Jump to content

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

Reliable sources, notability and Montagnier publication

Lets see how much coverage and reaction its publication created in the field. 1. A 12 January 2011, New Scientist editorial 2. Biology professor PZ Myers also described it as "pathological science". 3. In a 24 December 2010, Science magazine interview entitled "French Nobelist Escapes ‘Intellectual Terror’ to Pursue Radical Ideas in China" . Now I wonder how many sources more than the above we need to regard a publication notable. The publication concerns high dilutions and homeopathy article has a section referring to this ( Beneviste and etc). It does not have to support homeopathy or high dilutions to be considered for inclusion.Comments?--George1918 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are all quoted in the Luc Montagnier article. No one's denying that it's "notable" when a Nobel Prize winner makes a fool of himself, and that's the only reason that Science interviewed him, and New Scientist and others bother to comment about the bizarre situation. The situation will become even more notable if he wins an IgNobel Prize.
The two self-published articles aren't duplicated anywhere else, and they are primary studies, so we can't use them as sources here. The matter is covered very thoroughly at Luc Montagnier and that should be good enough.
You keep on complaining but you provide no suggested wording for how we could move forward. How about stopping your complaining and provide some actual wording as a suggested inclusion. That's what this talk page is for. Create a new section with precise wording and properly formatted refs and we'll look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
To make it easy for you to get started, here are the possible locations for such an inclusion:
I don't know how you can squeeze mention of Montagnier in there, but provide an attempt here and we'll see if it can fly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this forward in a positive manner Brangifer. It is refreshing although I completely understand that you are not agreeing to an edit at this time! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2011

I'd like to see this move forward in a constructive manner. I hope that George1918 and you will start being constructive as suggested. I'm not sure what your last comment means. I've been busy elsewhere. My watchlist now has "5,417 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I have lots of interests here as well as off-wiki. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A model of cooperation in which both highly POV sides of a homeopathy related article are happy

Thanks to the civil tone and time spent responding to my extensive comments on this talk page, there is now a model of cooperation in in a highly edit war-prone homeopathy related article. Balance and NPOV was achieved not by making both sides unhappy, but both sides happy (apparently by unanimous consensus) here[1]. PPdd (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.108.165.163, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Dear the overlords of Wikipedia,

it appears the 3rd reference of this article, the one pertaining to the UK parliamentary committee select inquiry on Homeopathy, has been moved in to the inquiries archives. The new link is

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/former-inquiries/homeopathy-/


88.108.165.163 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear the underling of Wikipedia,
We, the overlods, have gracious conceded your request.
Fixed --Enric Naval (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Montagnier High Dilutions and Homeopathy

Suggestion: Something like that? In 2009, Montagnier published research in a new journal, of which he is chairman of the editorial board,[15] allegedly[16] detecting electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA (M. pirum and E. coli) in water that had been prepared using a homeopathic procedure of serial agitation and ultra-high dilution,[17] and similar research on electromagnetic detection of HIV DNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated by antiretroviral therapy.[18] The significance and controversial nature of the research has been noted, with many scientists expressing scorn and harsh criticism.[15][16][19] in a interview he was questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." He also added that "we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10-18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10-18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."[22] Just to start with. --George1918 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a little problematic for a number of reasons. The published work in question has not been replicated, and doesn't mention homoeopathy. The solutions were not succussed, but agitated on a vortex apparatus, so were not "prepared using a homeopathic procedure of serial agitation and ultra-high dilution", and the dilutions from which signals were reportedly detected were not the "ultra-high" dilutions which have no solute left - the highest in which signals were detected was equivalent to about 18X, and this from a single experiment, most of the "positives" being below around 12X/6C.
Even taken at face value the published results don't show that "the high dilutions are right" - they clearly show that there was an upper limit to the signal producing dilutions, which is a factor of about 1042 lower than the commonly used 30C potency. Homoeopathic dulution relies on the principle that there is no upper limit to dilutions that produce an effect. This work doesn't support the use of ultramolecular dilutions, and the article therefore cannot include a statement that implies that it does. Indeed, Montagnier (he wasn't named, but it was apparent that it was himwas recently quoted by the CBC Marketplace programme on homoeopathy as saying that he "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy"[2].
The bottom line, though, is that it needs to be independently replicated, and connected better to homoeopathy, before it can be used here. It is currently appropriate to the Luc Montagnier article it is copied and pasted from, but not here. Brunton (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Montagnier himself says what part of homeopathy is right according to him in his interview. High dilutions. Not all -but a part of them. He is clear. The criterion for inclusion is notability which has been established through interviews ( for instance Science) and not the validity of the study - that's obvious Brunton. It does not have to be true to be reported. It is a notable experiment high dilutions which some of them are used in homeopathy - always according to what he says - not to what we perceive he says. --George1918 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is unreplicated and highly controversial research. Still, I imagine that many other researchers will be working on replicating these extraordinary results. Let's wait for their confirmation. At the moment it is notable in the context of the article about Montagnier, but not conclusive enough, or well enough connected with homoepathy, for inclusion here.
The paper reporting the experiment doesn't mention homoeopathy, so cannot be used as a source for statements about homoeopathy (including the statement it is explicitly used to source that the solutions "had been prepared using a homeopathic procedure") even if used in conjunction with other comments about homoeopathy from interviews. See WP:SYN. As you say, "always according to what he says - not to what we perceive he says". Brunton (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: an important discussion which may bear on Georg1918's proposal is ocurring here[3]]. It is about using authritative titles like "Nobel Laureate" or "National Medical Academy of..." to justify putting a quotation from a fringe view in an article. PPdd (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Try to understand what is being said and respond rationally. --George1918 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's necessary. The simple question we need to be asking here is "would this merit inclusion at this stage if the author wasn't a Nobel laureate?" Brunton (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't start that discussion becaue of this discussion. I started it responding to another talk page discussion. I later realized that editors here might be affected by the outcome, so I thought it appropriate to post notice here, since George1918 might want to weigh in with POV other than mine. PPdd (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is speculation and synth Brunton. The answer to your question is yes Of course, since it appears in a highly quality source and the author himself connects with part of homeopathy. Fringe claims appearing in high quality reliable sources are automatically qualified for inclusion not as truths but as notable claims with its criticisms - don't need to be proved. We said that.--George1918 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The "high quality source" (I assume here you're referring to "Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences") does not connect this work with homoeopathy. Thus you are correct when you say "this is speculation and synth", but perhaps not in the way you think. And, no fringe claims are not "automatically qualified for inclusion" here simply because they are made by famous people, or even because they are made in peer-reviewed sources. We've been through this before when editors have insisted that their pet sources must be included because they are peer-reviewed (see the archives, and also FAQ 7). Brunton (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Science and New Scientist who covered and criticized the expirement are not high quality sources? --George1918 (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
They are good sources for statements that the work is controversial (see their use in the Luc Montagnier article). They are not a good source for statements implying that the work is valid or relevant in the context of homoeopathy or this article. Brunton (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Brunton. While this must obviously be in the article about Montagnier, if it were to be included here we'd be giving it undue weight. --Six words (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, didn't someone already point out that these articles in Science and New Scientist were interviews with the investigator - not papers about the actual work? That reaches only a much lower standard as a statement about the nature of the investigation. SteveBaker (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"These articles in Science and New Scientist were interviews with the investigator" are not enough to establish notability ( not proof) for wikipedia when the author himself states relation to part of homeopathy - high dilutions ? That's beyond bias I m afraid. --George1918 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
See WP:MEDRS and WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I read ; we are not talking about proofs of studies of medical efficacy but notability of claims and we are not synthesizing anything. "These articles in Science and New Scientist are interviews with the investigator" who himself makes a connection with part of high dilutions and part of homeopathy are not enough to establish notability in wikipedia? --George1918 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • According to CBC's Marketplace program "cure or con?", Montaigner has said his work cannot be extended to cover homeopathy. It is a very weak and short-lived effect of only certain types of compound and it has yet to be duplicated by independent scientists. It's widely touted by pro-homeopathy advocates as an endorsement of homeopathy by a Nobel laureate, or as scientific proof of homeopathy, but of course these claims are without merit ad Montaigner has said it is not generalisable and in any case even if water did have memory it would still be necessary to prove the purported "law of similars", which lacks any evidential basis, and to show that the supposed effect is long-lived, can be transferred to sugar and thence to the human body via ingestion, and finally it would be necessary to identify the mechanism by which this might have any therapeutic effect. It's a bit like claiming that reflection of light off green cheese is an endorsement of the green cheese theory of lunar geology. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Anyone who has ever seem the moon knows it is not made of green cheese. Its more of a yellow-white cheese. PPdd (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Green light reflected from the cheesey regolith is scattered preferentially by the earth's atmosphere resulting in the yellow-white appearance that you see. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy Journal revisited - Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journals -

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here[4]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A heads-up

I expect there will be some pressure to include some recent material.

2/3 of British primary care trusts have by now withdrawn funding for homeopathy (source: BBC) but the more prominent online homeopathy proponents such as Adams, Bruck and Ullman are still blogging and tweeting about homeopathy "curing" cases of cancer and Hepatitis B.I think the real-world battle is hotting up and the Wikipedia battle is likely to follow.

Professor John Beddington recently said:

It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence. We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable… We must also be confident in challenging the misrepresentation or exaggeration of evidence and the conclusions it leads to. Where significant consensus exists, it must be made obvious.

— Professor John Beddington, Science, scepticism and consensus, New Statesman, 18 February 2011

So, as I say, hotting up a bit. On the plus side it is becoming much easier to find unambiguous statements from authoritative sources who previously just ignored homeopathy as a patently absurd and unscientific idea. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The inquest report is the most horrifying thing I've read in a long, long time. I figure we will get the usual Ullman-spawned meatpuppets - he recruits on his website and private mailing list - which we have learned to handle quite well over the years. We should work these sources into the main article in appropriate places. Please continue to post sources from the UK controversy, as it's had virtually no media attention on the Yank side of the pond. Skinwalker (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Re snake oil comment, snake oil has been found to have a chemical that is associated with arthritis treatment. So calling homeopathy snake oil is a euphamism for homeopathy. PPdd (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The rhetorical meaning is well enough understood. Snake oil discusses this. 80.254.146.36 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That comment of mine was supposed to be a joke. :) PPdd (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Skinwalker, you are so right. Just the conclusion and onwards is chilling. It makes the specific point that combining mainstream and alternative medicine was confusing and contributed to this travesty:
  • "While doctors Barnes and Tabrizian both made it clear to the deceased that they favoured her undergoing surgery, both offered alternative treatments which added to the confusion of the situation."
It's really a strong indictment of so-called "integrative medicine". -- Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It also shows why it is so critically important that Wikipedia pulls no punches when it comes to clearly stating the known facts about this kind of junk science. This was someone who is so desperate to have children in the future that she'd turn down the only chance she had at life and rejected everything conventional medicine could do on the advice of some utterly irresponsible idiot. She would have turned to any alternative that sounds plausible. It's highly likely that such a person would try to find that alternative themselves - and as the number one source of hard information on the entire Internet - a good fraction of such people will undoubtedly be coming to this very page in search of information. They will clutch at straws - we need to say "Homeopathy doesn't work" in clear and simple language (backed by reliable sources of course). If we allow the homeopaths to exercise undue weight and write what they want here - they WILL kill more people like Penelope Dingle who could otherwise have been saved. It's a serious responsibility for everyone who edits here...there aren't many times where writing the right thing can save lives - but this is one of them. SteveBaker (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Memethuzla's commentary

No real attempt to improve the article here. If there are new sources to consider, start a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's see, I have noted that this page is a bit of a skeptic festival, devoid of WP:NPOV balance (in fact it's very non-WP proselytising WP:propaganda), but relevance?
  • Dingle - A single case in which homeopathy was involved, against the dozens(/hundreds?) where conventional treatment was a problem.
So your point is? WP:NPOV, how relatively safe homeopathy is? Yes, horrifying, especially the coroners view, "In this case the choice for the deceased should have been a simple one between accepting the surgical option offered by Professor Platell or facing a painful death". Plenty of compassion there, then, not at all patronising. Not to mention that the good professor's recommendation did not exactly rule out an ultimate painful death in any case. But let's all agree to apply some good old Scientific undue weight anyway, eh?
  • NZIC - Yes, a standard cut&paste attack on homeopathy. So, some chemists say homeopathy is not chemistry (at least for now). Any other surprises?
"There is no such thing as 'alternative' medicine. There is only medicine", more than a little naïve.
  • Herald-Sun - Hack journalism; sad cases with only a tenuous relation to homeopathy.
  • Daily Telegraph (Australia)- Even more hack journalism, including the erudite reference "developed by a German bloke called Dr Samuel Hahnemann ", all manner of disproportion.
  • 10:23 - Stunts not Science. (Yes, silly stunts)
  • Natural History Museum - An attempt at petty censorship by Outraged of Wordpress?
  • Deafra? Obviously a hotbed of competence there. But we can't have people treating animals with homeopathy, can we? That would upset the placebo postulate.
  • Yes, that's relevant. But it has been observed that an insistence on EBM would severely inconvenience conventional medics, too.


and Beddington's comment is quite correct, if a two-edged sword. See below.
Skinwalker , what's all this about "handling" "Ullman-spawned meatpuppets". That really is WP:totally out of order, all sorts of bad form.
Ah, SteveBaker, I'm sure your beliefs are sincerely & passionately held, just as others cling to their positive personal experiences. Perhaps if you go on repeating your views often enough, someone will believe you. But there is NO scientific evidence that homeopathy "does not work" - none - else no doubt it would already be history, rather than clinging on for life. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that conventional medicine is always completely effective and safe (quite the reverse). Therefore - & I expect this may be painful for you to take - your conclusion is, as we say, fallacious. It's a straw patient. So it would be equally wrong of you to put people off their investigations & choices, however misguided you may feel them to be, and however much you want to deny the outcome studies (such as those published by the facultyofhomeopathy).
Memethuzla (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Memthuzla, perhaps you miss the point of NPOV. It doesn't mean that an article should be equally balanced between two points of view. Actually it means, we don't give undue weight to fringe theories using reliable sources. So, if you review these links, maybe you'll get a better understanding of NPOV. By the way, there's absolutely tons of scientific and clinical evidence that Homeopathy does not work. Moreover, there is no reliable source that shows that homeopathy does work. I would have to say that this talk page is not a forum. Maybe you should try someplace else to scream. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hallo, OrangeMarlin, I must admit I'm curious what brought you back here, but it's your prerogative to come and scream at dissenters if you wish (even if you come over "all unnecessary":-).
So, are you seriously contending that this article is WP:NPOV? I count only five of 22 sections that properly represent the subject itself without unbalanced criticism (to be fair, I'm counting "scare quotes" as bias, and I'm not including the section on criticisms itself). There's much unnecessary stressing about molecular chemistry (as currently understood, more or less) and undue weight given to a very few hard cases and a few highly biased players. The tenor of the article is extraordinarily skewed by the views of a minority of so-called scientists (a "fringe" who have made their minds up rather than pursuing enquiry), to the extent that it's more of a page about skepticism of homeopathy than the subject itself. No doubt many contributors here would approve of that, but is it proper WP?.
Yes, there's absolute sackfulls of "scientific" opinion that dismisses the subject, usually on grounds that don't stand up to much scrutiny. There's an (uncritical) section on that in the article. I think you'll find that most RS "scientific" sources will say more sanguinely that homeopathic "trails" show results little better than placebo (as a proper scientist you would know the difference expressed there), though many sources admit there is clearly additionally something unexplained going on (which immediately puts those sources beyond the pale to a paid-up skeptic, of course).
Thank you, you summarise my original point quite succinctly: this is a talk page on homeopathy, not a forum to give "heads up" to skeptic activists. Perhaps private networks or Twittr would be better for that, less visible. Bless. Memethuzla (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Memethuzla, actually, from this very same article: “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo”. Sources follow. Check them. Homeopathy does not work. The rest are your personal considerations, and I’m not going to argue with them, your opinions are yours. Facts are facts, and those go on Wikipedia. Fact: homeopathy does not work, studies show this, Wikipedia reports facts. So yes, this article is NPOV.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethuzla (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
So, this website facultyofhomeopathy.org, is it a source with a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking and unbiased reporting?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 15:52, March 29, 2011
From their home page: "What the Faculty does: The Faculty of Homeopathy promotes the academic and scientific development of homeopathy. We ensure the highest standards in the education, training and practice of homeopathy by dentists, doctors, nurses, midwives, osteopaths, pharmacists, podiatrists, veterinary surgeons and other statutorily registered healthcare professionals." An organization with a mission statement that says that they are here to "promote the...development of homeopathy" are clearly not claiming to be unbiassed! We do have an article about them: Faculty of Homeopathy. SteveBaker (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that URL slipped out prematurely, but it does serve to remove blinkers about the research being all one way.

Yes, "The Faculty was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1950 and has over 1400 members worldwide", it's highly respected amongst people who go in for that kind of thing. "The Faculty of Homeopathy promotes the academic and scientific development of homeopathy and ensures the highest standards in the education, training and practice of homeopathy by statutorily registered healthcare professionals." Very amusing, SteveBaker, one would hardly expect the FoH to be ambivalent about its ruling purpose. "Mission statement " is a bit strong! It's not a Mission, it's just what they do.

What I was about to say (aside from the reference) was:

Idonthavetimeforthiscarp either. We are straying way off the point I made, which is that a skepto-chummy "heads up" about reports scarcely relevant to the subject of this talk page does not belong here, even if it is of tremendous help in exposing bias amongst some contributors.
Why do you go on repeating "homeopathy does not work" as if it were a fact? (I rather assume it isn't an esoteric mantra, though there may somewhere be halls of skeptic temples where it is chanted day and night in the hopes of changing reality.) I've already covered the point about misinterpreting scientific results. Release yourself from the circular citation, and from that misconception about what the science does & does not show, and we might progress.
But thank you for pointing out those words from the lead. It's a perfect example of why the article is not WP:NPOV, and does rather illustrate my contention. It looks very like summary opinion to me - an example of wishful thinking on the part of skeptics. Citations? Did you check them? Does that factoid appear verbatim in any of those "sources"? Hutchison is of course just another encyclopedia; that citation is bogus and should probably be removed. Follow the other cites & you'll find the usual suspects (except for the 404 from the NHS, which in any case continues to support homeopathy, from which a rational conclusion is that they find it useful in some sense). To echo Enric Naval's question about the FoH: whether the usual suspects are truly RS, except amongst their personal fan clubs & the gullible media, is moot.
Memethuzla (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Memesy, homeopathy does not work, because it has been shown to not work. Alternatively, there are no reliable sources that shows it does work. As for your comment of why I showed up here.....well, I've been editing this article for over 5 years, give or take. I think I've earned the right to show up here. So good luck trying to push your POV that homeopathy is anything but water. Water is good for you, but it cures no diseases. It may quench thirst. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How can you be so reductionist? Homeopathy doesn't just have massively-diluted remedies. It also has paper remedies. Just write the name of your preferred remedy on a piece of paper, and put the paper in your pocket. Clearly, homeopathy is a sophisticated medical system. bobrayner (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Bob...how have I not been told this long before. You mean I could have avoided the cost of my education? I'm going to try that right now. My hair keeps thinning. I should have a full head of hair by tomorrow morning. Can't wait for this. Thanks Bob, I owe you! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ommm - I'm told that repeating a mantra can have remarkable effects, possibly even extending to suppressing unwelcome phenomena. It may be churlish, but I don't wish you good luck with that approach, I'd rather you were released from your misconceptions. If you do intend to keep it up, at least measure the effect on successful outcomes from, say, the homeopathic wing of the now-renamed Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. It would make an interesting study of the "morphic field". (Just to avoid any further misconceptions, I'm attempting to be humorous here.)
Yes, I've noticed your trenchant defence of your own point of view here, as if it were the one true defensible point of view, indeed. An eye for detail would have spotted that "I wonder what brought you back here" after so long an absence, and that "it's your prerogative . . . if you wish". I confess I still wonder (perhaps in the light of Skinwalker's comments, ibid.) whether someone had tipped you the "heads up", or if it was part of your busy normal routine to see that the cosy consensus on this "skeptics' forum" continues undisturbed. Memethuzla (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Mem, this is going nowhere. First lay off the insinuations. You have an obvious preference, but this article is not here to post credulous material. It's here to show the scientific consensus, which is that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo. That's it. If you feel there are reliable sources that have been neglected, post them here for discussion. Don't just rail against other editors as "biased." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Accusations of bias are tricky. When you have views that are at one end of a spectrum of views - you are bound to see that everyone on the mainstream side of your position are biassed because people with yet more extreme views than yours are impossible. Also, with a subject like homeopathy, there really aren't a spectrum of views - the central hypothesis that high dilutions are medically active is either true or it's not. That is guaranteed to polarize views into those who believe the science - and those who dismiss it. There is no possible rational position that's midway between those two extremes. Wikipedia's oft-stated role is to state the position of reliably sourced mainstream science as "true"...and that's what I do. If you reject the mainstream science in order to embrace homeopathy then you're never going to be happy editing here because the rules of the web site requires that your position will be rejected when the science says you're wrong. So from your perspective, the entire website is undoubtedly going to seem biassed against you...it's in the nature of a science-based encyclopedia. My point of view is that I'm completely unbiassed when it comes to reporting mainstream science from reliable sources - I treat them all fairly and with appropriate balance. SteveBaker (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, The Hand That Feeds You:Bite, I just returned to tone down that reply, on those very grounds (even though I thought I was being fair, not "pushing POV"), but now you've intervened perhaps it's best to let it stand, with my apologies if I have given (or taken) offence.
Is the WP article really here to show the scientific consensus, or is it here to give an unbiased exposition of the title subject? If the former, I didn't understand that, I admit; I had thought the latter, npov & all that. Perhaps you can point me to the relevant guidelines. The current beliefs of scientists deserve a strong mention, and perhaps a stub (not a fork), but I personally don't think they should infest the whole article. You don't see that in other areas considered fringe (not that homeopathy is exactly fringe), for example Flat Earth is not full of insistence on metric and projective geometry, and religious pages are not overrun by atheists or other competing beliefs. I frankly don't expect that suggestion to be welcomed here.
As for posting RS, you see the response to my accidental post of a reputable source in the field, even on the talk page. I hope I'm not being uncivil in saying there's a little bit history hereabouts, regarding acceptance of RS that isn't skeptical(& not just credulous material, but I suspect we would end up arguing in circles, there).Memethuzla (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's best to leave the comments as they are, so that replies make sense. If you really feel it was something you shouldn't have posted, you can use <strike> </strike> to mark through it like this.
Scientific consensus is the NPOV. Similar subjects like Acupuncture and Reiki also conform to that standard. Religious articles (unless about a pseudo-science subject) don't get that treatment because religion is a philosophy, not a medical or scientific practice. Flat-earth is so patently absurd it takes very little to point out how wrong it is, and it has no serious supporters. But subjects like this, where people are still trying to push fringe beliefs, are subject to close scrutiny due to previous attempts to sway them into advertisements or to support unproven techniques. And, yes, homeopathy is fringe. There's no plausible mechanism given for it to even work, and there's been no credible evidence of it working in several hundred years.
And, if you believe that source is "reputable," I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It's only a WP:RS for what that group believes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
SteveBaker Again, I think that cuts both ways. The skeptic clique seem pretty extreme to some people. Those who believe in the "authority" of science have rather lost the plot about science working towards a better understanding of what is.
Accusations of bias are tricky. When you have views that are at one end of a spectrum of views - you are bound to see that everyone else as biassed because people with yet more extreme views than yours are impossible.
I wonder what Schrödinger would say about his own ideas vs. the convention of the day. Or Dirac, or Feynman. But that's a conjectural aside.
My own view is that I know of no science that completely proves the impossibility of an observed natural phenomenon, just science that hasn't got there yet. Everything else is opinion, albeit erudite opinion. I'm sure I don't need to to point anyone at the history of science to underline that.
"Appropriate balance" then, is very much in the mind of the beholder. If your gut belief is that a certain phenomenon cannot occur (Ball_lightening of a few years ago?) then you are going to treat accounts as "unreliable", anecdotal, and it would be difficult to avoid bias, even irrational anger at opposing views.Memethuzla (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You've got it backwards, Mem. Science has to show something for it to be accepted. So far, homeopathy lacks that. It's no better than placebo, which in effect means it doesn't work. There's no "irrational anger" here, just people waiting for some actual evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Memethuzla, as I said, I’m not going to argue with your personal opinions, since I don’t care for them and they have no importance on Wikipedia. I said homeopathy does not work because that’s the scientific consensus, and that’s what double bind studies have demonstrated. Again, check the sources:

“The (Science and Technology) Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.

The Committee concluded-given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy-that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.”

So, unless you have equally reliable sources demonstrating through scientifical studies that homeopathy works, the scientific consensus is that it does, in fact, NOT work. It’s not a mantra, it’s a scientific truth. And Wikipedia reports that. When you’ll have scientific proof that homeopathy works, remember to cash the million dollar prize Randi is offering. Until then, it’s a fact that homeopathy is quackery, a fraud, lacks any scientific base, and that’s what a NPOV article will report. Do we really have to discuss this much longer? You need PROOF of what you are claiming. Solid, science-based PROOF. None exists for homeopathy. Get over it, and stop trying to push your personal agenda on Wikipedia, please.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If homeopathy actually works, Randi may not live to present the prize. His present 'performance piece' opens with him drinking down 8 entire bottles of homeopathic cold cure (aka "water") - each of which says "WARNING! DO NOT EXCEED THE STATED DOSE!" in big, bold letters on the label. Having overdosed himself about 100 times over the adult limit each time he gives that presentation - it's a fairly safe bet that he won't have to pay the $1,000,000 whether homeopathy works or not! FWIW, I liked this demo so much that I was planning on doing it at a college science fair I was asked to speak at. What stopped me was the $24 a bottle price tag on the homeopathic cold cure! Even if homeopathy works, that's a horrible rip-off!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


I shouldn't get too anxious about Randi, Steve, he's a professional conjuror and has been misleading and misdirecting people for most of his life. At least (presumably) he's not being ripped off by Pfizer (South America), after the recent decisions in the US courts. He's under greater threat from his cancer and toxic treatments, of course, than from any homeopathic remedies, however inappropriately prescribed (the conventional concept of overdose is alien to non-molecular medicine, but you "know" that) but I suppose he'll have the best of EBM to help him on his way. Perhaps he'll be fortunate enough to come across some of the (conventional) papers linking selenium deficiency to bowel cancer, and turn to complementary orthomolecular medicine to give himself a better chance. Or perhaps not.
Idonthavetimeforthiscarp either. If you are not going to argue further along these same lines, I shall be absolutely delighted.
Certainly, homeopathy remains a field of great controversy, it is not a settled matter, whatever your beliefs & depth of feeling.
There certainly are reports that suggest there may be evidence of efficacy of homeopathy, but there is only so much point is citing them here just to have them rejected because they support an "unacceptable" position. (Circular logic.)
You continue fallaciously to equate some results that homeopathy is "no more effective than a placebo in (selected) trials" (confirmation bias?), with the statement "homeopathy does not work". Well, I'm not aware of any scientific consensus at present on the mechanisms by which placebos have effect, so that whole view is pretty shaky, I'd say.
What is more, Homeopathy has a long tradition in Europe and is a recognised and widely used system of medicine across much of the EU (as well as in India & thereabouts) - it isn't exactly "fringe", even if its rivals would like to push it in that direction - so when I say that it deserves a more balanced article (less over-run by narrow skeptic interpretations and bias) I don't think it's fair (or civil) to accuse me of pushing a personal agenda..Memethuzla (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm
The point is that placebos don't work. People who get better would've gotten better on their own. Trying to argue that homeopathy "has a long tradition" is just as fallacious, since astrology has an even longer tradtion. Doesn't make it any more scientific or effective, just more psuedoscience with no end of scams in sight. I understand you don't like that, but it has no relevance to this article's content. Unless you have specific sources to cite, this conversation isn't going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diet, exercise, and hygiene

I deleted this paragraph as the only reference for it was a scathing criticism of homeopathy and made no mention of better hygiene practiced by homeopaths. In fact, the article claims that better outcomes by homeopathic preparations were due to the fact that they had nothing in them, compared with some of the more brutal medical treatments of the time.Desoto10 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you certain you knew which words to search for? That reference was also used elsewhere and now that's left without a reference. Please be more careful. Rather than completely delete it, how about improving it with what you found in the source? That would add a significant piece of information. The strength of homeopathy at the time was that doing nothing was often better than using the "heroic" measures so common at the time: strong and very poisonous drugs, bloodletting, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 1 One has to be careful to read the entire source for that particular source. (I'm not saying Desoto10 didn't.) It previously came up that the source did not mention the role of dreams in homeopathy, because a few editors did a google book search for the word "dream", and it turned up nothing, as if the word was not in the article. Yet it was there prominently. Simply searching for words "diet", "hygene", and "exercise" might not find them in the article when they are in the article.
  • 2 Brangifer's "improving it with what you found in the source" suggestion is a good one. The article is RS for a historical fact as to why homeopathy managed to survive off of one of many "doctor's" kooky ideas back then, which should be in the article, even if the fact is only that it was nothing vs. the very bad as treatment. (Though maybe not in a diet, excercise, and hygiene section.)
  • 3 Homeopaths are finatical about how "they" stressed diet, hygiene, and excercise when such was not stressed by others, and this should be in the article as a fact of history, so if that source is not enough, another should be looked for.
  • 4 The "hygiene as part of the reason for homeopathy's survival", should be in the article, and if it is not in that source, a source should be found. (It is so obvious that it must be in some RS.) PPdd (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 5 Re "scathing attack"- In those days, language in science journals was often polemic in tone, but the source is still RS. PPdd (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This whole hygiene thing is utterly tangential to the discussion. If I go to Walmart and pick up a bottle of "homeopathic medicine" (ie water) - it doesn't say anything whatever on the label about needing to have better hygiene, diet or exercise in order for it to work. There is simply no mechanism by which choosing that medicine rather than 'real' medicines can change people's behavior. So people who take these so-called cures aren't going to be better washed, fed and exercised than the general public - unless they were already doing that. So if this argument has any statistical merit whatever, it can only be that cause and effect have gotten mixed up. It can only be possibly be that people who are naturally better fed, washed and exercised have a greater propensity for being taken in by homeopathy than people who are less fastidious. The fact that they are generally healthier isn't because they are taking homeopathic snake-oil - it's because they were generally healthier in the first place. I could easily believe that conclusion - but the reverse is just nuts.
Does this have any bearing on the validity of homeopathy at all? No! It might just also be that people who have better personal care tend to wear brighter colored clothing or drive faster cars than the general population - there are a million other possible unexplored correlations. Do we attribute better health to any of those behaviors? It's so unlikely that we don't even bother to study it. I don't think this study proves a damned thing. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is not about the validity of homeopathy, its about homeopathy. A fact of homeopathic medical practice (not about the remedies) is a focus on diet, hygiene, and exercise. A historical fact is that hygiene a focus, and so taking nothing but water was better than doing the horrific and disease promoting filthy other things available, and this explains why taking nothing but water and keeping clean was such a big improvement, that the practice survived so long to become a cult. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, you can hardly have an article about Homeopathy without discussing it's validity. It's certainly possible that giving people water instead of leeches (or whatever) was a benefit - but we need to be crystal clear that this is purely a historical matter. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's only of historical importance. I'm wondering if it's really that special. Homeopaths weren't the only ones advocating pure water, exercise, fresh air, etc.. It wasn't unique to them, so any mention must be based on it being totally unique to them. Was it? No. We would need several good sources documenting such a uniqueness, not just one source. Barring that, it shouldn't be mentioned.
What should be mentioned is what that source, and numerous others, confirm, and that is that doing nothing (a few drops of water) was better than the often harmful heroic measures of the day. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I happen to be an expert at doing nothing. I wonder if that qualifies me as a doctor of homeopathy. :) PPdd (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
A "Homeopathic practitioner"...yeah, sure. Gotta be super-careful about how you use the "doctor" word though...that could get you into big trouble! SteveBaker (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the obvious link between homeopathy and the placebo effect, being an 'expert' at doing nothing will clearly make you more effective than us mere amateur not-doing-anythingoligists. Have you thought about setting up some sort of college or similar where you could pass on your expertise to a new generation? If this was a possibility, I'd like to enrol as a student, so I could skip lectures, not bother to sit exams, and qualify with a first-class degree. :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Yes, I thought of summarizing the old AMA paper but what it would add was not clear. I actually did read it, which is more than I can say for whomever put it in to begin with and whomever rewrote it. Granted, I could have missed it, but there was certainly no emphasis on cleanliness, exercise or diet that I could see. I did not just search for keywords. Scathing is the correct term for this article. Here is what the author concludes:

“In conclusion: Since there is nothing of value which is peculiar to homeopathy; since the dogma upon which homeopathy is founded is contrary to reason and contrary to fact; and since a lare portion of the sect no longer bind themselves closely by the dogma in practice, but hang on to the designation apparently for advertising purposes, the existence of the sect is not conducive of advancement in the science of medicine, and its further life as a sect should be in every way discouraged in all intelligent communities.”

There is one sentence, containing the word “hygienic” in a section on homeopathic treatment of men with cholera on a ship where the homeopathically treated had a lower fatality rate than those treated medically. The author concluded that this was “not because of positive value, but because it did no harm. The medicine used had little or no effect. In the statistics given, hygienic conditions have been ignored.”

If someone else wants to take a shot at finding something about exercise, hygiene and diet, feel free. The font is painfull. Desoto10 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My last paragraph above is in error. The author was not referring to the cholera bit when mentioning hygiene. He was listing reasons why homeopathic physicians claim to be more successful than others in the treatment of disease. When he says, “In the statistics given, hygienic conditions have been ignored” he was referring to why the comparisons with medicine and homeopathy were “of little or no value”. One could interpret this to mean that hygienic conditions for homeopathic treatments were better than those for scientific medicine which led to better outcomes, but he does not come out and say that. If this is the only source for this then it is pretty weak.Desoto10 (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In the Samuel Hahnemann article is the following:
  • The Friend of Health, in which Hahnemann "recommended the use of fresh air, bed rest, proper diet, sunshine, public hygiene and numerous other beneficial measures at a time when many other physicians considered them of no value."[30][31]
Perhaps we could just use that.Desoto10 (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Desoto10, you were absolutely right to remove this paragraph and its source. I just re-read it and apart from the one mention of ‘hygenic conditions’, there is nothing to indicate that there might be a difference in hygiene between ‘homeopathic’ and ‘scientific’ treatment. While this sentence might indicate that hygiene (at that time) was generally better at homeopathic hospitals, it doesn't say so and it is only one point of five which the author thinks make statistics comparing homeopathic and ‘other’ physicians erroneous (and in my eyes it's the weakest of the five). One of the sources in the Hahnemann article might indeed be okay to use (Rothstein, William G, American Physicians in the Nineteenth Century: from Sects to Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972, p.158), but of course we'll have to make sure it actually says that.
While it is true that the source was used elsewhere, it wasn't in the section on history, which is, I believe, the only place it is good for. How can a 1894 article, written by an ‘opponent’ of homeopathy be used to describe today's practice? Anything that is important today should be easily verifiable through up-to-date sources. I'll therefore hide this statement until such a source is found. --Six words (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked the Rothstein book and it seems to be a good source for our history section. At first I thought about adding one or two sentences there, but then I realised diet, excersise and hygiene are already mentioned there, so I'll just add the source. --Six words (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Desoto10, good catch. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Against Homeopathy - A Utilitarian Perspective

Interesting study:

Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's really interesting and he's making some good points, but most of the “disutilities” he discusses are already in the article, though not all of it in the ethics and safety section. I just re-read the section and wonder if it should really describe single cases. Couldn't we just summarise those into a few sentences (like saying dangers come from low or incorrectly perfomed dilution of biologically active starting materialsrefs to arsenic poisoning case, zicam, hyland's teething tablets,... and that failure to receive proper treatment can result in serious harm and sometimes even deathrefs to Baby Gloria, woman not taking her heart medication, Penelope Dingle, ...). I'm NOT suggesting to trim down the entire section, I just think we shouln't put undue weight on single cases (zicam isn't a single case, so it can be covered in more detail, but I think it can be trimmed, too). --Six words (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On the 4th reference website for the National Health Service, the link appear to be dead. This needs to be addressed or deleted. Cheers! 20:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reddevil1421 (talk)

The general "working principles" of this quackery seems the same as in witchcraft (magic). Same cures alike. This time waving a bottle of water around something toxic to make it magically cure something is the same ancient principle. Should be a link to witchcraft and the principles of magical thinking. 91.156.123.180 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific wp:Reliable source you would suggest citing for this? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
LSD, I didn't assume good faith with this posting. Glad you did!  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There was of course all that fuss by young Dolphin of the juniorBMA in the press a while back. Not a scholarly comparison, that is; just shallow rhetoric. At least it served to underline the point that he and his friends were engaged in a witch hunt.
He later felt it politic to withdraw, for fear of offending the witches. It's unclear how genuinely afraid he was of being the subject of any potential curse.
You'd find something reports in the hugely reliable Daily Telegraph, I'm sure.
I don't know how much it would add to the article, though. Smacks of OR to me. I have wondered myself whether there might be a common attribution in the way patients feel better after seeing practitioners of whatever art. Conventional treatment can be pretty ritualistic, too.
Perhaps there are some parallels with Sacred Science on the skeptic side, too. I expect I could find sources for that, but I doubt they'd be acceptable.
Memethuzla (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is probably a great deal of truth in the analogy - and, as Memethuzla points out, even orthodox medicine is 'ritualised' and has its 'magical'/placebo elements. It may well be that a source somewhere discusses this - the field of medical anthropology would seem a good candidate to search for sources. I'll see if I can find anything, though I don't currently have access to the sort of library that will likely have such sources. It is entirely possible for homeopathy to be both 'quackery' from a physical science perspective, and a valid topic for investigation from a social science one - indeed, the social sciences may well help us understand why it 'works', even when it 'doesn't'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's already there, 91.156~, but not given undue weight. Didn't you see that? It's the last word in the Remedies section, with two refs (good in parts).
Memethuzla (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What is 'already there' doesn't actually relate to the (possible) parallels between 'orthodox' homeopathy and 'withcraft' (and with the ritualistic aspects of conventional medicine), as seen from a social science perspective - which was what I was suggesting there might be sources for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, AndyTheGrump, interesting study, I agree (mostly). Potentially useful. I was just replying directly to 91.156.123.180 that a link with magic had already been made in the article, he must have missed it when he read it carefully through, before attempting his positive contribution. However, I still don't think that expanding the idea would add much to the central topic, and it might tend to slide even further away from WP:NPOV, if it were used pejoratively. (I have no wish to offend the witches, either.) Memethuzla (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem with this is that it could be said of almost any pseudoscience. The majority of them are appealing to what is (essentially) magic - and that in turn has links to the ideas of witchcraft. I don't think many homeopathists would agree that they were thinking of witchcraft, and without scientific backup, homeopathy is all about what people believe. So we need to avoid giving undue weight to this linkage and stick closely to what we find stated in reliable sources. SteveBaker (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request: Image of pills with size-comparison

I was just browsing through the article and would like to suggest that it would be very useful if the article could contain some visualization of the size of homeopathic pills. There is an existing image, File:DoseOscillococcinum.jpg, but it doesn't show the size comparatively. It would be very useful if a similar image could be produced that shows the relative size of the pills compared to some reasonably common object like a pencil or teaspoon or US/Euro coins. This would improve the article. I don't have any homeopathy pills, and I have no desire to buy any, but I'm sure someone editing the article may have a supply of homeopathic pills and a camera. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question I have is whether all homeopathic pills fall within a particular size range. Would providing a size reference necessarily help? SteveBaker (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
From reports, most homeopathy pills seem to be very small - much smaller than the average pharmaceutical pill. That's why I suggested it. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Huh! Well, I guess it doesn't make a difference - I presume that a small pill that does nothing whatever is just as good as a large one that still does nothing whatever. But this seems a bit WP:OR-ish. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that there's dozens (if not hundreds) of homeopathic remedies in pill form. You really can't just pull out one or two for a size comparison, since they're all going to vary in size. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
But if there is something notable going on here (like they are generally tiny compared to mainstream medicines' pills as Tom suggests) then it would be useful to show that with a photo. I guess the ideal photo would have something of known size (like a penny or a pencil tip or something) and maybe 50 different homeopathic pills scattered around it - and one standard sized mainstream medicine capsule for comparison. Sadly, most of us here unlikely to actually buy homeopathic remedies - so we're really going to need one of the homeopathy enthusiasts who occasionally visit here (who would ideally need to be a hypochondriac!) to photograph their collection for us. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked it up in the case of the major German producer of homeopathic remedies (DHU), and it appears that they produce primarily the following forms: Drops, globules and tablets. Apparently 5 drops = 5 globules = 1 tablet as far as dosage is concerned. [7] They can all be seen on the photo, and the tablets seem to be much more than 5 times as big as the globules.
In my own very limited experience with homeopathy administered by regular physicians and midwives in Germany, drops and globules seem to be more common than tablets. Hans Adler 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this 5 drops = 5 globules = 1 tablet a standard homeopathic conversion table? I see irony everywhere. I'm still wondering what good would a photo of a homeopathic pill would be? Unless it's sitting on a piece of paper that shows the chemical content of said pill. And we all know, whether it's a globule or a pill, that paper will show nothing of use in the pill. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I have seen something like this conversion before, so I assume it's standard. But of course we would need a reliable source. I guess the idea of this section is that the most technical information you can give about a placebo is its size, shape and colour. I agree with that more or less. I don't think it's particularly important, but there are worse ways of illustrating this article than with typical homeopathic remedies. Hans Adler 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, without an RS for this, it's just pure WP:OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Without some kind of reliable source that says that homeopathic pills are generally smaller than conventional medication, we can do nothing to imply that this is the case. But if such a source can be found - then a better photo that emphasizes this would be useful. However, without that kind of reference, the claim that homeopathic pills are small is WP:OR. SteveBaker (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ImmortalGaur, 12 April 2011

'similia similibus curentur' principle given by Samuel Hahnemann is outrightly rejected by the science as per this article. However a similar sort of treatment is used in the preparation of antivenom (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivenom. Consider this and edit the article, appropriately, if you find this argument convincing.

ImmortalGaur (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Venom is only used for production: "The subject animal will undergo an immune response to the venom, producing antibodies against the venom's active molecule which can then be harvested from the animal's blood and used to treat envenomation." Bulwersator (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Wikipedia shouldn't be a self-reference. There may or may not be a rule about it, but there should be. Furthermore, antivenoms have nothing to do with homeopathy, are not related to homeopathy, and are not based on homeopathy. It is based on the immune response of an animal to an antigen. In this case, a diluted and purified venom, and not diluted until there's nothing there, just diluted enough not to kill the animal, is injected to cause an immune response. This is real science, known for a hundred years at least. You're not even talking apples and oranges. More like apples and air. So, no. This isn't an NPOV issue. It's mistaking real science for pseudoscience based on the word "dilution." OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Specifically - the diluted venom is given to a perfectly healthy animal, not to cure it of anything, but to provoke an immune response. The resulting antibodies are then extracted from the animal's blood, stored and subsequently administered to the human victim as a cure. The victim doesn't get a diluted version of anything, the animal isn't cured of anything and the dilution is vastly less than a homeopathic 'treatment'. The homeopathic approach would be to dilute the venom to the point where no immune response is remotely possible - and then administer it directly to the victim. That's an entirely different process. SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regulation and prevalence, proposed reduction

It seems to me that half of this section shouldn't be dedicated to quotes about the UK government's inquiries into whether or not they should fund homeopathic treatment. I would reduce it to something like, "In February 2010 a UK House of Commons inquiry concluded 'homeopathy is a placebo treatment...Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.' However in July 2010 the newly appointed UK Secretary of State for Health reversed this in a document stating, 'our continued position on the use of homeopathy within the NHS is that the local NHS and clinicians, rather than Whitehall, are best placed to make decisions on what treatment is appropriate for their patients - including complementary or alternative treatments such as homeopathy - and provide accordingly for those treatments.' The document also stated that 'the overriding reason for NHS provision is that homeopathy is available to provide patient choice.'" But alas, I can not edit protected articles. 76.22.66.13 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from - but I'm not inclined to make that change - and here is why: This is an article about Homeopathy - not about health care practices in the UK. The carefully done scientific study in the inquiry came to the unsurprising conclusion that the only effect of homeopathy is as a placebo. That is an important statement about homeopathy which certainly belongs here. The decision of a government minister to allow all kinds of alternative medicine - including homeopathy - to be provided by the NHS speaks only about the state of the healthcare system in the UK - it doesn't say anything whatever about Homeopathy, which is the subject of this article. The Minister didn't say that the study was wrong in its conclusions - he merely disagreed over some issue of patient choice. So - as I said - I'm not going to make the change you ask. If someone else decides to do so, then I'd seriously have to consider reverting it. It's just not relevant here. If you really want to see this information in Wikipedia - then I suggest it belongs in one or more of the various articles about the NHS.
IMHO (and off-topic), the Minister was wrong because conventional medicines aren't allowed to be prescribed by doctors in the UK (or most other countries) unless they perform significantly better than placebo. Homeopathic "medicines" should be subjected to the same scrutiny. Furthermore, if prescribing a placebo is a medically and ethically sound decision - then bottles of water, sugar pills and inert syrups could be provided to patients at a microscopic fraction of the cost of homeopathic products.
SteveBaker (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
An article about homeopathy should definitely consider the funding, regulation, and administration of homeopathy as in-scope. The NHS spends tax money, ostensibly to deliver better public health. Whether or not it covers homeopathy represents an iteresting debate: do individuals have a right to choose an ineffective therapy at public expense? Do homeopaths have a right to public payment for their service as if it was effective? Similar questions play out in other countries, but the UK example serves as a good case in point. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some interesting variations on those themes in a couple of countries in mainland Europe, but the NHS thing is a bit more accessible to editors here since all the sources are in English. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The decision made by the Minister of Health relates to "alternative medicine" - including herbal medicine and a bunch of other stuff. Homeopathy is mentioned in passing as just one example of that kind of thing. WP:UNDUE would certainly apply here. We're not talking about an endorsement of the efficacy of homeopathy by the UK government - and that is what including this would imply. You're right that it's an interesting debate - but it's a debate about how the UK government and NHS handle issues of patient choice in the realms of alternative medicine. There are better places to discuss that. It's off-topic here. At most, we could include a link to other articles that discuss it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
So, we don't want to make the proposed edit because the proposed edit may include non-germane information. But the proposed edit is merely a condensed version of what is already written in the article. As it stands, the section has a lot more extraneous information than the proposal. It literally adds nothing new. Here is a further condensed proposal which reduces the section on the UK to a similar size as other countries' policies mentioned in the section and which does not mention the Minister of Health's decision: "In February 2010 a UK House of Commons inquiry concluded 'homeopathy is a placebo treatment...Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.'"76.22.66.13 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If "it literally adds nothing new," what's the point of the proposed edit? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that over half of this section shouldn't be dedicated to quotes about the UK government's inquiries into whether or not they should fund homeopathic treatment. Why should the other seven countries discussed have one sentence summaries while the UK gets more than half the text? The main article, Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, says less about the UK's policies than this section does. As others have pointed out, much of the information currently in the article is irrelevant. One might say, as SteveBaker indeed has, that the information about the steps of the UK's bureacratic process are undue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.18.153 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Marking edit request answered. Still feel free to discuss. Stickee (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

marginal even for homeopathy

"Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include thunderstorms (prepared from collected rainwater).[1]"

For me it looks like very, very marginal site/method/etc. I deleted mention about this on plwiki, as wp:undue. And I think that I will do it also here. Objections? Bulwersator (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Bulwersator (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 212.219.236.1, 20 May 2011

this is a highly unbalanced article. 212.219.236.1 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean the fact that homeopathy doesn't work, and is nothing more than water? All of which is verified by reliable sources? If you have suggestions then please list them, but make sure they are supported by highly reliable sources. As a piece of advice, after many years, no one has found a reliable source. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken redirect

Materia Medica Pura —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulwersator (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be linked from this article, but I've fixed the redirect so that it goes to the page the Materia Medica Pura article was merged with. Brunton (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bulwersator (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious sourcing problem

"and then vigorously shaken by ten hard strikes against an elastic body in a process called succussion" is not sourced (ref 54 is not covering this) Bulwersator (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref found Bulwersator (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy and medical ethics - David Shaw

An interesting article from a MEDRS with some good content we can use:

Shaw, David. "Homeopathy and medical ethics". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, Volume 16, Issue 1, pages 17–21, March 2011. Article first published online: 4 NOV 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2010.01051.x Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Conclusion
"Homeopathic practice does not seem compatible with any of the four principles of modern medical ethics, as the hayfever example and the case of Mr Woods and Ms Foster have shown. Homeopathy involves deceiving patients in order to achieve dubious benefit, which could potentially delay access to conventional treatment, contribute to attendant harm, and unfairly waste resources. It has been argued that homeopathy must be provided in order to respect patient autonomy, in the atypical sense that patients ought to be able to choose whichever treatment they want. However, if there is no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy, we should not deprive conventional medicine of funding to satisfy the whims of those who happen to have a particular belief. In other words, respecting patient autonomy does not mean giving patients whatever they want, even if it harms them, but rather offering them treatments that science has shown to work. Homeopathy is an unethical anomaly that has no place in the era of evidence-based medicine." (Emphasis added - BR)

Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FACT... Virtual Issue: Homeopathy

Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies (FACT) has published a virtual issue focusing on homeopathy. There are a number of articles we could use as MEDRS references here:

Priya Chanda BSc Hons, Adrian Furnham DPhil DSc DLitt
Adrian Furnham DPhil DSc DLitt, Priya Chanda BSc Hons
Scott Sehon PhD, Donald Stanley MD
David Shaw
David Colquhoun FRS, Martien Brands MD, PhD
Robert T Mathie PhD
W Steven Pray
W Jonas

Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

First blush, they look good, but are they peer-reviewed? Virtual journals rarely are (or at best, have a biased editorial methodology). If we're going to hold the CAMMIES to high quality sources, then let's make sure that these are. They seem a lot like editorials. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
But let me say...good find. I'm bookmarking these for my anti-pseudomedicine blog. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a special issue. It's not normally a "virtual" journal. The content is being made available for free this time. I guess Edzard Ernst (editor) thought it important enough to do it. The articles should each be evaluated and used on their own basis. Some will no doubt be usable as the opinions of skeptics or of believers. There are both kinds. Jonas is a believer. Others are skeptics. Since this is about homeopathy, we're not dealing with evidence based medicine, but a fringe subject, so special rules apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
All the articles have previously been published in the journal over the last five or six years - they have the original references. Brunton (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly scientifically sound work, it's all well referenced and makes no attempt to deny the anecdotal claims, more to understand why they continue despite what is generally considered to be a complete lack of evidence to support the purported underlying mechanisms. Ernst is a specialist in this field and has written numerous peer-reviewed articles and the odd book. I would be inclined to take this work at face value. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin reversions

Orangemarlin: I am new to this page, and I spent about 40 minutes making a number of careful, considered, edits. In general, they reflected the fact that homeopathy is a belief system, and no matter how many people may or may not believe in it, beliefs should always be distinguished from facts. This is also true for much of science, ranging from the infinite to the infinitessimal.

I would have expected any subsequent editor to have approached these matters on an individual basis. Evidently, you are of the view that homeopathy is proven, factual science, and you plan to suppress neutral writing. The edits I made were all from the neutral standpoint that the various concepts of homeopathy are those of its adherents. What I have done has a purely neutral POV. If you can show instances where that is not the case, please go ahead.

I have reverted your intervention, and I now ask you to deal with these matters in an individual, responsible way. Simply to reverse wholesale all edits by others is not, by my understanding of wikipedia practise, reasonable.

You are not "in charge" of this page, I ask you to show respect for other editor's time and initiatives. Bluehotel (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your edits (I'm going to do this as soon as I've made this comment), but your impression of Orangemarlin is dead wrong I think. As for calling homeopathy a belief system - while I personally agree, reliable sources call it an alternative “system of medicine”. Our article needs to reflect what the sources say, not what the editors writing it think about the subject. --Six words (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It is really interesting that you would accuse Organgemarlin of believing that homeopathy is "proven, factual science." If you look at this talk page and his edit history you will find the opposite to be true. While I appreciate your effort, the some of what you added appears to needless hedging of statements. I will give a few examples, but pretty much everything you changes falls into this category.
  • "known to those who believe in it as the "law of similars...""These laws around which homeopathy is based have the same names whether you believe in them or not.
  • "some individual studies have produced apparently positive results..." No need to say "apparently", either the results are positive or not, the interpretation of those results might be subjective, but the results themselves are not.
Some of you other changes are not problematic and could be added back. I would suggest making your changes in parts, that way they can be discussed and reverted individually rather than as a whole. --Daniel 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
We do pick our words carefully here. Let me explain why your two points are NOT accepted:
  • "known to those who believe in it as the "law of similars..."" - The issue is that those who do not believe in it would not describe this as a "law". In a scientific context (which is the language in which this article must be written), the term "law" has very strong, quite specific meaning. Scientifically, "similars" is at best an unproven hypothesis. Since this is an article of a scientific nature, we are obligated to use words like "law" with extreme care. A law has to be proven with experimental evidence, documented in peer-reviewed journals, re-tested by independent (and typically hostile) labs, re-published, reviewed and so forth. Hence, only those who believe in homeopathy would call it "the law of similars" rather than the "the disproven hypothesis of similars" - (or at the VERY best "the unproven hypothesis of similars"). So, we absolutely cannot, under any circumstances accept the removal of "to those who believe in it"...to do so would be to state that this is indeed a law of nature - and that cannot be backed by RS.
  • "some individual studies have produced apparently positive results..." - these results are only "apparently" positive because, again, no scientific result is considered true until it has been reproduced independently by at least one team. These results, such as they are, have not been reproduced - so we can't call them "positive results" without very careful qualification.
Bottom line is that this article has to be treated like any other article about a scientific subject. That's a requirement of Wikipedia core guidelines...and no amount of protestation is going to change that. Because there are no reliable sources that say anything other than that Homeopathy is a cruel con trick perpetrated on the sick and disabled - then that is what we must say in this article.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Look, I was being nice in my edit summary. Now, I'm going to be blunt. The edits were badly written, so weasel worded that it actually slightly changed the POV. And that I believe that Homeopathy is "proven, factual science." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that's rich. Someone needs to read my talk page. And if I were in "charge" of this article, I would cut out 99.9% of of it, and the lead would simply say "Homeopathy is a load of shit, figuratively, and if it is to believed, literally." It would be followed by 25 citations. And I'd call it a day.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bluehotel, I agree with Daniel. Some of your edits are okay, but many are not, and the ones in the lede are really awful. If I had seen them, I would have reverted, too, and since you made them all in one edit, I would have done it the same way Orangemarlin did.
Here are those I'd agree with:
  1. Line 72 ("Hahnemann's “law of similars”") - aphorism should be wikilinked, otherwise fine IMO.
  2. Line 120 (disputed and controversial) - to me, those are synonyms (I am, however, a foreign speaker, so there may be a reason for using both - or maybe the original author likes tautologies?).
  3. Line 133 - I'd keep the “system of” in front of homeopathy, other than that it's fine, I think.
--Six words (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Steve, are arguing that BlueHotel's edits that OrangeMarlin reverted were good changes? I was trying to explain why the additions BlueHotel made were reverted the bold parts where what BlueHotel added and OrangeMarlin and I removed. I think you may have gotten mixed up, but maybe it is me. --Daniel 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with John and Orangemarlin that many of the changes (especially those to the lead) introduced weasel wording, and were not good. The revert was perfectly reasonable in view of the large number of changes and the proportion of them that could be retained.
As for those that could arguably be retained, perhaps the edits at line 73, line 133, and possibly line 149, have merit. The edits to the lead are (IMO) clearly not acceptable. Brunton (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, broadly, with Brunton. I agree with some of the sentiments which might have motivated those changes, but there was too much weaselly wording. Some of the latter changes were reasonable but I think the changes to the lede were unhelpful. bobrayner (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I am arguing that those two specific edits were good, yes. I'm not disputing that many of the others were less good - or even outright bad. I would also caution Bluehotel that the amount of effort you spent making the changes has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether the rest of the community here sees them as good or bad - and keeps or reverts as a consequence. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that some of the edits were innocuous, and possibly helpful. But there were so many, I didn't have time to clean it up, since the benefits were outweighed by the costs of bad changes. As a strong recommendation to the OP, one change at a time, or at least one section at a time. I never make that many edits in one fell swoop. It's paced over a bunch of saves, to prevent edit conflicts, but also making it easy to undo one or two that might be controversial. Might have still been lazy and reverted them all, but maybe not.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

pl:Homeopatia article based on traslation from enwiki received GA status! Thanks! Bulwersator (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of 'shakes'

Enough. This is going in circles. Cjwilky, I think it's time you accept that you're not going to simply badger everyone else into making the article fit your preferences. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At preparation it says the number of 'shakes' is ten. Here http://www.hahnemannlabs.com/preparation.html you can read that is not the case. This pharmacy uses 20 shakes. The number of shakes is not so crucial to making the remedy, though 10 shakes is unusually low.

I suggest that the 'ten' is changed to 'a number of'. Also the accompanying reference is misleading if it says ten, so suggest that is removed too. In any case surely its correct to have a reference to a homeopath, eg Hahnemann, rather than someone who knows little of homeopathy? Cjwilky (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "a number of" since that's a bit of a weasel, but the article should probably reflect that there is no standard preparation, but we need a source that states that, we can't just induce it based on the fact that there isn't one. Noformation Talk 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 'a number of' isn't ideal, but then nor is the current inaccurate 'ten'. Clearly its better a weasel than an untruth. I think this is a no brainer. I've given a real world reference that shows my point. It can be changed again later when someone comes up with a reference as you suggest. Cjwilky (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a weasel vs. an untruth, it's a matter of a reliable source vs. a non reliable source. It shouldn't be too hard to find one that states that there are no standards in homeopathy (likely a critical article will exist that states this exactly). Noformation Talk 03:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, here at WP we don't change articles and add sources later. If you want to change/add something you need to do so while citing a source. The pharmacy is not a reliable source I don't think so at this point you'd need to find a source and then change the article. Noformation Talk 03:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm the one that reverted the edit by the OP (Cjwilky), I'm concerned about this "shakes" idea. It doesn't matter if it's 10, 20, 1000, homeopathy still doesn't work. So if the OP thinks that he can edit the article to reflect a POV that 20 shakes will get it to work, then I'm going to have to say that realiable sources will be required. If we're just saying that a typical preparation (that will never work) requires 20 or some other reliably sourced number of shakes, go for it. My impression is that homeopathic standards are not very standardized. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, if someone can find a peer-reviewed double-blind trial that compares the efficacy of 10-shake 'remedies' with 20-shake ones (and defines what constitutes a 'shake'), we can of course include this in the article. Otherwise, yes, WP:MEDRS applies, and we cannot make any statements about which is better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The pharmacy isn't a reliable source, good one :) If thats what they do, thats how a remedy is made. At https://www.helios.co.uk/technical.html we have the reference to ten 'shakes'. At http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/ayurveda-health-wellbeing/908688-remedies-homeopathic-pharmacy.html you have the reference to two 'shakes'. That latter site quotes Hahnemann who in the 4th edition of his Organon book suggested 2 shakes, but in the 5th edition he suggested 10 shakes. Many pharmacies stick to that, but some do more as I referenced and some do 30... can't find a reference but I know as I've been there when it was happening. So we could say "typically between 2 and 20"? It matters not whether or not there is any 'proof' of anything here, we're just describing a process. It also matters not what the difference is between them. The shaking is clearly referenced in Hahnemanns writings. So from what you say, thats okay for me to make the change then? All factual, and referenced. Cjwilky (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would consider neither of those citations to be "reliable". Sorry. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahnemann is relaible - I propose to cite the book not the website, that was there just for you to see. A pharmacy that makes remedies is more reliable than the refernece you currently have. Explain your reasoning please Cjwilky (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"I've been there" isn't a reliable source, and neither is a homeopathic 'pharmacy'. All the sources seem to be saying is that the 'remedy' is shaken - there is no process to describe, as a 'process' implies that something is happening to the 'remedy' - and there is no evidence of this. If you want to describe the preparation in terms of what the participants believe is happening, then fine - as a magical/religious ritual, it has its interesting points - but to suggest that anything is actually occurring in the remedy would need better sources. They aren't making a remedy, they are engaging in a ritual that they believe will produce a remedy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
What Grumpy Andy said. If you have a reliable source that says most homeopaths give it 14.7 shakes, I'm fine with that. But please, don't use the word "remedy". Homeopathy is water. Essentially it keeps us hydrated, which is a critical physiological requirement, but water is hardly called a remedy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No one said "I've been there" is reliable... look at what I said is reliable. I already said about the "shaking" and referenced it, reread please. The rest of what Andy Gump said is irrelevant. Stick to the issue being discussed, and stop trying to expand it into other areas and play skepticfredrick games - boring. Same with you Mr Orange, really off the point of the article, and onto your point of prejudice - demonstated neatly here. Pharmacies make remedies, its what they are called. This is not about whether you can't understand how it works, simple. Cjwilky (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You've given us nothing to show that it is a reliable source. Your statement, "It matters not whether or not there is any 'proof' of anything here, we're just describing a process" is flatly wrong. I could describe a process for making diamonds by crushing them in my hands on a website; that does not make it a reliable source. See WP:RS for our definition of what reliable means. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you miss the point - I notice there's alot of that going on here, not to mention going off the point. Proof is cited of the process, or what is it you're not agreeing with? Samuel Hahnemann in his book The Organon of Medicine is surely within the sphere of the bottom line in terms of instruction, a pharmacy making a remedy is proof in practice. Proof of whether or not the process produces a remedy that daily cures thousands of people etc etc isn't the point is it :) If we are talking about hand crushed diamonds, and you are one of the key suppliers of such products having been supplying them for centuries, then your example may well be worth noting - far more so than someone who writes a book on the subject insisting the process is done by feet not hands. See the parallel? Cjwilky (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No. You've lost the thread. There is nothing to show Hahnemann is a reliable source, period. One self-published book... does anyone cite his work? Hell, our article on the book, The Organon of the Healing Art, cites no sources itself. All we know is, the book exists. Nothing demonstrates that his work was important at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have heard ten, twenty and thirty, all asserted to be the special number. I'm not sure all homeopaths agree on the right number, and it's very obviously completely arbitrary anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, it's as useless as throwing salt over your shoulder before hitting a golf ball. But, the issue over the citation is that we have nothing to show this guy has any credibility, as a homeopath or otherwise. At least if he was commonly considered an "expert" on the subject, it'd give us a frame of reference WRT the article. As it stands, there's no reason to include him at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, now you tell me. Do you know how many kg of salt I've thrown hit it straight like Tiger. (No that was not a euphemism.) OK, this is what I get for being nice. Cjwilky broke my rule of asking a question about an article, and, rare for me, I decided that he seemed like a good editor, so assuming good faith, I helped out. You know, pointed the OP to WP:MEDRS and WP:VERIFY. My mistake. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The entire field of homeopathy was made up out of whole cloth by "this guy", so Hahnemann is the canonical source for the arcana of homeopathy, I'm just saying that I have heard various numbers. The number 30 seems most in keeping (it's asserted to be ten times in each of the three perpendicular axes), but there are various mechanical kludges used as well and at least one system used in mass production where there is no impact (and incidentally they pour all the water away each time and just assume that what clings to the glass is the right amount). It's real White Queen stuff: you really do have to believe six impossible things before breakfast! Guy (Help!) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahnemann is why this article exists in the first place. His books are texts on homeopathy. They in effect define it.
The number of succussions, to get back to the correct term, does appear to have some effect but its not that crucial, a bit like when you tighten a screw that extra extra bit - is it really necessary? Does it actually make a difference as to whether the shelf stays up? You can over tighten it and it falls down :) Anyway, the clear point is there are different ways and clearly the cited text has it wrong. Cjwilky (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Do you mind sharing with us those double blind studies showing the different effects depending on the number of succussions? I'd be very curious to see those. --McSly (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Not all in life is double blind, though some like to think they can "see" it that way. And its off the point here mate, anything to contribute thats on the point?Cjwilky (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Double-blind is all that is important in medical research. It keeps opinion out, and statistical validity in. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You've yet to explain to us how this guy is important to homeopathy. Just saying "he is" doesn't suffice. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
We'll deal with the double blind in a later discussion, here its off the point, though interesting to note exactly what you say there :) The earlier personal insults are noted btw. And HTF, please... this is an article about homeopathy. If you don't know who Samual Hahnemann is read the wiki article on homeopathy for a start, then move onto the books that were published defining homeopathy written by him. We are talking about how a remedy is made. Its a description, not a trial of a new medicines effectiveness. Cjwilky (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You're not going to start claiming that provings amount to trials are you? Please don't do that. And please don't try to claim that the unblinded unrandomised anecdotal self-selected twaddle that homeopaths like to cite, amounts to evidence sufficient to balance the fact that if homeopathy is right it refutes pretty much the entirety of quantum theory and biochemistry, whose evidence base is, to put it charitably, considerably stronger. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Calm down. In time :) Stick to the topic please. Cjwilky (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am perfectly calm, thanks all the same. As I say, for science to accept homeopathy, proponents will need to come up with evidence that is as strong as that underpinning quantum physics - I think that makes up around half of all the Nobel prizes for physics in the last century. How many Nobel prizes have been awarded for research in homeopathy? Guy (Help!) 21:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

<undent: Back to the original point of this thread, if we want a reference for homoeopaths not knowing how much succussion is necessary, there is a statement from Peter Fisher to that effect ("Q157 Dr Harris: How much do you have to shake it? Dr Fisher: That has not been fully investigated. Q158 Dr Harris: A random amount of shaking? Dr Fisher: You have to shake it vigorously but exactly how much you have to shake it, no.") in the oral evidence he presented to the HoC Science & Technology Committee - see page Ev 49 of the committee's report (currently reference number 3 in the article). Brunton (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that ref, and it is reflected in everything else I've mentioned as well as the real world.Cjwilky (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Which merely confirms what everybody rational already knows: homeopathy is completely made up and it doesn't much matter what you do as long as you make sure that none of the arsenic, dog turd, light of venus or x-rays remains in the final solution. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
We'll get to the bigger debate, have patience :) Meanwhile try and keep your opinions and beliefs on topic.Cjwilky (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debate forum, if that is your intention here then kindly take it somewhere else. None of us are interested in proving to you or anyone else that homeopathy is wrong or right, nor are we interested in your opinions about homeopathy. Noformation Talk 21:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, and thats exactly what I was saying. I'm not interested in yours either. Why then don't people stick to the issues raised rather than bringing all manner of side issues into the discussion about the topics I've raised. Try reading back and look at where these diversions have come from and refer me to the process? And if you think thats off topic, its because you just raised it, and, I have been instructed to discuss exactly this here on homeopathy talk. Shall I start a new thread? Cjwilky (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably because the "issues raised" amount to points refuted a thousand times. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Arsenic Poisoning

Consensus was no change, and discussion became disruptive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In Ethics and safety it states that arsenic poisoning was found from the use of low potency remedies. In fact the article states "Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations." which doesn't even clarify the low potency aspect. Whilst this is true in the way it is shown in the cited evidence, its not the case that this is shown to apply to the use of all 'low potency' remedies. Indeed citing this danger without that small amount of clarification is misleading, at worst scare mongering. I suggest that its clarified by saying that when used in a one in ten dilution which is the case in the evidence cited. ie:
:Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations diluted at the ratio of one in ten or 1X.

Cjwilky (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That isn't 'clarification', it is making things up. If the source doesn't say anything about dilution, then neither will we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I put the comma in the wrong place which probably confused things. I'll repeat that line again with the comma sitting correctly:

".... Whilst this is true, in the way it is shown in the cited evidence its not the case that this is shown to apply to the use of all 'low potency' remedies."

Indeed it only shows it applies to 1x or one in ten dilutions, which is hardly surprising. For example, these dilutions are not used in the UK where people see low dilutions as the kind they may pick up from an average pharmacy along with toothpaste, which are 6x, 6c and sometimes 30c. As far as I understand it, its the same through the whole EEC regarding the lower limit of potencies of potentially poisonous substances such as arsenic (it was in fact Arsenicum Bromide and Arsenicum Sulfuratum Flavum that were found to be toxic in the reference, not arsenic as incorrectly referred to in the article here). Its probably the same in the USA. Its probably the same in practically every country including India.

My point is the current article here is misleading, whilst the reference itself in its content is not (however, it is in its title). For the sake of a couple of words we can have clarity. In fact, its barely worth mentioning the Arsenicum Bromide and Arsenicum Sulfuratum Flavum research at all as at 1x its only marginally a diluted remedy we're talking about here - to parallel, "we found a slightly softer metal knife can still cut through butter". A no brainer either way that our article needs changing :)
Cjwilky (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The point is that QA is non-existent, because homeopathic "remedies" are exempt from the stringent regulations that apply to real medicines;p also that toxic substances are involved and the product cannot be assumed to be inherently safe, as is often claimed. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep to the point please :) I'm refering to something specific in that reference. Cjwilky (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying "keep to the point," but I don't believe you know what the point is. You're trying to define "low-potency" as something other than the one-in-ten cited in the source. That is not allowed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm being specific about the evidence. Cjwilky (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

First, learn to indent. Your conversations are impossible to follow. Next, you aren't being specific about anything. You give us opinion, and not one reliable source. Not one. So, my suggestion is that you bring a reliable source, or let's end this conversation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Read back orange, you haven't related what you say to anything in what I say. If you try you might just get there. Its not an opinion. To suggest that is ignoring the conversation here. I'll try again - the source is refered to in the article we are discussing ie wiki homeopathy. You're being vague, what exactly aren't you understanding?Cjwilky (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO, clarification isn't needed in this instance. We are summarizing the paper, which states its conclusions in the abstract broadly: "Arsenic used therapeutically in homeopathic medicines can cause clinical toxicity if the medications are improperly used." This coincides with our current wording, absent discussion of dilutions. If you have a source which contests these findings, you're welcome to present it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The abstact says:
"Homeopathic medicine is commonly believed to be relatively harmless. However, treatment with improperly used homeopathic preparations may be dangerous. Case Reports. Case 1 presented with melanosis and keratosis following short‐term use of Arsenic Bromide 1‐X followed by long‐term use of other arsenic‐containing homeopathic preparations. Case 2 developed melanotic arsenical skin lesions after taking Arsenicum Sulfuratum Flavum‐1‐X (Arsenic S.F. 1‐X) in an effort to treat his white skin patches. Case 3 consumed Arsenic Bromide 1‐X for 6 days in an effort to treat his diabetes and developed an acute gastrointestinal illness followed by leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and diffuse dermal melanosis with patchy desquamation. Within 2 weeks, he developed a toxic polyneuropathy resulting in quadriparesis. Arsenic concentrations in all three patients were significantly elevated in integument tissue samples. In all three cases, arsenic concentrations in drinking water were normal but arsenic concentrations in samples of the homeopathic medications were elevated. Conclusion. Arsenic used therapeutically in homeopathic medicines can cause clinical toxicity if the medications are improperly used."
Jess, you state the conclusion, but that is written within the context of what is said previously in the abstact, to isolate it is inaccuracte; its a quote out of context. Here the key is "if the medications are improperly used" which clearly means in this case if too much of the material dose including arsenic is taken ie if the concentration of the toxic substance is too high or if it has been taken too frequently. I say again, this is not what is commonly known as low potency, its a material dose. To suggest, which our article does, that there is a problem with taking low potency doses per se, which in most readers minds would be what they get from their chemist, is seriously misleading. Please explain how it isn't. And please explain how it isn't reasonable to add the actual potency being referred to.Cjwilky (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, cherry-picking and quote mining - are you a homeopath by any chance? I've noticed they do that a lot. The conclusion is, as the name implies, the conclusion. Taking some of the discussion out of context instead of or to "balance" the conclusion is a failure of WP:NPOV. The conclusion being, as it is, the conclusion, it is the right thing to use. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the personal put down tack... yawn. Maybe you believe the way people are quoted out of context is always justifiable? That conclusion there is within context or would be understood wrongly by people, such as yourself you suggest.Cjwilky (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
@Cjwilky Umm... the quote I provided said "if the medications are improperly used", as does our article specify "this may be due to improper preparation"; Your critique that I bypassed discussion of improper usage earlier in the abstract is confusing. In any case, Guy is correct. The explicitly stated conclusion is the proper statement to quote, as it already takes into account the context of the study, and is the published conclusion within that context.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Given what I have raised, ie misunderstandings from the out of context conclusion, how does the conclusion stand on its on right? The wording is clearly within the context of the summary. Its clearly different, for reasons I've been clear about, when taken out of that context. You say Guy is correct, but he mentions that the context is irrelevant. Please clarify you point within this.
On re reading the hom article, I realise its far from clear that the arsenic poisoning is low potency, never mind 1x. In which case it is even more misleading.
The article says "This may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution." First, that is not the same as you say as "improperly used". There is no reference for this, and specifically to improper preparation. Further, poisoning from low dilution would not occur, and there is no evidence for this per se. ONLY if that low dilution were taken in an incorrect way could it be possible, and then it is only shown in the case of arsenic related preparations of 1x.
What is it you are confused about in my critique?
Guy mentions WP:NPOV and from what I can see there, its clear this does not comply with that. If you disagree with me re balance, please point out where in WP:NPOV it would support the wording that puts it out of context and therefore misleading. Its wording promotes a particular viewpont ie that one advocated by the skeptics that are the chief contributors here. It is not balanced.
Cjwilky (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
@Cjwilky, I'm sorry, but I simply don't know how to explain it better. Considering the paper's conclusion and our article both explicitly attribute some cases to improper prep/usage, I can't see how we're misrepresenting that. Even if that were so, the idea that quoting the conclusion of a study somehow misrepresents that study is silly. As to your final assertion, our current wording is entirely compliant with WP:NPOV, and consensus appears to support that finding. Unless you have another source which presents different results which we can consider, I think it's time to move on from this discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Article -"Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. This may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution. Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations."Where is it implied that the poisonings are from improper anything? The sentence follows but not in the way you say. It also doesn't mention low potency, or material potency as is the fact of the matter. It isn't even anything to do with homeopathy, its to do with toxic build up. Its not been shown to happen any other potency.
No, the wording as it is is misrepresenting a finding. It is biased, and we all know why.Cjwilky (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all, please stop making insinuations about the intentions of other editors, and assume good faith. Accusing others of being biased simply because they disagree with you is inappropriate. Second of all, consensus here appears to support our coverage of the paper, and our current wording as neutral. You don't have to agree with that consensus, but continuing to argue against it in this manner without citing new sources is not productive, and can be considered disruptive. Please cite a new source supporting your change, wait for other editors to weigh in on the topic, or move on to a new area. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think even a casual look over the last weeks discussions shows who is coming from where here. If you note the language used its a long way from being a balanced and rational discussion. I'm very accurate in saying most people here are skeptics, and some are active and not just on this site. Are you denying that or is that news to you? Its not an unprejudiced discussion here, is it? :)
Excuse my ignorance but i have no idea who you are - but you don't respond to what I've asked in my previous entry here. My point is very very clear and you knocked it down without clarity and then make out i have to cite something different. Are you an adjudicator or mediator of some kind?
The pseudo consensus that you mention is with people with a weighted viewpoint, its not balanced or representitive by a very long way. Please point out where that is wrong. I'm just being direct, as you are.Cjwilky (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure if every editor agreed with you and a single person came along and accused you all of being biased and not "getting it" that you would hardly consider yourselves a pseudo consensus. Like it or not, we have reached a consensus - this does not mean that everyone has to agree, there are often times that there will be an odd man out. Noformation Talk 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
No, its about people responding to the points raised in a reasoned manner. That hasn't happened. Lots of smokescreen with off topic chat. No consensus reached as no one has really addressed the point.Cjwilky (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, please read WP:PA, and note the first line: "Comment on content, not the contributor". It is not appropriate or productive to discuss other editors on an article talk page. If you wish to do that, you can at a noticeboard or a user talk page, but not here. I believe the rest of your comment was addressed in my latest reply. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope, as I said, you haven't addressed it. What is the problem with:
Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations diluted at the ratio of one in ten or 1X.
Cjwilky (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not mentioned in the paper's conclusion, which is what we're quoting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Its mentioned in the summary within which the conclusion sits. The conclusion doesn't sit by itself. If it weren't misleading with the context I would agree with you but the fact is it is. Can you point me to where that is the nailed on practice here even when its misleading? Thanks :)Cjwilky (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Consensus disagrees that it is misleading. WP:CON   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of the 7 contributors here, I for one agree with me. Andys comment suggests he agree's with me. Orange said nothing much, noformation likewise, THTFY makes an inaccurate claim and thats it. Guy insists the conclusion has to be stated, thats all. Jess makes the point that the article puts the conclusion in context. So thats two for the change and two against it and three not connecting with the substance of the discussion. Consensus? No.
In the spirit of bringing light into this, lets look at what you say about the article here putting the conclusion in context:
"As homeopathic remedies usually contain only water and/or alcohol, they are thought to be generally safe. Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. This may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution. Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations'"
The first three sentences are neutral statements of fact, agreed? The last statement is also a statement of fact, however, it can easily be interpreted as refering to all manner of potencies when in fact its ONLY refering to 1x, a potency that you can't obtain in most countries. The lowest available are 6c (sometimes 3c) and 6x (sometimes 3x).[2][3][4][5][6] Either way, forgetting the needs of the readers here as seems the way, to add the extra 1x to it is only a problem if its made to be a problem. And if its being made a problem, we have to question why.
Jess says "The explicitly stated conclusion is the proper statement to quote, as it already takes into account the context of the study, and is the published conclusion within that context." The conclusion is only written in the summary, so when we take that out from there and isolate it, it says a different thing to many if not most people who read it. Or maybe people have some intuitive knowledge that its referring to 1x? At the end Jess says it "is the published conclusion within that context" - exactly what I am saying, take it out of that context as it is in our article and its not the same. It appears that Jess agrees with me too. 3 for what I suggest and one against.Cjwilky (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What is it I'm supposed to be agreeing with you about? My only comment in this section has been to suggest that we should state what the source does, rather than reinterpreting it to suit our purposes. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that "homeopathic remedies usually contain only water and/or alcohol". Can I assume from this that you are no longer insistent on stating that 'properly diluted' preparations may contain statistically-implausible quantities of 'remedy' (including presumably arsenic...). Otherwise, we have assume that when a study states that people have been poisoned by arsenic in homeopathic remedies it means what it says, and that there were measurable amounts of arsenic present. As to whether this is caused by errors in preparation, or by misuse by the purchaser, or whatever, is beside the point. The substance was sold as homeopathic 'remedy', and proved poisonous - "neutral statements of fact". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Mind you I haven't read the full article, only the readily available abstract, but I oppose changing the article. The gist is clear enough to me, homeopathic remedies containing arsenic poisoned some people. Anyone read the full article? Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
@Cjwilky Your assessment of the discussion is incorrect. Furthermore, consensus is not a vote. Finally, to argue that I support your change is simply disruptive. Please read WP:CON, paying special attention to bullet 4 of "consensus building pitfalls and errors". You do not have to agree with consensus, but you do have to abide by it. Continuing to argue against it in this way is unproductive, tendentious, and can result in administrative intervention. Please stop, and move on to something productive. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand consensus, I was merely acurately illustrating the lack of it here within what had been said, and that you interpreted it as being a consensus without that being explicit. Re me suggesting you agree, I am going by what you said. Andy now agrees with citing the source which clearly refers to 1x. He goes onto say that limiting the facts is an okay thing to do, even though that is contentious and problematic for reasons I've outlined. The points I last raised remain unreplied to, and a long way from being resolved if the nature of the discussion doesn't address the key points.Cjwilky (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Will you please not make claims about what I 'agree with'. Other contributors are quite capable of deciding for themselves what I mean by what I have written. The source says that people have been poisoned by homeopathic 'remedies' containing arsenic. Our article should say the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You said "If the source doesn't say anything about dilution, then neither will we." The source does mention potency at every point except the conclusion where its assumed you've read the preceeding summary. Therefore you agree with me. Jess was making a claim of consensus - I was pointing out the discussion here as opposed to reading your mind or making an assumption based on your skeptic perspective. As for the source you now choose to quote - thats out of context, simple. Guy may call it cherry picking. Cjwilky (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Cjwilky, you weren't "accurately" anything, what you were doing is called cherry-picking and special pleading. Do we need to warn you any further about tendentiousness? Or shall we move straight to escalating blocks for disruption? Guy (Help!) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I was looking at exactly what people have said in this discussion, check out the facts and tell me where I'm wrong. The rest of your comment does nothing to help the community here. Maybe you need a reference? Bullying. I've tried to discuss this reasonably and it clear thats being ignored. Now you charge me with blah blah blah. I could mention people in glass houses, but lets be more specific with exactly whats being said here in this discussion. You are definitely being tendentious if you want to use those terms and special pleading is exactly what you're doing by choosing to ignore a salient point in the review - and choosing it for a purpose related to your assumed view of homeopathy - a very long long way from neutrality. Cherry picking the glowing red conclusion from the whole of the not quite so rosey red conclusion. Escalating blocks? Please explain that one :) Cjwilky (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong because you';re trying to insert special pleading. Now stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Back so soon to taking a terse and uncooperative tone. Its really sad mate. Thanks for all the references to wiki speak. Can you explain how consensus works when several editors have a particular take on a subject and one has a different take on it? And we're talking about the whole issue of homeopathy here as well as the specific and illogical discussion thats taking place here. Sorry that I can't reference the relevant wiki speak (I'll get there), but am sure you'll be able to tanslate. Think I saw the concept of teamtagging and ownership would be interesting to look at here.Cjwilky (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll explain how consensus works: the article says "As homeopathic remedies usually contain only water and/or alcohol, they are thought to be generally safe. Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. This may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution. Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations". This is backed up by the source, which ends the abstract by saying "Conclusion. Arsenic used therapeutically in homeopathic medicines can cause clinical toxicity if the medications are improperly used". Since our statement is nothing more than a rewording of a clear statement from the source, the consensus from everyone except you seems to be that it is adequate, and correct. You, on the other hand seem to wish to cloud the issue by going into unnecessary details about the specifics, using homeopathic jargon that we have no reason to expect our readers to understand. If people are buying homeopathic 'remedies' which contain toxic levels of arsenic, and poisoning themselves in consequence, it seems quite likely that even they don't understand the jargon - and consensus amongst more general Wikipedia editors is that we don't write in obscure language, particularly when dealing with fringe topics. So yes, 'consensus' does not necessarily mean that everyone has to agree article wording - merely that there is a high level of agreement amongst those who understand Wikipedia policy and objectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence in your quote simply does not follow correctly from the previous ones, in the summary of the reference its clear the summary relates to what is before it, in the artcle it isn't. Tell me really what is the problem with adding a couple of words to be specific? And be honest. It isn't the case that a conclusion has to be quoted as people are saying here - if it is please refer me to that.Cjwilky (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I would go further - consensus means that we don't vote and let a thin majority win against the wishes of many opposers - but it also means that we don't require unanimity to move forwards. When just one or two people disagree, we take the time to let them fully explain their position - both sides offer their views and we hope that we can change minds - or at least understand where each is coming from. But in the end, if there is one 'outlier' who disagrees with the vast majority, and they don't succeed in convincing even a single other person of their position - then we don't let them impede progress. That way would lead to chaos. There is no veto power for a single dissenter. Your arguments are simply not compelling to the majority, nobody but you say's you're right - or even that you have a fair point to make. So, sadly, you don't get your way on this one. SteveBaker (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The situation here Steve is that all the other contributors come from the same perspective ie they actively oppose homeopathy. A consensus in this case is a nonsense.Cjwilky (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm closing the discussion per input from multiple editors above. Cjwilky, I'd urge you to read the policies which have been provided carefully, in particular WP:TE. Your behavior started as good faith inquiries, and has now become blatantly disruptive. If you continue in this way on other sections or areas of the site, it will have to be reported, and you will end up blocked. You've had ample warnings. Please stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Please spell out exactly what is wrong with what I've said. Referneces to general wiki articles may be an easy way to do it but it doesn't actually makes sense and does no good in terms of us resolving these issues. Blocking this article is bullying.Cjwilky (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ledum bottle pic text

Three points here. First the issue of molecules "probably not" v "are not". Second potency v dilution. Third marsh tea v labrador tea.
In Philosophy, the text under the picture of a bottle of pills of ledum says:

A homeopathic remedy prepared from marsh Labrador tea. The "15C" dilution shown here contains no molecules of the original herb.

1) This last sentence is evidently impossible to assert. It may be likely that there aren't but the molecules from the mother tincture can't just disappear, but it certainly is possible that there is one in there. Logic.

2) It is potentised, it is diluted. Thats an established homeopathy truth and you can discuss the meaning of potency elsewhere but it is at least as commonly used as dilution.
Further to this, if a substance is merely diluted, it wouldn't be useful, nor used by homeopaths, least of all sat in a bottle to be sold, as in the picture. If a substance is potentised, then that implies by the methods used within homeopathy that it is both succussed and diluted.
If you really want to disagree, we can make sure the terms are used through the article in at least equal proportions where currently they are not.

3) In homeopathy a remedy called ledum is ledum palustre (marsh tea). If it was Labrador tea it would be ledum groenlandicum, or possibly ledum latifolium (which is known as marsh tea and Labrador tea). Its written on the bottle which one this is.

I suggest the text is changed to:

A homeopathic remedy prepared from marsh tea to the "15C" potency.


Please refer to points 1, 2 and 3 in your replies.
Cjwilky (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • That is special pleading. Avogadro's number applies; in a 15C remedy it is statistically implausible that the water would contain a single molecule of the active ingredient, and only a tiny amount of the water is applied to the sugar pills, and then allowed to evaporate - if 1ml of mixture is dropped on each pill (and assuming the elusive molecule does not evaporate with the water) then there is, at a rough calculation, a 0.0000001% chance of finding a single molecule of the mother tincture on one of the pills; the mother tincture is of course itself dilute and as the molar mass of the complex molecule will be much larger than that of water the probability of finding an actual molecule of the purported active ingredient will be considerably less than that. If you prefer we could say that there is a 0% chance of finding a single molecule, which would be scientifically accurate to six decimal places, which is vastly more precision than is justified under the circumstances. Nor should we use an ambiguous term like "potency" (which homeopaths use in the opposite of its normal sense) where "dilution" is factually accurate and contains no ambiguity. Obviously you are here to add WP:TRUTH and "balance" the neutral point of view with uncritical apologia. That is not going to work. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

1) So you agree its possible even if implausable for a molecule to be there.
2) Potency is not the same as dilution, whether or not you believe or assertain that remedies work or not. Potency means something in homeopathy that dilution does not by itself mean. Whether that is proven in terms of what effect that has on the remedies is not being debated here. Cjwilky (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is written in ordinary English, and words have to be used in their accepted sense. We cannot mislead readers by using a contrary meaning just because some proponents of fringe medicine do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's also possible there's an invisible unicorn in my yard. If you're going to take the evidence of absence tack, we aren't going to get anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Even if there is one molecule there, and the probability is so small as to be equal to (not equivalent to) 0, it has no effect. I can eat one molecule of any poison, and it's not going to harm me. This is a silly discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Grump - We've already been there with the use of the word remedy. And I've pointed out that potency is discussed elsewhere in the article. And the use of potency and dilution are used in ordinary English in reference to what we're talking about here.

@HTF - your point is wrong, thats not what I said. It is possible for there to be a molecule, the article currently says its impossible. The article is factually wrong.

@orange - probability equal to 0 means there is definitely no molecule and thats not possible to conclude. Its about logic.
1) Why the desperation to include something that is clearly untrue?

2) I see no reason except prejudice to not use potentisation as much as dilution.

3) You all overlook this in your haste, or do you agree? Take out the Labrador?
Cjwilky (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Straitforward question: have you yet read wp:MEDRS? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though am new to this so please point out exactly what in wp:MEDRS relates to exactly what in the points I originally make?
Cjwilky (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Angels dancing on the head of a pin. Whether it contains a formally provable zero molecules of somethign that won't have any effect rather than a vanishingly small probability of a single molecule of something that won't have any effect is a silly semantic argument, to the lay reader the important fact is that it contains none of the thing that won't have any effect. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You're suggesting inaccuracy is worth adding in for the 'lay' person? Would that be to help get a specific point across? Could be seen as condescending, certainly unscientific, possibly manipulative.
And please leave out the repetitions of remedies having no effect. It bears no relevance here and clouds the discussion.
Cjwilky (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


The important issues here are:
  • The homeopathist who prepared that vial of liquid did not intend there to be even a single molecule of the ingredient - or (s)he wouldn't have done a 15C dilution - but maybe more like a 10C.
  • The odds of there being a single molecule of the active ingredient in there due to conscious intent of the homeopathist is around one in a million. Very, very long odds indeed. Not anything that matters to our readership.
  • No liquid is ever pure enough to say that there aren't stray molecules from the environment. In whatever factory this stuff was prepared in, it's quite unlikely that stray molecules from the original preparation didn't wind up in the vial. I bet there are small, random numbers of molecules from every single thing they make at that factory inside that vial. Impurities.
SteveBaker (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The pharmacist who made the remedy isn't concerned with whether there are molecules in this level of potency or not. Its the ***potency*** that is relevant and intended, not the molecules. So, the pharmacist did not itend there to be a molecule in there, just as was the case at every other potency.
Accuracy matter to the readership, the curreent one is inaccurate, why not just remove that part that is inaccurate? To say you judge that I can tell an untruth here because it won't matter to our readers is not what the spirit of wiki is about. Your last point is irrelevant.
Cjwilky (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
"Accuracy matter[s] to the readership". Exactly. We don't misuse words like 'potency' and 'remedy' because fringe theories of 'medicine' do. Any claim that 'potency' is determined by the 'intent' of the (pseudo)pharmacist rather than by the content of the (pseudo)remedy can only be be based on belief/faith/wishful thinking. And per WP:MEDRS claims about cures have to be based on evidence. Arguing about the vanishingly-small probability of a single molecule of a substance that has never been demonstrated to cure anything being present in homeopathic 'medicines' isn't anything to do with accuracy at all. It is a smokescreen to hide this fact. Still, if you want "accuracy", how about we shorten the article to its most concise and accurate form: "Homeopathy doesn't work". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The remedy issue already been dealt with. Potency is the same issue. Potency is used in the article, it is used within homeopathy. In a critique of homeopathy you can argue these points. This article is not a critique in itself, though it can and does include that (to the point of bias). On the point of bias, the terms you use in this discussion demonstate the same, but we can address that elsewhere and later so to avoid the smokescreen of issues that people seem to be bringing in here. All good to discuss, but better under different headings. If you are serious about your last sentence in any way I suggest you raise it as a talk point.
Look back at the original point I raised and stick to that please. The small probability is, as you admit, a probability nonetheless and as such my original suggestion is supported by you.
Cjwilky (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it could be reworded as A homeopathic remedy prepared from marsh Labrador tea. The "15C" dilution shown here only has a vanishingly-small probability of containing a single molecule of the original herb. AndyTheGrump 15:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I can go with that re the molecule bit. Can discuss the potency/dilutions bit sometime later. However, I'll delete the Labrador, as thats incorrect - check out any source on Ledum and its varieties that you like, including whats on wiki. Cjwilky (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, having just looked at the linked page on wiki, I suggest you don't look there! That info is wrong - read the article and you can see it refers to the Labrador version as being another variety. Other sources concur this. If you can find anything that conclusively supports the Labrador part, by all means add it back, though better discuss it here first as everything I know and have sourced suggests otherwise except for a few sketchy webpages.Cjwilky (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Or simpler, contains none of the original. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) That's actually probably the most correct quantification. Any working chemist or biochemist will tell you that serial dilutions do some slightly non-intuitive things at extremely low (sub-nanomolar) concentrations. At these very low concentrations, a significant fraction of the total solute can be adsorbed on the walls of whatever containers you're working in. (Young biochemists are prone to wondering where their dilute protein solutions 'disappeared' to.) In other words, once the 'remedy' is down to 6C or so, you're likely leaving most of the 'active' ingredient's molecules behind on the glass with each additional dilution; the naive calculated concentrations we're talking about above probably represent a significant overestimation of the number of molecules remaining. Either way, of course, there are far more molecules of Napoleon Bonaparte's urine (about 3*105 per mL, by my rough calculation) in the 'remedy' than there are of any of its nominal ingredients. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons above I reverted to "none," it makes a lot more sense imo. Noformation Talk 00:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There has been nothing said above that is proven or clearly explains or references how there is 'none' there. There is no reason to say none or a tiny amount, unlikely to be any, infinistessimal etc etc. Delete the whole sentence is the only alternative to what I have reverted it back to.Cjwilky (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I've put "The "15C" dilution shown here is unlikely to contain any molecules of the original herb." which seems to be the plain english version of what Andy Grump was trying to say, which I agreed with. Noformation has just come in and made a change without expaining fully why, never mind discussing it - is that how changes are done around here? His/her change was factually inaccurate.Cjwilky (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I wrote "For the reasons above I reverted to "none," it makes a lot more sense imo." What I meant by that was "For the reasons above I reverted to "none," it makes a lot more sense imo." This discussion has been had, we haven't yet come to a consensus, and that's fine. In the mean time, since we haven't come to a consensus, I reverted it to what it was originally. That's pretty much how stuff works around here. Noformation Talk 02:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Cjwilky I reverted those changes; Consensus here appears to be that "unlikely" is a serious understatement, to such a degree that it misrepresents the subject. I agree. Please establish consensus before making another change to that wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tthinking about it, I suspect an assertion that the 'remedy' is unlikely to contain any molecules of the original herb may well be false. Unless the 'pharmacist' is ridiculously scrupulous with preparation, stray molecules from the undiluted herb may well be accidentally present - along with molecules from all the other 'remedies' being prepared in the 'pharmacy', the 'pharmacist's' dandruff, Napoleon's urine, vapourised suicide-bomber remnants, and Fragments of the Cross. When one is dealing with substances (possibly) present at the level of single molecules, the background 'noise' has got to be more significant than anything the 'pharmacist' intentionally includes - with the exception of wishful thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we may once again be in the situation where uncritical homeopathy supporters and uncritical homeopathy debunkers happily agree with each other about some of the underlying issues that are not clear at all:

  1. When discussing the effectivity (or otherwise, obviously) of homeopathy, it is sufficient to restrict attention to the mechanisms that supporters of homeopathy claim.
  2. The dilution methods used by homeopaths have the theoretically expected results. There is no need to check this.

There is no need to go into the details of 1 here. (There is a lot of uncertainty about the placebo effect, but there is definitely no academic consensus that it cannot heal patients of some conditions, or that modern scientific medicine is as good at evoking it as are practices such as shamanism or ideology-based CAT.) Regarding 2, I am not aware of any scientific studies that have examined actual homeopathic preparations (in the form in which they are marketed) and have come to the conclusion that the official dilution declarations are (even remotely) reflected by the actual dilution. Finding otherwise would be attractive for neither homeopaths nor sceptics.

There is reason to be sceptical about the actual dilutions of homeopathic preparations because in the production of a preparation with a nominal dilution of 12X = 1:1012, for example, it is not the case that 1012 times the amount of the mother tincture is added and the final preparation is taken from the mixture. Starting with 1 ml of mother tincture this would require 106 litres, i.e. 1,000 cubic metres (weighing 1 ton) of liquid which would then have to be stored for later use or disposed safely. This might be feasible if the diluent is water, but often it is ethanol, which one would of course not be able to reuse for other preparations. So instead one makes 12 successive dilutions of nominally 1:10. The problem is, once we have reached a high dilution it depends very much on the process used whether successive dilutions are really 1:10 or more like 1:1.1. For example, if all the successive dilutions are done in the same container, then small amounts of mother tincture will be captivated in grooves on the container surface and will gradually be released as the dilution decreases. Nevertheless, this method is, or was (I have no idea) actually used by some homeopaths. See Semen Korsakov#Homeopathy. Most homeopaths keep separate containers for the various stages of dilution, but we do not have certainty that that is sufficient.

As discussed before here, homeopaths themselves have recently become unsure about this. This paper (which should not be discarded solely because it appeared in a homeopathy journal, as it does not confirm homeopathic beliefs) claims on p. 239 that they found 60–100 pg/ml of gold particles in Aurum met at nominal dilutions of 30C and 200C, i.e. 1:10030 and 1:100200. If correct, and if the same were true for polonium, then a person drinking 20 ml of freshly made Polonium metallicum 30C in a short amount of time would have a more than 50% chance of dying from polonium poisoning. (I am assuming that they use 210Po, that the website advertising it is not an intentional scam, and that the Polonium is fresh, i.e. is actually Polonium when taken.)

As long as we do not have evidence of sufficient quality control of homeopathic preparations which addresses this issue, even the formulation "The '15C' dilution shown here is unlikely to contain any molecules of the original herb." is problematic, and "The '15C' dilution shown here contains no molecules of the original herb." is worse. I propose instead: "At a nominal dilution of 1:1015, the '15C' preparation shown here is not expected to contain any molecules of the original herb." Hans Adler 09:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: 15C is 1:1030 not 1:1015. Each dilution stage is a one hundred-fold dilution. This is a significant point - given the value of Avagadro's number. SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you missed that I wrote "1:10030 and 1:100200", but it really doesn't matter much for the argument. Hans Adler 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Gold particles aren't molecules, but pseudoskeptics like yourself fail basic chemistry, I suppose. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to use an interesting definition of pseudoskeptic. It took some digging, but behind this smart-aleck comment there is actually a semi-valid point: There is no reason to suppose that plant preparations behave the same way as metals under repeated dilutions. On the other hand, the standard mathematical model of serial dilutions is too simplistic to predict any difference between different kinds of substances. It would be enough to shoot it down with metals. But all of this does not change the fact that the absence of molecules (or atoms/ions, or particles) has not been verified. Everybody just believes the homeopaths that they are getting this right. Hans Adler 18:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The problem here is that phrases like "not expected to" or "unlikely to" do not come close to expressing the fact that if carried out as stated, there is only a one in a million chance of just a single molecule being present. That's like putting up a picture of a can of diet coke and saying "probably doesn't contain a rusty bolt" because just once in the entire history of the company, a bolt worked itself loose at the cannery and ended up inside an empty can. It's technically true - but it's not encyclopeadic because it doesn't correctly convey the message that soft drinks cans do not have rusty bolts in them at a statistically meaningful level. It contains the heavily overloaded message that this happens at a measurably high rate...which it most certainly does not. If we put that statement into our article on diet coke, it would dissuade people from drinking the stuff - so we cannot, must not, say that - even though it's technically true. SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry, that comparison is just wrong. The claim that there are no molecules of the mother tincture left in high 'potency' homeopathic preparations is 'verifiable' in the sense that it is made in reliable sources, but it is dubious as it does not appear to have ever been verified by looking for them – except in one case in which not just molecules were found, but small particles! The calculations, while a priori convincing, just give an indication of what to expect. But I believe we do not have WP:MEDRS quality sources which tell us that this is also what happens in practice. Hans Adler 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Your pseudsoskepticism is always amusing. There are no molecules because it is a mathematical impossibility. Moreover, not one real scientist will waste the time to try to find the one molecule (that doesn't exist) in the potion. It will be overwhelmed by all the other contaminants. Thus, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But I do enjoy your pseudoskepticism. It makes for amusing reading. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I will let you know if I should become interested in your beliefs. I have explained why the presence of molecules, and in fact much more than just molecules, is not a priori impossible. You are simply assuming that the mathematical model for what happens in the dilutions (factor 1:10 or 1:100 in each step) is correct. What makes you so sure the homeopaths are getting this right? Their unfailing competence for all things scientific and technical? Hans Adler 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that hypothesis is that there simply isn't enough of the original stuff to allow for every vial to have larger quantities of active ingredient. You're saying (in effect) that the homeopathist's mixing process results in statistically higher concentrations of the active stuff being retained in the portion of the solution that he takes onto the next mixing stage than is present in the part that he discards. That kind of systematic retention would imply an incompetent homeopathist. SteveBaker (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with assuming an incompetent homeopathist. Or, more to the point, with assuming one who follows arcane traditional rules. One could at each step take the container from step n and distribute its content equally over 10 (or 100) identical step n+1 containers, and then take a random number in the range from 1 to 10 to determine which of the containers to use for step n+2. But I am pretty sure that's not what they actually do. I am 100% sure they don't do it everywhere, as this would multiply the effort involved by 10 (or by 100) for no easily apparent advantage. Hans Adler 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
With some googling I found this website of unknown (to me) reliability that presents precise instructions for serial dilutions. (You should look at the last section, "Preparation of Liquid Potencies", since this is what we are usually discussing on this talk page.) In the description, 1/10 from step n phial is poured into the single step n+1 phial. If the particles from the mother tincture tend to accumulate on the surface, it's easy to see how the dilutions could be a lot less than 1/10 in each step. This does not explain the results of the paper I linked above, but I wouldn't be surprised if the industry producing homeopathic preparations had quality problems that affect the actual dilutions, such as reuse of containers for subsequent steps. (IIRC they took their preparations for testing from standard Indian producers.) Hans Adler 19:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hans, there are plenty of reliable sources that say homeopathic remedies contain none of the original ingredient. Goldacre, Ernst & Singh, Park and numerous others say so. And no we won't be including your novel synthesis, thanks all the same. Fact: Homeopathic remedies of 15C contain no "active ingredient". That's none in the sense of no objectively testable amount (and yes, it has been tested, HPLC and mass spectrometry show no difference between high "potency" "remedies" and the base sugar pills). The website you linked is less reliable than a politician's promise; it includes outright wibble and bogus claims to "cure" cancer (and it's illegal to make that claim in some countries, incidentally). Guy (Help!) 20:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    Unfortunately all these sources are a bit cumbersome to access. I am less interested in authors who just say it is so based on the well known calculations. (I suspect Park could be such a case.) I am much more interested in actual tests, and "HPLC and mass spectrometry" sounds extremely promising in this context. In any case, your formulation "contains none of the original herb" is excellent. I am only objecting to the formulations of type "not a single molecule", which make a claim that goes far beyond what is observable even in principle.
    While googling for a report on such tests (with little success, but the results make me believe you are right and it has been tested), I found an article Arsenic Toxicity from Homeopathic Treatment whose abstract mentions patients poisened by "Arsenic Bromide 1‐X", "Arsenicum Sulfuratum Flavum‐1‐X" and "Arsenic Bromide 1‐X", respectively. I regularly make comments about Arsenicum 1X (example), but I didn't know it actually occurs in practice. Hans Adler 20:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    I swear that when I wrote that comment I was not aware of the section above that is discussing the same article, or with the presence of this information in our article. Makes me look like a fool, obviously. Hans Adler 07:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't find any of them "cumbersome", they are on my bookshelf right here. If you're looking for something easy to access that includes objective tests of the "remedies" then this might be of interest: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2011/cureorcon/ - I seem to recall that they had chromatography run. Mind you, the main reason you don't see chromatography on homeopathic "remedies" is that it's a fool's errand - and of course even if there were a molecule there it would be extremely unlikely to have an effect, and probably just as well since the principles by which it was selected would have been entirely arbitrary anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Gruber, your strawman comment that somehow I agree with homeopathy is amusing at best, but then again it's well known that Germans lack a sense of humor, so I'm going to throw out the good faith, and just assume you're doing your usual personal attack. I actually don't care about the dilution, but the OP does. I know it doesn't work, because homeopathy is chemically and physically impossible. If you weren't such a pseudoskeptic, you would have known that, but it takes science to be a real skeptic. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to Henning Wehn, who is (a) German and (b) funny. I think Hans Adler's just being contrarian for the sake of it, he clearly hasn't spent a lot of time reading up on homeopathy. Everybody involved in health debate is well-informed, honest, and supports homeopathy - but they never possess more than two of these attributes at once. :-) Guy (Help!) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I had never heard of him before. Now I have seen him on YouTube. – For some typical German humour (with subtitles) see Loriot's Yodel Diploma sketch. Around 1:35 you can see the origin of the phrase "future perfect at sunrise". Hans Adler 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I do wonder here why when there is no evidence that the bottle in question contains no molecules that people insist on keeping that phrase in there? If that in itself is debatable, which I can see it isn't from all thats been said - barring someone actually saying exactly what evidence Goldacre et al managed to uncover and this being verified as substantial - then the issues about potency are clearly discussed in other parts of the article and what we have here under a picture is not adding to the article in anyway. It does in fact make a farce of the whole article in that its logically wrong - or does logic not come into skepticscience?Cjwilky (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that it doesn't contain unicorn poop either. There is however a great deal of evidence that whatever it contains can not possibly have the effects claimed by homeopathy - since the 'evidence' used in support of these 'remedies' must be based on an assumption that the statistically-almost-impossible always happens, or that the presence of molecules is irrelevant. And incidentally, a 'molecule' of marsh tea wouldn't be marsh tea anyway, but instead one of the many constituents of the substance - so how the heck would the presence of this hypothetical (and ridiculously unlikely) single molecule possibly be significant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, not molecule but molecules of, or particle of marsh tea, fair point :) Its significant because its possible as has been said. The article isn't benefitted by the inaccuracy of what is there at the moment, even in accordance with your beliefs.Cjwilky (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That just makes the argument yet weaker. If you ground up your herb to the point where (say) the individual plant cells were separated but not torn to shreds - then the probability of a 15C dilution containing any of the original material goes from one in a million to something more like one in a trillion (how many molecules are there in an entire cell?!). SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If we have a source which says explicitly "Homeopathic remedies do not contain a single molecule of the initial substance", or an identical statement which applies explicitly to the specified dilution, then I fully support keeping the wording. However, I do not support strengthening the wording of the sources we do have, or extrapolating from the data without an explicit citation. Either 1) we have that source, and this discussion can be closed, or 2) we don't have that source, and the wording needs to be changed. Either way, changing it to say "unlikely" is inappropriate and unwarranted. Further discussion should center on which of the two cases this is (backed up by links to sources), and not conjecture about which is true, per WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't write "The Sun is probably hot", but rather "The Sun is hot". Absent some credible evidence that the extremely low probability estimates are wrong, we must use English in its common form. The whole dilution discussion goes back for years (see the archives for the nauseating details) but it boils down to a simple question: How much effect can nothing (or even immeasurably near nothing) have on a consistent basis? We have zero credible evidence for any answer other than "none". Why should we wp:weasel around that? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
@LSD To be clear, is this a response to me, or to the conversation above?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The above conversation. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
K. Thanks :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Jess....just a point of personal privilege. Sorry, just was reading an article on Robert's Rules of Order. Anyways, in all the times that you, I, and 20 other editors have stated this is not a forum, has the conversation actually ended? And the OP, who tries to use it as a forum, actually stopped editing? Unfortunately, without the power of the admin's magic wand, it never works. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't make it appropriate, and when it continues to become disruptive, the content will be hatted or removed. Upfront warning that editors might start reverting talk page additions is generally a good thing. I'm hoping that won't be necessary, however. Anyway...   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and just to be clear, in my experience it does work most of the time. Just not here, it seems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Since this discussion seems like it might continue forever, I'll cite what shouldn't need a cite (basic arithmetic). For a direct pronunciation on 12C a.k.a. 24X dilutions:

Because not even one molecule can be present in a homeopathic remedy given to a patient, this type of therapy is termed as "ultramolecular therapy." [7]

Is that sufficiently direct? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The full quote is (emphasis mine):
It seems the author is using "ultramolecular" to describe a certain type of homeopathic preparation, not all. This source would support us changing "contains none" to "should contain none". I was under the impression, per the above discussion, that we already had a source which supported our current wording. Do we not?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That certain type is all preparations 24X or higher. The source also explains that Hahnemann's writings favoured 60X, which is so far beyond just "ultramolecular" as to make clear that any distinction between "contains none" and "should contain none" is highest potency pedantry. In fact, it is only for the specific case of 12C a.k.a. 24X preparations that the equivocation can have any justification whatsoever. Lesser dilutions do have some molecules, higher dilutions do not.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
@LSD I know the bottle contains no molecules of the "active ingredient". My question is whether we have a source which says so explicitly without induction, such as "homeopathic preparations above 12C do not have a single molecule..." If we don't, then strengthening the source's wording is a violation of either WP:OR or WP:SYN. I thought we had such a source, namely "Goldacre, Ernst & Singh, Park", if not others as well. Do we not?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
"Contains none" is accurate to at least six decimal places, and the references back that up with calculations making it unnecessary to reference them by name. It's an objective fact that a 15C remedy has none of the "active ingredient" in the same way that outer space is a vacuum; outer space does in fact have a pressure very very slightly above zero, but it's objectively unmeasurable and zero to sufficient decimal places that zero is close enough for all practical purposes. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how I feel about this.... I guess I'm okay with the wording. The "solution" obviously has nothing in it, and our sources are a reasonable basis to conclude that. I just feel uncomfortable concluding it rather than citing a source explicitly. Unfortunately, I can't think of any better wording which conveys the proper message and doesn't understate the process. Is there really, seriously, no source which says "homeopathic remedies at 15C have none of the active ingredient"? It seems like that should be plastered all over the literature.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
There's blogs by well-known scientists that state it outright, but not much in the way of published papers or books. Honestly, who is going to waste their time showing the math that homeopathy == zero in a peer-reviewed paper — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's peer reviewed papers which do the math and say almost that. For instance, the above quote, which says none should be present. If I were a researcher, I wouldn't personally spend time on it, but I figure some poor soul probably has somewhere along the line. Ah well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Contaminants

If you buy a homeopathic treatment at 12C or higher, then theoretically, you're getting water with very, very little active ingredient.

But because even quality distilled water contains around 10mg/liter of dissolved solids, so your homeopathic medicine's starting point liquid has at least a "2C" dose of any number of contaminants. When you buy a "15C" dose of some herb - you're also getting a "17C" or higher dose of whatever was in the water that the homeopathist started with. Worse still, the more carefully he prepares the treatment, the stronger the effects of the initial contaminants. Double-distilled water might have parts-per-trillion of contamination - which means that 15C treatments would have 22C doses of the contaminants.

What should be noted then is that if homeopathy were true and that increasing the dilution increases potency, then no matter how pure the water you started with, you're getting an incredibly "potent" dose of a million different impurities that were present in the original preparation - and because those trace elements were present in yet lower quantities than the "active" ingredient, their effects must (according to these theories) be considerably more powerful than the intended active ingredient.

If you believe the claims of homeopathists - then taking their treatments would be positively suicidal!

We really ought to try to find a source to back this rather obvious criticism of the theory - and to discover what working homeopathists say to counter it.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand potency.Cjwilky (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, the nature of a remedy are shown in the provings which are widely documented. Some of those provings are very thorough, some very flakey. Either way the information is well documented and if you supposition was correct it would show in the results of the provings. It doesn't.Cjwilky (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think about it, a lot of water passes through toilets. All that feces in that water....well, just shows that homeopathy is full of......OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The purest grade of water in ISO 3696 is 10ppb or 10e-9 - which is 4C. So at the fourth centessimal dilution the impurities in the very purest laboratory grade water are as significant in the solution as the supposed active principle. There’s no suggestiopn that succussion can’t affect these impurities the same way it affects the active principle because many if not all of the impurities themselves appear in other hoeopathic remedies.
What this means is that every single homeopathic preparation over 4C is, if prepared with the highest laboratory grade water, necessarily a completely unpredictable and effectively random remedy which we could call inmunditia vagus or unpredictable impurity (no Latin flames, please, I did not learn Latin despite attending a thousand-year-old school). Or maybe substantia ignota, unknown substance.
In practice, homeopaths do not use water of this purity. We know they don’t because water of this grade cannot be stored in glass or plastic vessels – they would leach contaminants into the water.
So it's bollocks well before the Avogadro limit is reached at around 11C. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
From [8] (my bold):
Our methods of potentisation use trituration procedures as laid down in Hahnemann's 5th and 6th edition of the Organon and our centessimal potencies are always made in 90% alcohol using a minimum of 10 firm hand succussions for each step.
Your beliefs are your beliefs. Worth being a bit more accurate though.Cjwilky (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Some preparations use water, others alcohol - apparently without any acknowledgement of the vastly different molecular structures of water and alcohol. Homeopathy is a system of belief (you have to believe in Hahnemann's so-called "laws" and the idea that Magic Woo is stronger than quantum physics) whereas science is a system of weighing evidence. When science weighs the evidence, as it did in the five meta-analyses cited in the article it finds that homeopathy performs no better than placebo, thus failing to refute the null hypothesis of placebo effect plus observer bias. This is hardly surprising given that the entire edifice of homeopathy is built on premises for which there is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever. In fact homeopaths have rather backed themselves into a corner by pretending to have a scientific basis; it's so easily refuted that they end up with nothing, whereas if they were open about it being a belief system it would perhaps not be held up to objective scrutiny in the same way. Although to be fair science has also taken on a lot of openly stated belief systems such as reiki, with similarly unambiguous results. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The different properties are known. I've seen homeopathy work dramatically on unconscious people, babies, and animals - none of whom have a belief. Its my perception, it was always immediately after a homeopathic remedy was given, there were no other possible influences I could account for except chance, and the same thing happens over and over. If it were just me that was observing such happenings that would be one thing, but by a long long way its not just me. That it is difficult to measure that is acknowledged - eg there are many remedies for one particular ailment, there are many ways in which a person gets better. On the other hand there are things science has shown to be true or untrue that it has come to see as the opposite. Just because something is "shown" to be, doesn't mean that it is "true". Even more so, the reviews of evidence can sometimes be so far off the mark, especially when those reviewers hold a prejudged belief system, which some do. I don't doubt the methodology of science, and double blind trials are incredibly useful tools, but they are not wholly accurate revealers of the truth, except in that they can be routes towards it, peeling off layers and then sometimes having to retrack, regroup as it becomes clear something isn't fitting. Its certainly the case that just because a phenonemon isn't possible within the realms of accepted knowledge doesn't mean it isn't so, though it does mean its worth looking at in great detail and not with prejedice - thats not part of the scientific model. We can get to the basics of all this later, there are too many messy parts to this article that need ironing out first.Cjwilky (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Guys, again, WP:NOTFORUM. This page is very quickly filling up with discussion and arguments which don't relate to article improvement. There are reasons we have these rules. Please focus on changing specific parts of the article, by making specific proposals. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This was a request for article improvement - I specifically stated in my OP that I think we need to discuss this in the article and requested any references anyone might know of that describe it. You should not hide an entire (and important) discussion just on your own personal whim. SteveBaker (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to stop replies to a certain editor from derailing the entire page, as it has in every other section, and was clearly starting to here. This section could, indeed, be useful if someone is able to bring sources... but without them, we shouldn't be talking at length about our own criticisms of the article subject.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that :)Cjwilky (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
[[8]] if this is correct, then isn't everyone's tap water a homeopathic remedy on demand? Could a homeopath drop a single drop of a remedy in a reservoir potentiafyificate the whole thing? Guyonthesubway (talk)
Let's remember what goes into water. Atomic particles from Japan. Whale poop. Dolphin poop. I suppose my poop. Apparently, drugs. Excess vitamins in the urine of all the CAM nutters that think eating a bunch of vitamins does anything but make my water have a high vitamin content. Bird poop. Queen Elizabeth's poop, unless she doesn't poop. Chemicals from every polluting industry on the planet. Shall I go on? I'm sure a random sample of water has a molecule(s) of something in it. But I guess a homeopath can invent a spigot, whereby you dial in what you want. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Why choose? How about a drop of each! I'm not down with the sugar pill delivery mechanism... how about a beer instead? Health kegger! Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ English M, "The homeopathic proving of 'Tempesta' the storm", http://www.maryenglish.co.uk/stormremedy1.html, retrieved 2007-07-24 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help).
  2. ^ http://www.hattonandlaws.com.au/hom.html
  3. ^ https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=link&sku=Ars-s-f&uid=26429
  4. ^ http://www.rxhomeo.com/pharmacy/homeopathic.php?act=viewProd&productId=119&pName=Arsenic+Album
  5. ^ http://www.dataroad.net/cgi-bin/start/hahnemannlabs.com/hstore/programs/remedy_list.html
  6. ^ http://www.smhomeopathic.com/cgi-smhomeopathic/sb/productsearch.cgi?storeid=*18a8a097b88fe544f761a2275039
  7. ^ Catherine A. Hammett-Stabler. Amitava Dasgupta, Catherine A. Hammett-Stabler (ed.). Herbal Supplements: Efficacy, Toxicity, Interactions with Western Drugs, and Effects on Clinical Laboratory Tests (illustrated ed.). John Wiley and Sons=2011. ISBN 9780470433508.
  8. ^ https://www.helios.co.uk/technical.html

Activism against Homeopathy

The focus on activism against homeopathy is becoming quite vocal. This is the second year that a campaign was globally formed to produce video content showing the ineffectiveness of homeopathy called the "10:23 There is Nothing to it" campaign, on Feb 5, 2011. CFI and JREF have released public appeals to the media asking for Walmart and CVS Pharmacy to stop supporting the practice. They are gaining some media attention as well. I don't mind gathering the citations if other editors will support me adding this section to the page. If there is going to be opposition then I don't want to waste my time gathering it all together. But I think it deserves to be here on the page. Sgerbic (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant to this article - I'm a little nervous of WP:NOTNEWS, but if the campaign has been around for a couple of years then I guess that's no obstacle. Has there been any mainstream media coverage of this activism? Something we could use to source this stuff? SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It was covered in depth by CBC's Marketplace, several other mainstream news shows have picked it up too. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Then it seems reasonable to include it. Marketplace confers notability - and is a reasonable RS for news items. If this has been going on for over a year then we're not guilty of recentism. I don't see why Sgerbic should not take a swing at it. I can't say that there won't be "opposition" - but I'm fairly sure we can put together a consensus position if all we're reporting is that this activism happened and stick broadly to what the sources say. SteveBaker (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Good shout. There is a long history of activism against homeopathy, though I assume we're speaking here mainly about those theoretically from outside the medical industry? If so, the pressures from within the medical industry could be included at a later date under an encompassing title. I'd lend a hand on that side, but really busy at the mo. (did I hear "phew!"? ;) ) Cjwilky (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
How about some verifiable sources? DigitalC (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There's the wealth of skeptic blogs with an aim of creating publicity, listing them is pointless, there's hundreds, many backed and engaged in by the same group of people ie its a campaign. Then http://www.1023.org.uk/ including the wiki page it has set up - a one sided publicity stunt, and against wiki principles. Then http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7869006/Doctors-Diary-James-Le-Fanu.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article723787.ece http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/4887716.Johnston_woman_in_homeopathic__overdose__protest/ On the historical side, which puts the whole campaign in perspective (its the same thing) there is The history of American homeopathy: the academic years, 1820-1935 and specifically the Flexner Report http://books.google.com/books?id=J7oestO-BnAC&pg=PA44&sig=jSdRq42hXGLpxGDnSLSqvjsWl-0&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false Cjwilky (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
By John S. Haller
Skeptic blogs are not reliable sources, and aren't even worth mentioning. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7869006/Doctors-Diary-James-Le-Fanu.html isn't a great source for the 10:23 campaign, as it doesn't even mention it by name, nor does it give much detail which could be included in the article. In fact, it gives us one sentence: "There is something suspicious about the orchestrated campaign against the "nonsense on stilts" of homoeopathy, as it was described at this year's BMA Conference, which then urged its (very modest) £4 million of NHS funding to be withdrawn." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article723787.ece also does not mention this 10:23 campaign by name, and appears to be a letter to the editor? Not exactly a RS. http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/4887716.Johnston_woman_in_homeopathic__overdose__protest/ is the best source of them all, but according to it, Ten 23 is a national campaign against the homeopathic remedies being sold in Boots stores. There is also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7864217/Homeopathy-is-a-bitter-pill-for-the-taxpayer.html, which again states that "Ten23 staged a mass overdose outside Boots stores around the country in protest at their sale of the "medicine"". DigitalC (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Am a bit disapointed you ignored other things I said and gave references to and the essence of my point which is the latest campaign is not an isolated case, and in itself is nothing special. Whether you can see that from the evidence or not is up to you, but its all well documented in the references I gave you, and there's more to back that up re the era around the Flexnor report you didn't refer to. The letter to the Times is part of a campaign, that is the defining part of the letter! And interesting to note the names on there. That is 100% verifiable - its like a photo of the vandal throwing the brick through the window. Likewise the blogs are evidence in themselves - google away all sorts on homeopathy and its 'direct' evidence, the list on google is the verifiable evidence and can be used. The one sided campaign wiki piece is also direct evidence of the campaign and if it isn't then you maybe could use whatever arguments you have here for not including the campaign as reasons for removing it from wiki....? As for reports of the latest campaign - its easy enough to gather a catalogue of reports from around the world. Yep, same ignorant stunt reported which demonstrates nothing except that maybe the piece in the homeopathy article here about poisoning should be removed. I mean, are these people demonstrating something or are they a bunch of quacks. Its hilarious to be honest! Cjwilky (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
While it's true that we cannot use a blog as a source of general information on a topic - there is one fact which it can reliably source...the fact of its' own existence. So we can use these blogs to support a statement of the form "There is online activism against homeopathy". SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
But talking about single blog is violating wp:UNDUE, and to talk about large scale thing we need wp:RS Bulwersator (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, we cannot use these blogs to support such a statement. Find a reliable source that says that, and then we go from there. We follow what the reliable sources SAY. DigitalC (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a quote from the flexner report that would verify a statement about the activism against homeopathy? The history of American Homeopathy source is not going to be a good source for ongoing activism against homeopathy, but it might have some facts that would be good for a history section. There is nothing in the letter to the editor (which would not be a good source) that mentions a campaign against homeopathy, and therefore is not useable. Please refer to WP:RS and WP:V. DigitalC (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not true to say that skeptic blogs are not usable as sources. Some (e.g. Science Based Medicine) have editorial boards and review; some are written by notable authorities such as Ben Goldacre or Michael Shermer. The reliability will depend on what is being said and by whom. The amount of mainstream media coverage of the Ten23 campaign undoubtedly qualifies it for a mention here. It's been on prime time TV news in Australia, Canada, German and the UK to my certain knowledge. That's pretty good going for something run by the adhocracy that is skeptics in the pub. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_48&oldid=1136801045"