poisoning. Nowhere did the study mention if they actually were suffering from arsenic poisoning. There were no hair follicle tests. Who knows how many members of both groups were actually sick from an unrelated disorder or illness. Arsenic poisoning shares some symptoms with many other diseases and without a test for actual arsenic poisoning, the study is of poor quality. Baegis (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cazin and Linde

I have now looked at the Cazin paper in some detail and here is what I have found.OffTheFence (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Cazin: no report of blinding or randomisation. No adjustment made for multiple comparisons. Bizarre (in terms of homeopathic doctrine) dose-response curves.

re: Linde: Blinding and Randomisation % are tiny (1.3 and 7.8%). Cazin cannot be part of that % because we now know it was not reported as B&R.

re: Linde's definition of high quality and Dana's quoting of what was "high quality". QE is not defined. Dana has cited QE as if it was some externally verifiable standard of quality. It is not. Linde et al cite no source to verify what QE means and have not defined it within the paper. It appears to be an invention of the editors. The proportion of QE >50% was 43% so this must include studies that were not or did not report B&R. Dana has put in quotes "high quality" for QE>50%. Linde has not defined that, it is Dana's interpretation. We saw the same with the citation of the Frass study. The phrase "substantially significant" was used by Dana, but it eventually emerged that this was an interpretation not a direct quotation despite its having been placed in quotation marks. In this instance, the words "high quality" do literally appear in the article, as do many other words, but their use in Dana's context does not derive from Linde but his own WP:OR.

Even if Linde had made the definition that their 43% QE>50% = "high quality", this category contains many articles that are not B&R. A maximum of 1.3 of those 43% were randomised. Therefore at least 97% (=(43-1.3)/43) of these allegedly "high quality" studies were not randomised. At least 79% (=(43-(1.3+7.8))/43) were neither B nor R. Based on what he has said, Dana now cannot avoid accepting that lack of B&R is a "major methodological deficienc[y]". So in a real-world sense most of Linde's QE>50% have at least two major flaws and therefore cannot be high quality in any normal sense. It also means that Linde is internally contradictory because their subset of papers that do not have "major methodological deficiencies" must include a high proportion that do have "major methodological deficiencies" . Linde may be a "reliable source" in that it is from a peer-reviewed journal, some quotes from it can be verified, but it is hopelessly, woefully, badly performed.

Dana has correctly reported that Cazin is one of Linde's QE>50% papers, which Dana equates with "high quality". He has also explicitly stated that " Blinding is a necessary (!) component of high quality" and he said in response to questioning about randomisation in the Cazin paper "that the Linde paper required that the studies included in their final meta-analysis had to have a QE of 50 or greater AND had to have "no major methodological deficiencies."", which can only mean that a lack of randomisation would be a "major methodological deficienc[y]" and that therefore Cazin was randomised. I have the Cazin paper in front of me literally as I type this and it does not report either blinding or randomisation. I shall let Dana explain this discrepancy, but for now let it stand that Cazin bore what Dana acknowledged as "major methodological deficiencies".

Linde is poor quality. Cazin is poor quality. Linde's analysis is defective and internally contradictory. There is a discrepancy between the way Cazin has been represented in this discussion and what the paper actually reports. Both are from "reliable sources" and the study contents are "verifiable" so some of Wikipedia's boxes are ticked. But, neither should be cited in the Article space. If either is cited I shall provide "balance" by editing to add direct quotations (not interpretations or Whig's "meta-analysis") that clarify what are their deficiencies. However, balancing these pathetic efforts would still lend them WP:UNDUE, better to publicly withdraw them from consideration (and bury them in a hole forever!).

In conclusion, friend Dana, you asked earlier "If my edits have untruths, please provide verifiable of them. Show us your evidence...and please do not allege that my quotes above are not "verifiable" just because you personally do not seem to have a copy of the article." I have now gone to the trouble and expense of providing "verifiable of them". QED.

I am very sorry that it has come to this. You have had repeated opportunities to correct any false impression that may have been given in the period while I have been waiting for the opportunity to report directly from the Cazin paper itself rather than Linde's second-hand account of it. On the assumption that you had read Cazin these matters could have been resolved easily. Also had you accepted that there was a serious problem with Linde's analysis there would have been no need to take things further. I do not know why you chose to act in the way you did but it is unfortunate that matters had to be brought to a head like this.OffTheFence (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have refused to comment on the Cazin paper because my comments woud simply be OR. I instead rely upon a meta-analysis that was published in a respected peer-review journal by highly respected physician/scientists who specialize in evaluating research. OffTheFence's above statement is simply and purely OR and is his own POV. He has deemed Linde's meta-analysis to be poor, but he has not referenced a single peer-review article that refers to it as such. Whooops. He also just happened to not mention that the abstract of the Linde review noted that positive effects were reported in 50% more of the "high quality" studies than negative effects...and Linde specifically points to the Cazin studies (four of them) that became a part of their inclusion of their meta-analysis that required a QE of 50 or higher. I earlier made fun of the idea of "randomization" by asking if it was necessary to separate out blue-eyed rats and brown-eyed rats, and I still assert that this humorous assertion is still valid. Perhaps randomization isn't a necessary component to rat research. I cannot comment on what is and isn't necessary for defining "high quality" in this kind of research, nor can or should OffTheFence, but the Linde paper notes that they evaluated between 24 and 31 criteria (depending on the model studied), and we must honor this. Just as "blinding" is not appropriate for research on surgery, we must assume that there are different criteria for defining high quality in different fields of inquiry. I simply ask editors here to provide RS and Verifiable references because I do not care to read your own ideas. I am not an expert on environmental toxicology in animal studies, so I must refer to the literature, as must OffTheFence. The difference is that he provides no references. Where's the RS beef? DanaUllman^Talk 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that OffTheFence has the right of it. No one has actually quoted Linde as saying "high quality", he said QE > 50. Cazin might be referenced as marginally reliable, but Linde doesn't support it being "high quality". (And, actually, Linde 2005 (letter) referred to Linde 1994 being a poor study. He should know.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Arthur, please (!) simply read the abstract of the Linde paper. He uses the word "high quality" there, and the statistic that he uses in this abstract is in reference to the same body of research that has a QE of > 50. This is undeniable. OffTheFence conveniently avoids acknowledging this fact.As for the Linde 2005 letter, I do not have a copy of it, although I had thought that I did (and I can get it)...but in the meantime, what is his exact quote...and please show some context. DanaUllman^Talk 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jonas, Kaptchuck, and Linde wrote an article, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," in Annals of Internal Medicine (March 4, 2003, 138,5:393-400), in which they reference the 1994 Linde et al meta-analysis, in which they say "unusual effects of ultra- high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported." (page 397) I'm not yet clear what Linde may have said in 2005, but this 2003 statement in a published article in a very notable journal will probably supercede any "letter" that he wrote to the Lancet. Linde, by the way, is a common reviewer for the Cochrane Reports. When some editors above refer to him as "biased", they are showing their own strongly-held POV. DanaUllman^Talk 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Many things "continue to be reported" [17]OffTheFence (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2003 comment isn't a comment on the quality of the 1994 paper, but a comment on its findings. It says nothing about the quality of the 1994 Linde paper and nothing specific about the quality of Cazin. Brunton (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend Dana, I note that you have not attempted to refute any of the analysis I have made of the Linde and Cazin papers [18]. You also seem to be appealing to your own personal ignorance of statistical methods. That can be remedied. [19] [20] [21] Linde's finding about what they define as QE>50% studies ceases to have any validity once we have understood more about their QE. Obviously this is all, in Wikipedia terms, OR, I am not pretending otherwise. but unless you can refute it you are demanding to include a bad study solely because no WP:RS source can be found to quote where someone published these same conclusions. But there is no need for a WP:RS source to be included in the main Article to confront Linde if you had the simple humility to withdraw it now we have discussed the matter thoroughly here. If you do not withdraw it then you are just hiding behind these technical excuses to push a bad study into the main Article. Are you still maintaining that you have read the Cazin paper? Do you now agree that Cazin was neither Blinded nor Randomized.OffTheFence (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless Dana volunteers to remove the Cazin and Linde references from the Article I shall add some appropriate (non-OR) facts from either or both, but that just gets messy.OffTheFence (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You will be reported if you make these changes. I have made reference to a 2003 statement that confirms that Jonas and Linde considered their review of "rigorous laboratory studies." But what have you referenced? Monty Python? Whooops. I have read the Cazin study, but neither I or you are the judge of this article. Unless you can provide a RS for it saying that it has significant problems, the information and the reference must stay. Them there are the rules. DanaUllman^Talk 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, scary. I note that as someone who read the Cazin article you implied it was blinded. Perhaps I need to remind you- "Dana has correctly reported that Cazin is one of Linde's QE>50% papers, which Dana equates with "high quality". He has also explicitly stated that " Blinding is a necessary (!) component of high quality"". We now know it was not blinded. I shall AGF and assume this was an honest mistake. The presence or absence of an RS to set against these poor papers is indeed a problem given that their content has at the very least been accidentally misrepresented and is woefully poor. I see you are content to exploit an apparent deficiency in the rules to try to engineer poor data staying in a Wikipedia page. That must be a source of pride.OffTheFence (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't be difficult to find a WP:RS that studies which are not randomized and not blinded are not "high quality". It would be OR to apply that to Cazin in the article, but it wouldn't be OR to use that fact to remove Cazin from the article. We have to apply research to decide which reliable sources are notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had really hoped that having put all this effort into making the deficiencies in these papers self-evident that this would be sufficient. Do the Wikipedia pages I linked to count sufficiently as WP:RS for the necessity of blinding and randomisation or should we find an external source...to show that normal good practice in experimental design is a good thing! Sheesh! If I had criticised, on a Talk page, a paper whose central claim assumed that gravity didn't exist, I would hope that we would not have to cite a physics book to suggest that this is not a valid notion. Sadly, though, faced with the intransigence we are seeing, you are probably right.OffTheFence (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped not to do this, but what if I wave WP:REDFLAG over this whole area and see what survives? I remain astonished that having had the credibility of these papers destroyed the moral imperative to remove them does not seem obvious to everyone.OffTheFence (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's an alternative. [22] "Evaluating experiments and studies-There are techniques that scientists use to prevent common errors, and to help others replicate results. Some characteristics to look for are experimental control (such as placebo controls), and double-blind methods for medical studies. Detail about the design and implementation of the experiment should be available, as well as raw data. Reliable studies don't just present conclusions." We are enjoined to apply reasonable standards in evaluating RS. That is what I have done. Linde and Cazin both failed to qualify.OffTheFence (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my previous reference to the Cazin study as blind was an honest mistake. I am not an expert on animal research in environmental toxicology, and for this, I can only quote others such as Linde (1994). Thanks for honoring AGF. That said, Annals in Internal Medicine, cited above, allowed the authors to assert that their previous review of "rigorous studies." Unless you are also planning to insert into ALL surgery articles that they are "unscientific" because few surgeries have been proven to be effective through double-blind trials, you have to realize that certain scientific fields consider their research to be "high quality" even without randomization and/or blinding. Unless you can cite that blinding and randomization is essential for environmental toxicology studies on rodents, these studies and their results stand. DanaUllman^Talk 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology over the mistake. To be clear, we now accept that Cazin was not blinded. We also agree that "Blinding is a necessary (!) component of high quality". Therefore Cazin was not "high quality". I think we're there at last.OffTheFence (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is another logical consequence. Cazin was NOT high quality AND Cazin had QE>50%. Therefore QE>50% was not high quality, no matter whether Linde thought that was what it meant and no matter that's what you think it meant. Linde is internally contradictory and Cazin is not high quality. Which I think I have said before.OffTheFence (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unaware of double blind randomized placebo controlled trials to support my contention, but my personal experience of pain is substantially reduced since my hip replacement surgery. —Whig (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cazin isn't really enviromental toxicology. It is a straight forward animal based clinical trial for a novel drug/remedy and for that randomised double blind placebo control is an absolute requirement.Geni 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be a valid criticism, do you have a verifiable and reliable source? —Whig (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The FDA (since it is an actual trial the grandfathering of homeopathy is not an issue) NICE (again since it is an actualy trial). Take your pick goverment medical agencies really. Your other option would be the Pharmacology text book of your choice.Geni 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would share this comment I have received by e-mail by someone who has read this page- "That's getting surreal. Is it OR to actually read a paper and make up your mind about what it says now?" I don't think its writer will be joining us as an editor.OffTheFence (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence, since you are a new editor at wikipedia, you need to know that you must provide [WP:RS] for your statements. I quoted from a study in a peer-review journal, a meta-analysis published in a relatively high-impact journal, and an article in Annals in Internal Medicine which referred to the meta-analysis as a review of "rigorous" trials. Unless you can provide us with reliable sources that are notable, you only have [WP:OR]...and this may have a place on the Talk pages, but not on the article pages. To clarify, we all make mistakes here, and I previously acknowledged that my incorrect statement that blinding was necessary component of high quality was wrongly stated. If only blinded experiments were a "required" component of high quality research, virtually all surgerical research would not be high quality. DanaUllman^Talk 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether the source is a reliable source. Which people are saying it isn't. It's is not OR to say that a source does not meet Wikipedia's policies. This is the role of it's editors. Shot info (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[Arthur_Rubin], I just acknowledged a mistake that I made, and I'd like to ask you to do likewise. On Feb 26th, you wrote: "Linde doesn't support it being "high quality". (And, actually, Linde 2005 (letter) referred to Linde 1994 being a poor study. He should know.)" I have just obtained a copy of the Linde letter, and he doesn't refer to the 1994 meta-analysis at all. In fact, although he makes reference to his 1997 meta-analysis, he provides much much more damaging analysis of the Shang (2005) review of research (which he and others blow out of the water as unscientific and unethical...yeah, that bad). DanaUllman^Talk 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread a description of the letter. However, I don't think we can refer to a non-randomized not blind study as "high quality", even if a (generally) reliable source states it is. As the journal Cazin appears in is only marginally, reliable, we can use external sources as to the content to determine whether it should be in the article. Linde failing to state blinded may be sufficient to reverse the initial decision to include Cazin, even if Linde did refer to it as "high quality" (which may or may not be the case). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes these criticisms, that would be helpful. Otherwise, we have to follow the sources we have. —Whig (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. [23] There seems to be a large body of support for taking a more sensible approach. OffTheFence (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the self-consistency of my critiques does not seem to have enough weight, I shall also forget my PhD in pharmacology lest I be accused of arguing from authority (or even of lying!), so for the statistically naive I have a couple of quotes for you from one of my stats books: "By using sound principles of experimental design and, in particular, randomization, data can be generated that provide a more sound basis for deducing causality." and randomization serves "to guarantee inferential validity in the face of unspecified disturbances" Statistics for Experimenters. Box et al. Wiley Interscience (1978). Just thought I'd add that while we wait for people to mull this things over. OffTheFence (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in this pause, I'd like to ask Dana a question. Had you realised that the if the Cazin results were taken at face value they show the opposite effect to what homeopathy would predict? The only statistically significant effects were reported at pharmaceutical concentrations of arsenic. The "sub-Avogadrean" dilutions are non-significant, once adjustment is made for the multiple comparisons they did [24] and actually reported in the paper as non-significant for the highest potency. I have been drafting a new version of the entry and I think I would include this information because it comes straight from the source. In fact I am probably keener now to retain mention of these papers (as suggested by Eldereft [25]) but to suitably edit their entries. Is that helpful? OffTheFence (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeking advice for fixing error

The following sentence is partially incorrect: "Some studies claim an effect for arsenicum album;[4][5][6] however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community.[3][7][8]" None of the latter 3 references to the scientific community not accepting these studies mention any of the Arsenicum album studies. What is seemingly meant here is that the scientific community is skeptical of homeopathy, but unless we can provide reference to the skepticism of the Arsenicum album studies specfically, we need to change this sentence or delete it. DanaUllman^Talk 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Better now? —Whig (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some "fringe" studies claim . . .

It appears to be highly inappropriate to add an adjective like "fringe" to the statement "Some studies claim". What possible improvement to the article does such an intrusion of a POV bring? Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arion here and will file this one under "what were you thinking?" Please take this in the humorous way it is written. That said, it is good to know that people who support homeopathy do not always agree with each other...and that's OK too. DanaUllman^Talk 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem that the studies being referenced are to fringe journals rather than the normal mainstream journals. The "Human Toxicology" study isn't really about what the summary statement in the intro says. I'm going to remove it as being a POV infraction. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDFLAG. The sourcing being attempted here is extremely dubious. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims" may be required for areas of inquiry where there is not much evidence, but this is certainly not true about homeopathy. There are numerous meta-analyses of clinical trials, including several disease-specific reviews, published in RS and notable journals. RS and N are enough. There are also meta-analyses of in vitro trials. Please avoid making significant changes in the article without dialogue first. Please also note that the correct name of the journal of the Linde review is "Human and Experimental Toxicology". It is not a "fringe journal", unless you consider its American editor at Harvard and its international editorial board to be "fringe" [26] DanaUllman^Talk 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah numerous. Tend to either be badly done negative or posible and unrepeatable. or some combination thereof. Against that you have rather a lot of analytical chemistry papers that suggest that no such effect exists. Thus we are firmly in extrodinary claims territory.Geni 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are simply appealing to the authority of the institutions where these people work. It doesn't work that way. And this "fringe" journal (whose name you can't even spell correctly (no 'and' but '&')) is ranked 57/76 in it's field with a very low impact factor. Seems to be on the fringes of it's own field. Baegis (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now "fringe" is even being applied to journals so as to justify excluding their relevant data! Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I still find it extraordinary that some editors want to hide behind the skirts of a narrow and wikilawyerish reading of Wikipedia's rules to retain information in an article whose reliability has been self-evidently discredited in a manner that those editors have been unable to refute.OffTheFence (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN, if necessary. —Whig (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arsenicum_album. —Whig (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some "fringe" studies claim . . ."Hence...[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by OffTheFence (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Linde (1994) Meta-analysis and the Cazin article

OffTheFence, now that you have both articles, you will note on p. 486 of the Linde paper that there were 9 experiments using high potencies of Arsenicum album that had a positive finding and 4 experiments that didn't (all of which had a QE of >50). When and if you plan to show details about the Cazin study, I will be curious if you noted the previous observation. We both will note that the medium potencies (as defined by 11X to 23X) had even better results, showing 16 positive studies and only 2 negative ones. I'm glad that we're providing more specificity here. DanaUllman^Talk 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if accurate, that may not appear in the article. Selecting results from a meta-analysis is WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Where in the WP:OR policy does it say that we cannot summarize meta-analyses? —Whig (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets go with the part about SYNTH. Should be clear to anyone who reads the policy. Baegis (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would you like to excerpt the relevant part that says we cannot describe a meta-analysis? —Whig (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We can describe a meta-analysis, we cannot excerpt from a meta-analysis. It becomes clearly WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what WP:SYNTH says. It says we cannot combine two sources to advance a third position. —Whig (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We also cannot combine two (loosely) related comments from the same source to attempt to justify a conclusion which that source doesn't make. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Particularly in the case of a meta-analysis, in which (in some cases) none of the individual studies is considered of acceptable quality for a stand-alone analysis, but an overall analysis can still be attempted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We might not be able to describe Cazin as "high quality" in the article space, but SYNTH isn't implicated in determining whether it or Linde (1994) is a reliable source. —Whig (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend Dana, I think if you are wanting to bringing other studies now, I'll shelve my draft. All I would ask is that you do the following things that I shall indent below this. OffTheFence (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead with mention of Linde not Cazin, because it is the secondary source and Wikipedia regards those as a better thing. In leading with Linde, if you wish to refer to the meta-analysis of the QE>50% studies, say that "almost all" (or similar words) were not blinded. That is well within the "obvious deductions" principle [28] and should be reported.OffTheFence (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Describe Cazin as "unblinded and non-randomised". No need for elaboration or explanation, it just lets the facts speak for themselves. OffTheFence (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Describe that Cazin reported an effect at 10^-14 concentration, but that at the highest homeopathic potencies of 200C and 1M there was no effect reported (where this seems to be the best Wiki link to use to describe potencies- | potency but I don't seem to have the syntax quite right with that stray vertical line! ). If you do that and keep away from making unduly weighty claims about any of the new studies for reasons similar to the ones that we have mentioned (for instance, a report of the Belon, Bannerjee et al paper would have to note the dropout rate) then I shall be content and regard this whole exercise as a victory for Wikipedia not you or me. OffTheFence (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreeable? OffTheFence (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the Article in line with the above suggestions since Dana has not done so though he has been actively editing elsewhere. I have lead with Linde, because that is a secondary source and should be accorded more weight under Wikipedia's guidelines. IIn accord with the discussions of the papers I have mentioned their obvious deficits to bring the discussion in line with WP:WEIGHT etc. I have also made mention of Cazin's apparent dose-response effect. I have also streamlined the rest of the section. I hope people are happy with this. OffTheFence (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana has now agreed[29] a standard for meta-analyses which the Linde paper fails so I have removed reference to it and also to the Cazin study, which was of poor quality and only featured as cited by the secondary source Linde. OffTheFence (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence has misinterpreted my statement. First, I never said that THIS meta-analysis was not high quality...please show me which of my sentences said this. If you cannot do this, please self-revert. Further, the Arsenicum article here highlighted this meta-analysis' definition of "high quality" studies that showed 27 having positive results and 13 with negative results. I wrote that we should only discuss "high quality" work as defined by secondardy sources (such as THIS meta-analysis). This meta-analysis was conducted by leading physicians who evaluate research, including work for Cochrane Reports. Please provide a secondary source for why the Cazin study is not high quality, and this secondary source should be stronger than the positive statement about it in Linde (1994). DanaUllman^Talk 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are going in circles. We have established that Cazin's study was performed badly. We do not need an RS source to say that. I was just being nice to you in compromising to permit its inclusion while highlighting its self-evident failings. When you showed some evidence of recognising what was meant by a good meta-analysis I thought the time was ripe to remove the embarrassingly poor Linde study and the Cazin study that hangs from it. But you want them retained warts and all. So be it. However, to move things on, perhaps you'd like to comment on the essential importance of individualisation in homeopathy and how it relates to the experiments reported by Linde and Cazin. OffTheFence (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur and OffTheFence, I just placed a reference from an editorial by the editor of Human Toxicology in the article. This editorial appeared in the same issue as the Cazin study. This editor, Paul Turner, is very highly regarded. This should provide closure here. DanaUllman^Talk 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur...slow down, you move too fast. I AGF, but please note you got confused between Linde's writings in 2005 about his meta-analysis about clinical research that was published in the Lancet in 1997. He did NOT write about the meta-analysis he and others did in 1994 on environmental toxicology. Heck, we all make mistakes. That said, you need to read (or re-read what Linde wrote in 2005 about his clinical meta-analysis because you and some other editors tend to either mis-quote it or not describe it accurately. DanaUllman^Talk 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Friend, as I have pointed out to you multiple times Linde et al do not define "high quality" in their paper. They report that they assessed something called a Quality Evaluation score, but the vast majority of studies that they assert had a high QE score were neither blinded nor randomised. We infer from the context in the paper that they regarded QE>50% as equating with "high quality" but at no point in the paper is this said directly. However, in any normal sense of the word, since such studies were neither blinded nor randomised then they are not "high quality". I do not need an RS source to say this, it is normal practice. It may be that you are unfamiliar with the practicalities of experimental design, but these are not difficult concepts and have been spelled out now on several occasions. I have modified the article again, but the bald facts make Linde et al look like dimwits. OffTheFence (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

30X potency vs. 12C potency

Could someone explain this? We should have a consistent way of describing potency. I have no idea how 30X and 12C are different. --JaGa (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to explain it: X = dilution of 1 in 10; C (centesimal) = dilution of 1 in 100. Later in Hahnemann's life, he also developed the LM potencies which are dilutions of 1 to 50,000. Please note that homeopathic manufacturers use mechanical devices to vigorously shake the solutions 40 times in-between each dilution. The X potencies are sometimes called the D potencies (for the word Decimal). DanaUllman^Talk 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The number before the C or X, by the way, refers to the number of times the tenfold or hundredfold dilution has been carried out. At each stage the results of the previous dilution are taken and diluted again. So (looking just at the dilutions involved), a 6X preparation has overall been diluted 1 in 1,000,000 and a 30C has overall been diluted 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Brunton (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Brunton, that number is akin to counting the number of molecules in a drug or the number of molecules that a person ingests in a year's worth of drug treatment. It would serve only to scare people, or in the homeopathic example, it would serve to make people think that there's nothing there, when, in fact, where are numbers for the force created from the 40 vigorous shaking of the glass vial per dilution? Ignoring forces from the shaking process is like trying to explain an atomic bomb and atomic reactions by counting atoms...that isn't the point...it is the motion, not just the meat. DanaUllman^Talk 04:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, Dana, that I actually wrote "looking just at the dilutions". The figures I gave above for the dilutions are accurate, are they not? I was merely making clear the results of serial dilution, in case your explanation had given rise to any doubt. But you raise a good point: where are the numbers for the "force" created by succussion? Has this "force" been measured? What specific effects does it have? How are those effects specific to the particular solute? Your "atomic bomb" analogy is flawed. The energy produced by an atomic bomb comes (in the case of a fusion bomb) from a certain number of atoms splitting, and thus a certain amount of matter being converted to energy - if you know how much energy is produced by each atom splitting and how much energy the bomb produces, you have in effect counted the atoms involved. Brunton (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any work that has been done to measure the force, though Elia has shown excess heat emanating from homeopathic medicine that even seems to increase in time, not decrease. As for the dilution issue, the 1 in 60 zeros misses the point of what is involved with a homeopathic medicine, and thus, it has no useful place here. My example of the atomic bomb may or may not an accurate analogy, but it is correct in asserting that unless one understands force and motion, one cannot properly understand or appreciate either atomic energy or homeopathic energy. I'm glad that you didn't bring up that very silly metaphor about lakes, oceans, and the like because the 30C potency requires 30 testtubes of water. DanaUllman^Talk 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, do you even realize how obviously wrong those studies are and how totally botched their methodology must be to reach these conclusions? I quote: "Elia has shown excess heat emanating from homeopathic medicine that even seems to increase in time, not decrease" Don't you realize that Elia is claiming to have discovered homeopathic cold fusion?

If this study were to be replicated, and it was found that he measured it correctly and that the effect exists, then he would win both the Nobel of Physics and the Nobel of Chemistry together by popular aclamation, and homeopathy would become the new oil industry. Really, stop presenting flawed studies as if they were the Holy Grial. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Dana is trying to paraphrase from this study here [30] (and getting it wrong). As you can see this study has several flaws, and is already being discussed on the water memory page (where it is also being advocated by Dana). Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dana, and you're referring to a different study. I was also going to point Dana to the serial dilution page, to help him understand the dilution concentrations, however if you look at his talk page archives you can see that at least four people have tried to explain this to him. Dana, the fact that a 30C dilution requires only 30 test tubes of water is irrelevant, and that is not disputed. Do you have a proof that serial dilution calculations don't work? A verifiable and reliable source (one not associated with homeopathy, say a chemistry textbook) that shows the analogies to be incorrect? They have been found good enough for inclusion on the homeopathy page, using a volume much larger than any you suggest. >>Partyoffive (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<

It's just a matter of simple arithmetic. Brunton (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into this in some depth, there is a huge amount of confusion, inconsistency and contradiction in the homeopathic literature about potencies and succussion. Some say that M1 is 1000C. Some say M1 is dilution by 1 in 1000. If you look carefully you will find multiple descriptions of how to prepare LM doses, all different, and none appear to be dilution by 1 in 50,000. Some advocate 10 succusions between dilution (even suggesting that if one succusses 9 or 11 times the dose will be ruined). Some 40. Some 100. Some dilute 1 part active ingredient in 9 parts of diluent, and some in 10 to form 1X or D1 preparations. And so on. It is all pretty confused.--Filll (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify (because it seems that several above editors are making incorrect assumption), I chose to allude to Elia's studies in non-homeopathic journals: Elia and another professor of chemistry published an important study in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences on the thermodynamics of extremely dilute aqueous solutions that undergo a process of sequential dilution with vigorous shaking in-between dilutions (this is the same process by which homeopathic medicines are made). [Elia, V., Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqeous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 199:241-248]. The researchers found that there was “excess heat” that lasted for many months in the double-distilled water that underwent sequential dilution and shaking, whether there was a medicinal solution initially placed in it or not. These same researchers has conducted other experiments and have verified that not only does the way homeopathic medicines are made lead to “excess heat,” they have also found that the process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking) leads to higher electrical conductivity and changes in the pH of the water.[ Elia, V., Niccoli, M. New Physico-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 75(2004):815-836.] DanaUllman^Talk 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, to clarify, X means a dilution of 1 in 10 (or one part medicine with 9 parts diluant); C means a dilution of 1 in 100; LM means a dilution of 1 in 50,000; M or 1M is the same, and there is no pharmacy I know that makes a dilution of 1 in 1,000; rather, M or 1M means that the medicine was diluted 1 in 100 one-thousand times, with vigorous succussion/shaking in-between each dilution, usually 40 times. I have never seen that one extra or one less shaking is significant. Let's avoid creating strawmen here, or if you do, show a reference to a RS who wrote something embarrassingly wrong. DanaUllman^Talk 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are indeed the standard definitions. Unfortunately, there are others that claim otherwise. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana wrote, "The researchers found that there was “excess heat” that lasted for many months in the double-distilled water that underwent sequential dilution and shaking, whether there was a medicinal solution initially placed in it or not."

How was it insulated? Brunton (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, it would help if you could reference the "others" who claim otherwise.

Brunton, we don't need to get into the details here, especially if editorial boards of RS publication do this. I assume the NY Academy of Science is RS, as Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. DanaUllman^Talk 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, see WP:REDFLAG, also know as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This claim that the water kept releasing for months the heat that was stored on it by the shaking is way out of wack. Replication by independient labs or it didn't happen. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest, none of the homeopathic sources I have found seem particularly reliable on anything, including homeopathy. But here is a source that claims 1M is the same as 1 part in 1000. There are many others, but I gather this is not the standard definition of 1M. Also, Tinus Smits video gives a definition of 1C as 1 part in 101, not 1 part in 100, etc. There are again many similar sources that claim something different from the standard definition of 1C, 2C, 3C, etc. Also, there are a variety of other potency scales, like that for the Swan potency scale, for which 3 1/3 revolutions, or 333 1/3 cubic inches of water, with

• 1 drop of tincture, makes the 1M potency.
• 1/10 drop of 1M, makes the 10M potency.
• 1/3 drop of 10M, makes the 30M potency.
• 1/5 drop of 10M, makes the 50M potency.
• 1/5 drop of 50M, makes the CM potency.
• 1/5 drop of CM, makes the DM potency.
• 1/10 drop of CM, makes the MM potency.
• 1/10 drop of MM, makes the 10MM potency.
• 1/5 drop of 10MM, makes the 50MM potency.
• 1/5 drop of 50MM, makes the CMM potency.
• 1/5 drop of CMM, makes the DMM potency.
• 1/5 drop of DMM, makes the MMM potency.

From [31]. One can find other variations as well that are nonstandard. Then,

The process for making the LM1 dilution is to take a medicated round pellet of lactose/sucrose using a 3C potency (on the basis of one drop to medicate 500 poppy seed size pellets). This pellet is dissolved in 100 drops of water/alcohol and succussed. This represents the LM1. The LM2 is made then by taking one drop and medicating 500 pellets, wherefrom one is dissolved in another 100 drops of water alcohol. Again, one drop of this is used to medicate 500 pellets or fine globules. The 3C potency is arrived at by the process of trituration.

from [32] obviously comes nowhere close to producing 1 part in 50,000 for LM1, and 1 part in 2.5 x 10⁹ for LM2. And not all descriptions of how to prepare LM1 and LM 2 etc are the same. I could go on and on and on.--Filll (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, good try, but weak. The 1st reference was not to a homeopathic site at all; it was some "holistic" site that had a short ill-informed short article on the homeopathic potentization process. I didn't see Smits' video, though I'll take your word for it. It was either wrong or misspoken but the error is minor, totally minor (the difference between 1:100 and 1:101 is not worthy, especially when doing this 30, 200, or 1,000 times). The reference to the Swan potency site is accurate for this type of UNIQUE potentization process, and if you read what that site says, it is clearly a different style of potentization, where the potencies are specifically called "Swan potencies" and which begin at the 30th potency and THEN do dilutions of 1:1,000. It is accurate for what it is, but I don't know of any homeopathic pharmacies that make these potencies any more. As for the LM potencies, that part is more specific than I chose to be in my short description. That description is ACCURATE. The LM potencies first create a 3C potency and then do the 1:50,000 dilutions with succussion in-between each dilution. So, you found some ill-informed "holistic" people, some minor error, and some unique homeopathic potentization processes. No big deal. Please know that I would be embarrassed if there were any serious homeopaths making big errors. Perhaps we can now ask the average doctor how Prozac is made, but guess what, I would not be embarrassed if he or she didn't know how to describe it. Let's have some discussion that is worthy of our time. DanaUllman^Talk 05:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and good, and of course the average doctor would likely have no idea how any medication is produced. The problem arises for someone who is trying to understand the field. They start reading, and it is a confusing maze. I will also point out that when you raise

100 to the 30th power and 101 to the 30th power, or more, you actually have substantial differences. 100³⁰=1x10⁶⁰, but 101³⁰=1.348x 10⁶⁰. It is even worse on the decimal scale, where 10³⁰=1x³⁰ and 11³⁰=1.745x10³¹. And there are sources that can be found where this "error" or nonstandard description is found. And it is confusing, even if it is wrong. And it makes it very difficult to document this field. And stating that LM means dilution by 1 part in 50,000 when it is already starting at 1 part in a million is a bit misleading. And the procedure even then will not give successive dilutions by 1 part in 50,000. But ok, since it is correct, that is what I will use.--Filll (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Dana that "when doing this 30, 200, or 1,000 times" there is going to be no real difference between a 1 in 100 and a 1 in 101 (or even a 1 in 10 and a 1 in 11) dilution as regards the final product. There will be nothing left in either. In any case, I suspect that the differences between these are going to be small compared with discrepancies introduced by use of the Korsakov method in which a single vessel is repeatedly emptied, refilled, and shaken, on the assumption that one hundredth of the solution remains each time, often used by homoeopathic pharmacies for automated production of higher potencies (Oscillococcinum is a 200CK preparation, for example). Brunton (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is highly unlikely that we can detect the difference between any of these and each other, or any of these and just the pure diluent, at the higher potencies.--Filll (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How to present these "studies"

For clarity's sake, the results from these studies should be presented THEN the problems with the study should be addressed, ie results then conclusion (which includes problems). That's how things are done. Any problems with this anyone, other than Dana? Baegis (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, OffTheFence wrote into the article: "However most of the studies described by the authors as "high quality" were neither randomized nor blinded." I asked you and him to VERIFY this, and neither of you have done so. Until you do so, it is unverified. I have read this article, and I didn't find it there. It is that simple. At this point, your actions are reportable if you continue to edit war. That said, if I am wrong, please show me (I am a reasonable man). DanaUllman^Talk 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it is the EXACT SAME PHRASE just put in a better order. I refuse to rehash the same tired argument about these studies being flawed. If everything listed above isn't enough to put it into your head that these were poorly executed studies, nothing will. But that isn't even what the argument is over. Results go before conclusions. I don't understand why this is so difficult. Baegis (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the phrase Dana seems to be objecting to goes, that "most of the studies described by the authors as "high quality" were neither randomized nor blinded", the only real problem with this is that the authors don't in the article describe any studies as "high quality". They refer to some studies having a "QE" score of over 50%, and it is being inferred that these are the "high quality" papers. The statement that most of them were neither blinded nor randomised is supported by table 3a (p. 485), which states that only 7.8% of experiments considered were blinded and only 1.3% were randomised. This comes down to small enough numbers that it is a matter of simple arithmetic to conclude that most of the "high quality" experiments were neither blinded nor randomised. The 1994 Linde paper also clearly states in its discussion section (p. 487) that "the number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology". I think too much is being made of this study. Is there any evidence that the further good quality research that the authors call for been carried out over the 14 years since? Brunton (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Maybe I am confused, but my impression was that homeopathy did so poorly in double blinded studies that it was common to argue that double blinded studies do not work in homeopathy because of some special hidden magical features. Am I wrong? I am positive I remember seeing this claim over and over that homeopathy is special so we cannot use double blinded studies in the case of homeopathy to judge it. --Filll (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The "special magical features" of which you are thinking might be the proposal that the homeopath, the patient, and the "remedy" somehow become quantum entangled ... and then the patient's wavefunction is somehow collapsed into the "healthy" state. This is not precisely the sort of situation for which the phrase "not even wrong" was coined, but I believe it applies. Search the web for homeopathy + entanglement, it makes my brain hurt. Potentially this could be added to Quantum mysticism, but I am not sure how widespread the idea might be. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The most prolific author in this field appears to be Lionel Milgrom, who has published over a dozen papers about this. See, for example, Lionel R. Milgrom, Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings, eCAM 2007; 4: 7-16[33]. Some of the "e-letters" to that might be instructive as well, in particular the replies from Daniel Chrastina, who addresses the issue of "Weak Quantum Theory" from the perspective of a physicist. Milgrom's analogy of DBRCTs to the double slit experiment breaks down because in the double-slit experiment the information about which slit an electron has gone through is does not exist until an observation is made, whereas in a DBRCT the information about who receives the real medicine exists (and has even been recorded); it is merely unknown by those involved in the trial. The system is not at any point, as in the double-slit experiment, indeterminate, so there is no actual difference between the system when blinded and when unblinded. Brunton (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

More info on the human trial

The 2005 trial on humans that is cited in this article [34] not only showed reduction in arsenic in the blood of patients given homeopathic Arsenicum album, but it also showed changes in various toxicity markers. The abstract noted: "The activities of various toxicity marker enzymes and compounds in the blood, namely aspartate amino transferase, alanine amino transferase, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, lipid peroxidation were monitored up to three months." In the results section, they noted, "A desirable change in these biomarkers (an increase in GSH and decreases in ALT, AST, AcP, AlkP and LPO) on drug administration suggests its potential in alleviating As toxicity in humans." (Note: As = Arsenic) They also stated, "the notable changes observed in activities of these enzymes/biomarkers could be considered as convincing indicators of improvement in hepatic functions, which in turn were amply reflected in increased appetite reported by most of the subjects taking the ‘verum’ and also as factors influencing the amelioration of other As-induced toxicity." I suggest that something be added which says, "Not only did homeopathic doses of Arsenicum album have a beneficial effect on reducing arsenic levels in the blood, but it positively influenced various toxicity markers in the body of patients given the homeopathic medicine and led to improved health status." Any comments? DanaUllman^Talk 04:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality journal, not a reliable source. Jefffire (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you gotta do better than that, Jefffire. This journal is published by Oxford University Press. Its editor-in-chief is a UCLA neurologist. This study is already (!) a part of this article. It is now time to include more information from this article, especially in the light of the fact that this information is objective data, not any type of quality of life index. DanaUllman^Talk 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the study. There's a smallish number of people, which they admit have a semi-random exposure to Arsenic, depending if theey run out of the treated water. In a smallish group, that's going to mean that some will regularly get exposed to more arsenic than others, because they're less organised, and the researchers make no attempt to control for this. Then they measure arsenic in urine... and find that one group ALWAYS has more arsenic in the urine. Even in the baseline result, before the "medicine" is started. And then this is claimed as proof that homeopathy caused the difference, with no attempt to check the baseline rate before treatment was started, etc, etc. The last sentence is "We would encourage other groups to conduct similar trials to test the efficacy of the drug and confirm or refute the findings of our pilot study." When even the authors suggest that the results could disappear, making a huge production out of them is inappropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability by proxy? The study has low quality: they only had a control group on the first test. On the second one they gave serum to all subjects, and subjects knew that no one was given a placebo. The conclusion says "More experiments (preferably double-blind placebocontrolled

trials) with larger groups of affected people from adjoining areas is essential before recommending large-scale use of this potentized drug on As affected people". It also says it need more testing to know how long the effect lasts. It cites no known mechanism for the effect: "How the ultralow dose of the drug could (cause the effects on the subjects) remains unclear". The only explanation for its mechanism us an indication that it could work by activation of genes, and then refers to notes 39 and 40, both being works from the main article author (doh, not a good signal) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Clincial trials are clinical trials. Expect discussion on the mechanism of action in other journals and in basic science trials, not clinical ones. The researchers did the ethical thing when many subjects refused to be possibly given a placebo. I assume that you're not suggesting otherwise. Here's where their evidence about the enzyme panels are interesting and notable. There were differences in these objective measures between the treated and the control groups. DanaUllman^Talk 05:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that circumstances and ethics forced them to make a half-assed unclonsive study because of lack of control group. Also, if they are not discussing the mechanism and only collecting data then it's a primary source and we need a secondary source that interpretes the data collected. Citing this as if it proved anything would be WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL since we are assuming that this data will some day help to establish the effect of arsenic album. We don't know if will be ever be used for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Group II arm of this pilot study is utterly useless. They start to make it sound like a cross-over study with the bit about going on and off the "remedy", but then they omit to report whether their markers tracked this alternation. They state that many of these people showed serious signs of As poisoning and they emphasized the importance of drinking only uncontaminated water. These confounds seriously increase the risk that results will include the benefits of more diligent avoidance of the contaminated sources. Without a placebo group, none of the reported benefits may be reliably assigned to Arsenicum album instead of to previously observed fluctuations or to avoidance behavior.

The Group I study shows that exposure levels fluctuated significantly across the eleven days, and that the "verum" group of 33 had a higher mean level of exposure than the 22 in the placebo group. Nothing further may be concluded from that data.

Also, the study was funded by Boiron, a homeopathic "remedy" company. Even in medicine there is a significant pernicious tendency for studies funded by a vested interest to be reported more positively. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that all the studies have similar problems. The Cazin study is funded by Boiron [and features J. Boiron as an author!], the other studies are run by the exact same group as the one that did this study, though they shuffle the order of names. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If none of these studies are any better, then we need to strike the lot and rely solely on reliable unbiased secondary sources to present the fact that there is research (of a sort). There is no need for us to try to comb the entirety of the primary literature on every little issue. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] Yes, well, I agree, but whether that'd stick, I dunno. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First, virtually all of the studies mentioned here have secondary RS, and that is the Linde 1994 meta-analysis, and the Cazin article has the editorial by the journal's editor who leading toxicologist. As for the 2005 human trial as well as an earlier mice study had the New Scientist as an important secondary source. I urge Eldereft is bone-up on what this article has and the history of discussion before doing anything with his proposed changes. Further, a large number of trials today are funded by drug companies, and please do not change things in this article you show us all wiki policy that suggests that all drug company funded research is unaccepted in articles. Enric...please note it is not OR when specific statistics and increases in liver function are observed. It is only OR if I comment on this facts. DanaUllman^Talk 01:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are interpreting the data on the article when you are claiming that observed effects on arsenic contamined people are somehow applicable or relevant to homeopathic use of arsenic album. If this was an article about people contaminated by arsenic then this source would be OK. But citing it on this article without a secondary source that makes the link between effect on arsenic contaminated people and homeopathic patitents is OR because you are just citing primary sources without the sources saying explicitily the position that you are trying to advance: that results from this experiment are relevant to arsenic album as homeopathic remedy. You could, at most, use it as an example that maybe it's useful for arsenic poisoning. But, even then, using this primary source instead of the secondary sources that you recognize that exists is inadequate. Secondary sources are preferable to primary ones, so why use this study if you can use the meta-study, specially when this primary source has so many flaws? What is it so special about this flawed article that makes it more citable than the secondary source talking about it? Saying that the homeopathic remedy improved the health of the subjects can be misleading when used on an article about a general remedy, and not on a page of people poisoned with arsenic, so the wording ought to be very very careful --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman is mistaken: A 1994 metaanalysis cannot possibly be a secondary source for studies from 2003 [Mallick, P, Chakrabarti (Mallick), J, Bibhas, G, Khuda-Bukhsh, AR. Ameliorating Effect of Microdoses of a Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsencium Album, on Arsenic-Induced Toxicity in Mice. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2003] or 2005 [Khuda-Bukhsh, AR, Pathak, S, Guha, B. Can Homeopathic Arsenic Remedy Combat Arsenic Poisoning in Humans Exposed to Groundwater Arsenic Contamination?: A Preliminary Report on First Human Trial]. As for the 1987 Cazin paper, the metaanalysis merely lists it as one of the trials used, meaning it's not even a good source for that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shoemaker...slow down...we all sometimes read too fast and miss things. I did not say that the 1994 meta-analysis included any reference to the 2003 and 2005 studies (that would be more than a tad silly). In actual fact, I made reference to two good RS articles in the New Scientist that commented on the 2003 & 2005 studies. As for the Cazin article, it was not simply listed in the Linde 1994 article; it was discussed and have provided a specific quote about that in previous discussion. Since you seem to be a newbie in this discussion, I encourage you to read our past dialogue. As for Enric's comments, the comments on the research on Arsenicum album has only been in the light of animals or humans who were exposed to arsenic poisoning. Is someone suggesting otherwise? DanaUllman^Talk 15:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it's nothing personal against you, but you know that you have a WP:COI interest on homeopathy being shown as useful, so any suggestion from you to include a study about efectiviness of an homeopathic medicine has to be scrutinised more in depth that from one from other editors. That, and the fact that the secondary sources that you are citing as support also seem to have a COI of themselves, are not points of favor of inclusion of this study on the article. You are right, however, in that the wording that you proposed for the inclusion is correct, and I excuse myself for that. I am now disagreeing only on the general validity of the study as a source, not on how the wording used to mention it on this article.

The flaws on the study, on the metastudies, and on the use of the metastudies for supporting the studies have been already pointed to you by me and other editors, Dana. Please address those concerns. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How good a source is New Scientist? It is basically a science-related news magazine. It is not peer reviewed, and its very nature as a magazine reporting on current developments means that some of the stories it reports are somewhat speculative. Brunton (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's... well, it's a news magazine with a slight tendency towards reporting speculative or controversial studies every so often. There have been a few notable problems and controversies created by this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brunton, does this mean that we should no longer use information from the news published in Nature and Science? The New Scientist is RS, even though some people have recently been upset that they have reported on some unconventional subjects because new research compells them to report on them...and as has been noted, they reported on Arsenicum research, and they gave a voice to skeptics. Isn't that what you'd want from a good RS? Yeah. By the way, the editor of FASEB writes editorials that are not peer-reviewed. Does this mean that we should delete them too? Hmmm. Please always remember that the pendulum swings both ways. DanaUllman^Talk 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman^Talk 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See Shoemaker's Holiday's link above - in particular the editor's comment. Brunton (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you shocked or surprised at all that an editor feels that it is important for his magazine to discuss hypotheses? I'm not expecting an answer here because it is not worth our time here, but my point is that the New Scientist is a good secondary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaUllman (talk • contribs) 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy of listing on wikipedia who funded each and every study, and so, it makes no sense to make reference to Boiron as the funder of one study, as was done here. I just visited various articles on specific drugs, and there is no reference to each study as to its funder. DanaUllman^Talk 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, however, the information is relevant to provide context for the reader by pointing out that the REDFLAG results may have been influenced by a conflict of interest. Funding information would also be relevant on drug articles where results may be suspect. The influence of funding on reported outcome is well-documented - see for instance Publication_bias#Study_registration. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If this one study had a different results than the others, it may be suspect. However, in this case, this was one of several studies all of which consistently have confirmed similar results. The link that you provided to publication bias has no real bearing here. Why should only homeopathic research require reference to funding? This is not NPOV. DanaUllman^Talk 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that any time source funding may be reasonably suspected to have had an undue influence on a study, for instance if the most obvious interpretation of the results seems to contradict essential physics, then the conflict of interest is relevant and should be presented. The essay Other stuff exists provides some relevant arguments against citing the lack of reference to funding in medical articles as sole justification for omitting it here. I expect that there are plenty of instances where it is germane to note that a pharmaceutical company funded an unusually positive study. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Foundings for *all* studies on page ought to be stablished, even if only for editors to evaluate possible POV bias from founders. For all we know at this moment, half the sources on article could be founded by Boiron, which would explain the consistent results *looks at references section*. Out of 14 refs, 2 are from Khuda-Bukhsh, 2 from Liden and 2 from Cazin, all being disputed heavily, so 6 out of 14. Need to check if all of them are positive and if all the rest are negative, I would get a good kick out of that, POV on plain sight for months on a row :P. Don't have time right now. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference in the article on homeopathy about the funder for each study, so there isn't a strong case here to do so because there are now numerous studies that have confirmed the same result. Further, there might be even larger reasons for Wiki-editors to make reference to the funding for every Rx drug due to the significant financial benefits that drug companies make, and yet, there is no wiki policy for doing that for every study. Let's maintain NPOV. (By the way, Enric, I think you mean "funding" not foundings...I realize that English may not be your 1st language...and in that case, you're doing very well to date.DanaUllman^Talk 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

homeopathy has been more severaly policed and pruned, so the refs are better, Dana. Don't deviate reconduct change the theme, we are talking of the studies on *this* page. I'm saying to look for the funder and add him, and then check if there is really a case or not. On surface, there appears to be a case. Of course, stupid "citeweb" template doesn't have a "|funder=" param :( . Thanks for noticing the spelling anyways, I'm spanish and have been studying english since 10 years old or so. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Because, of course, alt-med companies who have no urden of proof, no set standards for their trials, and who make money hand-over-fist are inherently more trustworthy than the companies that are heavily government-inspected and have to pass through governmental hoops in each country they want to sell any individual medicine in when you're in paranoia-world. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate that urden of proof! Anyways, good answer Shoemaker. The Homeopath promoters are on the moral low-ground, because they steal more money out of the pockets of individuals who might actually recover from real medicine. So if pharmaceutical companies are ripping off patients, at least they have a lot of testing to show that they actually do something good for the patients. But homeopaths, and their water, do nothing--and take money. This is amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, you chose to make many additions and changes to the article without consensus. There is danger in doing so, as you have been previously warned. The bigger problem is that your changes are mis-informed. When Linde wrote in 1999 and more recently about newer research, he was referring to clinical trials, not animal trials dealing with environmental toxicology (as you have suggested). In fact, the newer research that has dealt with Arsenicum album (which, if you remember, is the subject of THIS article, has consistently shown positive results. Unless you can provide evidence for Linde's comments relating with Arsencium album and/or environmental toxicology, your additions will need to be changed or deleted. Also, you have a propensity to not provide edit summaries (just like many previous sock puppets who have previously edited on this article). I am not saying that you are a sock, though I hope that you will provide edit summaries. DanaUllman^Talk 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cazin study

I've removed the Cazin study as non-notable, see [35] for reasoning, evidence of non-notability, and evidence that Dana's claims for it have been vastly inflated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Turner, the editor of the journal in which this study was published, considered this study to be notable, and the Linde (1994) meta-analysis provided additional secondary support. By the way, to clarify my above comment, you are showing how uninformed you are about the Linde work because you have confused his 1994 environmental toxicology work with his 1997 meta-analysis published in the Lancet (which reviewed research up until 1995). DanaUllman^Talk 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Point out where I have done so. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have chosen to respond to your question above here [36] since I thought it was important for readers to see that you seem to have provided mis-information of your own. DanaUllman^Talk 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Below are several more studies testing homeopathic Arsenicum album that were referenced in one of the RS references in the Arsenicum album article [^ a b Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507.] Ironically (!), the editors here reference this article to two statements: (1) "there is insufficient evidence for it to be considered effective medicine (for any condition) by the scientific community" and (2) "the ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine, which means that poorly-conducted, small, or unblinded studies are not considered scientific proof of efficacy." However, those editors who cherry-picked these references also chose not to make reference to the author's statement, "Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.28-30,80-82" Also, the authors made reference to numerous studies (Geckler and Samal; Rey) as well as the broad body of hormesis to provide evidence that it is not completely accurate to conclude, "Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed."

Here are those additional Arsenicum album studies that are worthy of reference in this article. Mitra K, Kundu SN, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potenized homeopathic drug (arsenicum album-30) in reducing toxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: 1. On rate of accumulation of arsenic in certain organs. Complement Ther Med. 1998;6:178–84.

Mitra K, Kundu SN, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potenized homeopathic drug (arsenicum album-30) in reducing toxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: 2. On alterations of body weight, tissue weight and total protein. Complement Ther Med. 1999;7:24–34. [PubMed]

Datta S, Mallick P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potenized homeopathic drug in reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: 1. Comparative studies of pre-, post- and combined pre- and post-oral administration and comparative efficacy of two microdoses. Complement Ther Med. 1999;7:62–75. [PubMed]

Datta S, Mallick P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potenized homeopathic drug in reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: 2. Comparative efficacy of an antibiotic, actinomycin D alone and in combination with either of two microdoses. Complement Ther Med. 1999;7:156–63. [PubMed]

Kundu SN, Mitra K, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potenized homeopathic drug (arsenicum album-30) in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: 4. Pathological changes, protein profiles and content of DNA and RNA. Complement Ther Med. 2000;8:157–65. [PubMed]

Kundu SN, Mitra K, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potenized homeopathic drug (arsenicum album-30) in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: 3. Enzymatic changes and recovery of tissue damage in liver. Complement Ther Med. 2000;8:76–81. [PubMed] DanaUllman^Talk 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like those editors in question were too far off base. Looks pretty accurate for the ones you just listed. Is this proof yet again that you are unwilling to accept negative reviews of homeopathy from a secondary source in favor of positive statements from a primary source (study) from a couple of homeopaths? And in a journal that appears to favor the CAM side of things? Boy, I sure hope not. Baegis (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the attack of the amaazing shuffling names! Really, having studies done by multiple groups counts for a lot. It's not a replication if the same group keeps running the same shoddily-designed studies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shoe, slow down a bit. It seems that you haven't even read the abstracts of these articles. This group of researchers are not simply replicated earlier experiments, each experiment is providing different data sets for evaluating changes. Also, what I love about the skeptics' point of view here is that this point of view assumes that the homeopathic doses of arsenic could not possibly have any effect, but instead, the psychic love that the experimenters convey to the mice is strong enough that it changes liver enzymes as compared with the control group, influences protein profiles, reduces the genotoxic effects of crude doses of arsenic. Since the homeopathic doses of arsenic would not "possibly" have any effect, where should we post these studies showing this impressive psychic effect? The only question is: is its psychic love that the experimenters emit or is it just the mice being super-psychic to know the difference between being in the treatment group vs. the control group. The effects are quite notable. DanaUllman^Talk 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...because "psychic love" is the only possible way a shoddily run experiment could be inaccurate? There's no shame in being scientifically inept, but please don't continue to bring these nonsense studies and nonsense arguments here. Jefffire (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Dana, that is not "the skeptics' point of view" (by which I assume you mean the point of view of those opposing your POV), as is clear from what Shoemaker posted. I doubt very much that you are making this ludicrous and misrepresenting comment seriously. It appears from its tone to be posted to provoke. Brunton (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It burns.......... Shot info (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Put simply, reproducibility is one of the things that lends weight to research. Given the discussion above on one of the papers by this group, the quality of their work is question, which means that additional work by the same group is not further evidence. What is more, the name shuffle at least gives the appearance of attempting to game the system by making it appear different groups did the research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, I wonder if the editors who complained about the "shuffling" of names have conducted a body of research. It is quite common for some individuals in a group of researchers to take the lead in some studies and other researchers take the lead in other studies. This isn't anything more than that. There is nothing at all unusual about it, and I'm tad confused about anyone making this a mountain OR a molehill. DanaUllman^Talk 05:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the only spokesman in any of the secondary sources is Khuda-Baresh, it's a little odd. It's not evidence, but it's odd. Consider, as counter-example, Linde's papers on Homeopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is only odd to people who are unfamiliar with research groups where one person is the leader. Shoe, you're smart enough to know this or am I missing something? DanaUllman^Talk 04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really odd, but only one of the papers should be referenced in any one article, because it's really only one study, published multiple times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

...That surely isn't normally allowed, is it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See Least publishable unit. The papers appear to be reporting on slightly different aspects, implications, analyses, &c. of the same study. The practice is deprecated but common. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

I am very sorry to say this, but Dana and some of the other "pro-homeopathy" supporters seem to not quite understand what NPOV means.

What NPOV means is that we have a mix of material about all subjects. It does not mean neutral. It does not mean positive. There will be criticism. One cannot pad FRINGE articles only with positive studies and remove negative studies.

And this is what is driving the problems. It is a lack of understanding of the fundamental philosophy of Wikipedia. If the pro-homeopathy editors do not understand this philosophy, there will be nothing but arguing and fighting and eventually, blocking and banning.--Filll (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you cannot (or should not) make such accusations without providing reference. This is bad faith. Please reference the "negative" studies on Arsenicum (remember, THAT is the subject of this article). If you don't have them, please apologize and resurrect good faith by crossing out your above mis-statement. DanaUllman^Talk 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well so you resort to Wikilawyering instead? Hmmm...Sorry if I offended anyone.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is long past the point where pandering to tendentious editing can be justified by agf. Further cherry picking of studies on the talk page should simply be ignored. Attempts to insert them into the article should be regarded as disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. Jefffire (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Dana's question is legitimate. Where is there any reference to negative studies about Arsenicum album? If such do not exist, why is there a demand to insert non-existing studies?

Regarding NPOV, that clearly means neutral in tone and non-biased. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try Arion 3x3. But incorrect. Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?--Filll (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What conclusion? . . . that there are no negative studies of Arsenicum album, or that NPOV means NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Both are true statements. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral tone is not quite the same. As I said before, NPOV means there will be lots of negative material included.--Filll (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you need to re-read the Wikipedia NPOV policy again. Pay close attention to the section titled Fairness of tone. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So you believe "Fairness of tone" means that the mainstream view is not represented? Interesting.--Filll (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote anything that could give someone that impression. You know that I have never taken a position that other points of view and criticisms should not be represented - if they can be properly referenced to the subject of the article! My position has always been, and will always be, that the Wikipedia NPOV policy should be upheld, including Fairness of tone. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is the problem then?--Filll (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, the problem is the one you created with your 1st contribution above in this section. I do not know a pro-homeopathy editor who only wants "positive" information on homeopathy. You wrote: "One cannot pad FRINGE articles only with positive studies and remove negative studies." I simply asked: what "negative" studies on Arsenicum album exist? I asked for a reference, and I got accused of "wiki-lawyering." DanaUllman^Talk 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not prepared at this point to spend countless hours digging through the hundreds if not thousands of articles and studies that exist. Others have done some of this. I will defer to them on these points for the time being. However, I just think we would all be much more productive if there was a tacit acknowledgement on the part of all that the pillars of Wikipedia, including NPOV, which does not mean neutral are followed. On this article and on the main article and others, I have witnessed just terrible wikilawyering and hairsplitting ad infinitum for the last few months. Frankly, all that this will do is get the pro-homeopathy editors banned or blocked, as has happened to the last several who tried this tactic. Notice a pattern? Think you will be immune from the same fate? Think again. I do not want to lose Dana Ullman as an editor here on Wikipedia in particular, but if something is not done to shift attitudes and modes of working towards a more conciliatory and cooperative stance, I guarantee it will happen. I am very sorry to tell you this, but I have seen it too often in the past. And I want to stop it from happening if at all possible.---Filll (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The "N" in NPOV does mean neutral. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in the way you interpret it. Jimbo even gave a speech about this a year or two back. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is elaborated under the policy section Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22, which details the difference between "fairly and objectively present the facts without editorializing"-neutral and "give equal validity where none is due"-neutrality. The former is for what we are striving. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree (and always have) that the "Neutral" in NPOV means to "fairly and objectively present the facts without editorializing". Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana and... probably Arion - I apologise if I'm mistaken there - think that unless a study specifically mentions the homeopathic remedy Arsenicum album, then it shoudl not be included, which includes removing all reference to the mainstream view of homeopathy as represented by metaanalyses. The problem is, Arsenicum album is a borderline subject, notable only to homeopaths, and even then, all the studies presented have no relation to its traditional homeopathic uses (and, arguably, are not even a homeopathic use in the first place, but tautopathic (if Homeopathy#Tautopathy is accurate).) So, basically, their/his argument seems to be that, since these studies by Khuda-BAresh's group and the one by Cazin exist, we should not allow inclusion of the mainstream views that apply to homeopathy as a whole, since the metaanalyses and such don't mention Arsenicum album by name. I think that's what they mean when they say "NPOV". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shoe, I agree with most of what you say above, and it is refreshing to get this suggestion from you. This article is on "Arsenicum album" which is the latin for a specific type of arsenic and which is a common homeopathic medicine. As such, research on the broad subject of homeopathy should reside in the article on homeopathy, and it would be a little crazy to have each article on different homeopathic medicine have reference to the slew of positive and negative meta-analyses on the subject of homeopathy. Let's get rid of the research that is not specific to the subject of this article. You should know, however, that each homeopathic medicine has a wide body of clinical applications based on its toxicology. As such, homeopaths are sometimes treating a patient who has been exposed to arsenic, but the homeopaths doesn't "know" this, but instead, the homeopaths simply notices that the patient's symptoms resemble the syndrome of symptoms that arsenic is known to cause. I mention this because I believe that it is important that this article includes various positive and negative studies in which Arsenicum album is the focus or even when it is highlighted in some notable fashion (for instance, one of the famous studies in homeopathy was published in PEDIATRICS on childhood diarrhea, and Arsenicum album was the 2nd most common medicine prescribed..THAT is seemingly notable, and the source is certainly RS). One of my points here is that homeopaths both knowingly and unknowing prescribe Arsenicum album when there is arsenic poisoning, and as such, the Khuda-Bukhsh and the Cazin research is important. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I was trying to neutrally characterise the dispute - I actually feel that since we have only a couple minor studies by Cazin and Khuda-Bukhsh that don't even deal with its main homeopathic use, but with a tautopathic one, it's hard to see why we shouldn't go up a level to homeopathy to get mainstream reviews. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally and medically, the experiments by Khuda-Bukhsh and Cazin that were done with Arsenicum album were with homeopathic doses of it (there is no such thing as "tautopathic" doses...and even the subject of tautopathy is an application within the broad field of homeopathy). These articles have direct reference here. Other research on homeopathy in general should simply be linked by the word "homeopathy." In actual fact, these studies also support the evidence from the more recent and better controlled studies. Finally, please remember that the Cazin study has several secondary sources, as does the work of Khuda-Bukhsh. DanaUllman^Talk 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Legally"? Do you have any evidence of the legal status of these doses? Brunton (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now Cazin has SEVERAL secondary sources, eh? Name 'em. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Either you're stonewall or pretending to have a bad memory. Despite this, I will AGF if you can agree that Cazin's work deserves to remain in the article. Above there is reference to the Linde 1994 meta-analysis. Also, the editor of the journal in which it is published is also quoted above. Also, the human trial with Arsenicum...amongst others. DanaUllman^Talk 00:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, as per usual Dana. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, inexacto, ne pas corriger, verbeter niet. We have already went through all of this Dana. Stop, for the love of God, bringing up these same tired topics again. How many times can you recycle the same Linde study (while COMPLETELY ignoring the subsequent retraction) to make it say something different? Does it now have the plans for free energy? Because that is about the only thing you have not claimed...yet. Baegis (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, you seem to be a smart guy, so I have no idea why you continually confuse the 1997 Linde meta-analysis of clinical trials that was published in The Lancet with the 1994 Linde meta-analysis on environmental toxicology that was published in Human and Experimental Toxicology. Please note that Linde never used the word "retracted" in any writing, though he was referring to his 1997 meta-analysis in which he said he expected a reduced significance as a result of newer research...but he never said that the significance was lost...and THAT is an important point. Further, Linde never retracted or suggested any reduced significance to the environmental toxicology review. And because we are talking about the 1994 review, Baegis, you're wrong. Chutzpah to the max. Please admit you're confused so that we can move on. DanaUllman^Talk 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that I am wrong when you admit that you are basically only here to disrupt. Or if you admit that you are one of the finest example of WP:TE this project has seen since, I dunno, Awbrey? You are clearly not here to build any sort of an encyclopedia. Btw, this all has been discussed before on this talk page and on the incidents page. Baegis (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, several generally means more than two, you know. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, I could easily call you for WP:TE. I provide research evidence and secondary sources to confirm their notability, and this makes me a good wiki-editor, despite efforts of people who have an anti-homeopathic bias who try to undo the good encyclopedic work for which I strive. I am here to improve the information, and you seem to continually show an anti-homeopathic bias. I hope that you will consider editing subjects for which you have less bias. And like Fox News, you seem to think that if you repeat your misinformation frequently enough, people will believe you (I don't). Shoe...I simply do not see a need to repeat what has previously been said about the Cazin study. By the way, I just noticed that someone edited the Cazin study out. Because there was consensus when it was placed into the article and because it was there for a month or two, there needs to be consensus to remove it. Finally, I mistakenly did not correct a reference to the human trial testing Arsenicum as "unblinded." That is wrong. It was blinded. DanaUllman^Talk 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because your claims as to the Cazin's study's notability were savaged on the Homeopathy article probation incidents page. Can you please drop your martyr act? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that we also determined here that the Cazin study is not of the absolutely unimpeachable character appropriate to an encyclopedia. Anyone who needs an exhaustive list of every little study can go to PubMed &c. This article should just present a concise and accurate summary of the state of scientific consensus after a neutral description of the homeopathic viewpoint. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Basic science research on the biological effects of highly diluted solutions has yielded mixed results."

"Basic science research on the biological effects of highly diluted solutions has yielded mixed results The results showed that extreme dilutions of histamine-inhibited basophil activation models behave in a reproducible fashion. However, it should be noted that other studies of equal quality have not been able to reproduce these findings."

This should be added in the article. It is a quote from "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?" Objections comments? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507--70.107.246.88 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By "equal quality" do you mean "better"? Because that's the general consensus amongst scientists. Jefffire (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not my words - It is an exact quote from the cited article.Do you have a better source for the "consensus amongst scientists." ? --70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections I could add it - I suppose.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Do not add this. Period. Baegis (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a rational objection. It is not according to the rules of wikipedia. The administrators might ban you- you know. Please reconsider and participate in the conversation. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because something may be a Reliable source doesn't mean it has to actually be used, or quoted specifically. In this case, it is an opinion piece a minor journal that conflicts with more respected journals' take on the matter, and, what is more, is on the subject of Water memory, not Arsenicum album. It is therefore irrelevant and does not reflect the best sources on the matter. Under NPOV policy, there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page, so there is no reason to discuss it here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for adding information on studies not about the subject of the article totally eludes me. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. This is an article on Arsenicum album. Unless the above research discusses and analyzes this body of research, it doesn't have a place. In fact, there is some good discussion above about removing much of the other general info/research on homeopathy that is not directly related to THIS medicine, and I agree that it should be removed. DanaUllman^Talk 00:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, something on which Dana and I can agree. We should hang out flags. OffTheFence (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be apparent that the quality or value of the Wikipedia article on Arsenicum album is not improved by removing reliably sourced research on the biological effects of homeopathic potencies of Arsenicum album. I would recommend that Shoemaker or anyone else removing such an important part of this article justify its removal and reach a consensus before anymore such deletions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, is this microscopically insignificant topic still being disputed? Irrelevant material should be excluded, as Baegis says. If those basophil papers were inserted here they'd have to be inserted on every page where a homeopathic remedy is mentioned. That would be ridiculous. However, making a general comment about the overall inadequacies of the homeopathic literature base is quite appropriate and serves WP:WEIGHT very well. It is the equivalent of the health warning on a packet of cigarettes. There would be no problem if such a general comment was reduced to a concise form and added to all pages on homeopathic remedies. OffTheFence (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a problem with that irrational suggestion to add a "general comment" - and it would not be equivalent to a "health warning on a packet of cigarettes". Should I also take this as another attempt at "irony" (as in your self-proclaimed "expert" status)? Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal

The merge tag on Arsenic_trioxide was pointing to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arsenicum_album, but the closing admin there states "There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles, but that is a matter for editors to work out", so I have created this section so I can link the tag here --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That merge tag was put up on January 2008. The version that was up from 30 Nov 2007 to 15 Jan 2008 looked like this. The article has changed a lot and now inlude a lot of references that would overhelm the ARsenic trioxide article. So, if nobody oposses, I will remove that merge tag on a pair of days. Feel free to restore it and add why you think that it's still necessary to perform the merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do, these articles concern completely different topics. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded- remove the tag. Creamypeanutbutter (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done --Enric Naval (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this edit before.....

I saw one edit by Martin[37] and I was struck by a sudden sensation of deja vu, something like "I have reverted this edit before but I don't remember why".

Afte checking, it was this edit by ismejudith[38] and when I reverted it I said on my edit summary that it appeared to be changing what the source said[39]. I have reverted it again for the same reason. The edit is changing the meaning of the sentence without checking what the source actually said. Can someone check the source and write here an exact quote of what the source says so we can include it on the reference and people will stop changing it?

And, please, Martin, nothing personal, but please leave the sentence as it was placed originally until the source is cheked. I assume that the person that first added the sentence had just read the source and used the correct wording. I'll be grateful if someone finds the edit of when the source was added so we can see what wording the original editor used. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am OK about the wording being left as is since I don't have the source available and going to look for it is not a high priority for me. I think I only contracted what was there, but it is no great deal. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Without checking, if it was added by Dana, the presumption that the person adding it properly quoted the article is no longer in effect. There are a number of editors who have added information which is not supported by the reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn.... well.... It's listed at Amazon[40], I just spent 25$ including shipping to order one of those. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The publisher is known for high-quality illustrations, so if you are interested in the topic it may be worth the money. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll use it to check sources at articles, and then I'll give it away to my brother. He loves all naturist stuff, specially plant illustrations --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As a source, don't forget it is a popular text. I'm sure it's OK for identifying which remedies are used for what in homeopathy, but of course it will not tell you what the scientific view is. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally got the book, and I changed the constitutional type mention [41]. I also added the key usages --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)