Jump to content

Talk:List of homeopathic preparations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Central list

I believe that this would be a good central list of all the major remedies. However, I believe we should draw on the expertise of our local expert User: Peter morrell.--Filll (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to keep "Water" and "Sugar" on the list, or are we going to try and base this on what homeopaths actually believe? Adam Cuerden talk 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not really sure. You know what ScienceApologist's idea is right? The problem has arisen that some are claiming that all plants (and maybe eventually all minerals and animal parts etc) that are used in homeopathy should have a section in their Wikipedia articles describing their use in homeopathy. We thought this might lead to an UNDUE weight situation with literally thousands of minihomeopathy articles everywhere that might have to be managed.
So as a compromise, we said that the most notable or prominent or major or main homeopathic remedies should be listed, and some small fraction of these (a number yet to be determined), might have links to this list and a short one sentence note in their articles of the use of this substance as a homeopathic remedy, together with a statement that there is no present scientific support for its homeopathic use, or something. So this is a start at this project, by restoring the previously deleted article.
What do you think?--Filll (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this article is really a good basis for much of anything, I think we may as well throw it out and restart from scratch. But, yes, having the list is a good idea. Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's the potential problem that was raised at Talk:Potassium dichromate#Category: Homeopathic remedies and Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 25#List of homeopathic remedies. We should centralize all but the most notable preparations here, and we should certainly not make scores of content forks. Cool Hand Luke 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, since this was an exact duplicate of a deleted list, I performed a history merge. Feel free to contact me if you'd just like to delete it all & start over... — Scientizzle 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Perhaps this would be better at List of homeopathic preparations, a more neutral title, I think. — Scientizzle 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. I would ask Science Apologist since it was his original idea.--Filll (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree preparations would be better. Could the bulk of the list be moved off the article space while we work on the table idea that was originally proposed, and add them back one at a time. The page is a bit of a mess right now. Maybe a delete, with a fresh start, but with this list around somewhere for reference? --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem with preparations. I would propose separating the plants/fungi from the minerals. Plants can be treated quite easily with the code used in the homeopathy literature and the scientific and common plant names. For the most part this information can be sourced from the NHM site. Details of plant synonyms can be left to the corresponding wiki page. --Salix alba (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make the move to List of homeopathic preparations (& leave the redirect in place, just for ease of navigation). — Scientizzle 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Entry criteria

Can we talk about entry criteria? How are we deciding what does and what doesn't go on this list? Because that's the first step to doing this right. Adam Cuerden talk 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends on if sources can be found, the NHM data draws on the following sources: Hn - Homeopathic name, and Hs -Homeopathic synonym as used by the Materiae Medicae (see van Zandvoort, 1994-1996); R - Complete Repertory (van Zandvoort, 1994-1996) name; A - American pharmacopoeia (1979); F - French pharmacopoeia (1991) and G - German pharmacopoeia (1990, 1993). --Salix alba (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, let me ask some questions then: If we were to take, say, the remedies Hahnemann suggested, plus a second section, perhaps, for commercially successful proprietary concoctions (Ossilicoccum, HeadOn, etc), would this be representative, or would it leave out things commonly used today? What if we used Kent's list? I'd rather avoid using living homeopath's materia medica, simply because, you know, it feels like you're priviledging one homeopath above the others, thus giving that homeopath free advertising. Still, that might work if we can get around that problem. Adam Cuerden talk 17:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, of course, whatever we use for this list, we should include a few paragraphs at the start explaining the breadth of possibilities, even down to "imponderables" and (perhaps) a brief mention of the really fringe stuff (You know, Berlin Wall, that sort of thing). Basically, make it clear what the breadth is, then present a list of the most common.
If we do this right, it should be possible, maybe even easy, to get this to Featured list (WP:FLC) Adam Cuerden talk 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that in the article on Berlin Wall I can have a short paragraph saying that it is a homeopathic remedy? (sorry this is just a joke).--Filll (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A few changes

I have deleted some and struck out others. Please see my revised list here [1] which has recently been updated and which gives also some good/better sources. The list needs to be definitive that means those remedies in commonest use NOW. Comments? thanks Peter morrell 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to start with that you cut and paste (or add from) my list here and then we can discuss why they were chosen. thanks Peter morrell 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it good to have a separate section for materials of historical interest mainly? Or a separate kind of footnote for this? Comments?--Filll (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Can you please give some examples? Anything is possible; it is as yet an open book. cheers Peter morrell 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I of course know next to nothing about homeopathy, but are there homeopathy preparations or remedies which were in common use 100 years ago or 150 years ago, or 50 years ago even, that now are not at all common? If there are such things, should they be listed? And if listed, how?--Filll (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch

I just deleted everything so that it's easier to start from scratch. I really don't have time to do this, but I listed the 15 remedies from the cited book (which are therefore still in use and considered notable by at least one published practitioner). I retained some NHM items, but they don't seem to give any indication of common use, so several of them have been commented out. There at 59 "common" remedies listed in this book (and it also lists Bach flowers). I think the pharmacopoeias can give good data on purported uses, but they include far too many entries for an encyclopedic list on common remedies. If we limit remedies to those called "common" by contemporary practitioners, we will keep the list in hand, and more useful. In the unlikely event someone wants to list all historical preparations (which could number in the thousands), I think that should occur somewhere else.

Oh, and please don't use easter egg redirects. kthx. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is totally outrageous. The list is the best INFORMED and comprehensive total. They are ALL notable. Arrogantly running roughshod over good work with NO KNOWLEDGE of this subject is a disastrous approach and TYPICAL of how we got to this point in the first place. Revert war beckons. Count me out of this project. Peter morrell 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, I'm afraid. Plus, I think most of these will be re-added once we list the 59 in the other book. It was so poorly formatted, we're just better off starting from scratch. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What 'other book' are you talking about? (1) In any case homeopaths use ~3000 remedies of which about 200 are in common use. The list of 60 or so is clearly already a very conservative estimate of the most common. Perhaps you can clarify your intentions in compiling this table? (2) If it is just to delete by stealth the merest mention of homeopathy in WP then I think we are working at cross purposes. (3) And deleting without negotiation or notice other people's good work amounts to vandalism as YOU should know. (4) Also, you cannot use RS or V because homeopathy has been outside the mainstream for two centuries in case you didn't even know this. It is ludicrous to use mainstream published stuff as the sole RS about homeopathy. It is not an applicable yardstick. It has published its own stuff in that period which are RS in their own right. It is a technical and specialised system of knowledge in its own right and perhaps folks like you ought to study it before making massive deletions in a subject you are clearly not well-informed about. That is putting it politely. Peter morrell 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The book I cleverly linked with the label "This book" above. 2. I would like a table to be compiled that's both verifiable and has non-arbitrary inclusion criteria. I think that remedies called "common" by contemporary practitioners will work best.
3. Assume good faith. 4. Bullocks. Read WP:VANDALISM. Good faith changes are not vandalism, and deleting material for have no inclusion criteria and no reliable sources is not vandalism. If you note, I used a homeopathic source, and I think these are the only sources we can use. You're free to add items back if you can provide sources for them as common remedies. Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that book notable or reliable? I can think of several better ones by people who are globally prominent in homeopathy. The author of that book is far from notable. You did not answer one of my questions...what is your motivation here? Peter morrell 07:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then use them! God! I'd love if you cite such sources.
Please drop your paranoia though. I explained my motivation in the threads cited in the above section—I suggested we create such an article and have argued for it in several forums. I don't want this to be an attack piece on homeopathy—it should be a compendium of remedies currently in significant use. I don't want scores of homeopathy forks. Therefore, I want this to be a good WP:V-compliant article—not a scratchpad. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the 200 is about the figure we should be aiming at. Yes it does need sources. This site lists 132Plants for A Future (disclaimer I'm webmaster but not compiler of the site), NHM has 800, the number could be wittled down by just including those which appear in the Pharmacopoeia.
To Peter, which works would you think give the best indication of the common Homeopathy preparations? --Salix alba (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here you go: Dr Andrew Lockie, The Complete Guide to Homeopathy and also Dr Luc de Schepper, Hahnemann Revisited These are both notable and excellent modern textbooks. Peter morrell 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks are ideal for this purpose, and I think the figure of 200 could be reasonable. So if were done hurling accusations of bad faith (Peter?), could we formalize criteria for including specific remedies? We could stipulate that we will include all remedies with significant coverage in a modern one-volume treatises covering the whole practice of homeopathy, such as these books. Cool Hand Luke 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no bad faith, no hurling! just a little well-justified suspicion that working on homeopathy related articles on WP has often provoked. I am very happy to work in a cordial atmosphere of creativity & mutual respect and always have been. I only tend to 'lose my rag' when those conditions deteriorate. Sorry if my previous comments seemed in any way offensive. cheers Peter morrell 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I do have a strong science POV, but this article should be a well-referenced and useful reference on the subject, not another anti-Homeopathy screed. In fact, once some conflicts elsewhere have settled, I favor moving this back to "homeopathic remedies." I've noticed it's much more common term than "homeopathic preparations."
And no, it's not vandalism. Honestly, read WP:VANDALISM. I think over 90% of the time the term is used incorrectly. I think we should do this with a rigorous criteria for inclusion and references, so it was necessary to restart. The list is still in history if you need it. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

However, in spite of that amply generous comment, you did vandalise the article because what you could and ought to have done was simply ask for refs for each remedy instead of just deleting them en masse, which was provocative and means that I now have to ref each one separately and also stitch them back into the table at some point, so no thanks to you for that. Peter morrell 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think starting from scratch with a few is of much more benefit. We can still access the old list. This way, they can be formatted consistently and added one by one. We can also decide on entry criteria, and what extra information is required (such as the excellent "common dilutions" suggestion, in both standard and homeopathic notation). We should also try to keep this list to a manageable length, and not make too many additions in a short space of time --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding from reading Dr. Luc's textbook is that dilution is not something that is usually tied to the particular remedy, but rather whether the condition is acute or chronic, how sensitive the patient is, and the usual practice of the homeopath. Therefore, I don't think we need a column for each remedy to have common dilutions. Maybe a section about dilutions somewhere. Abridged talk 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to over-the-counter dilutions, not those prepared by homeopaths for individuals. These are common, verifiable, and where most people that use homeopathy get their pills. I think a note about homeopathic dilution and how it relates to concentration is very important --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere I fully support adding the standard strengths found in shops for these preparations --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Such info is utterly meaningless. Homeopaths can prescribe whatever potency they wish. Anything from 6c to 10M is common. The most common potencies for over the counter use are 6c and 30c...but why say that in a table as it applies to every common remedy, so you would just have to place 6c and 30c right down the whole table? That seems a waste of space to me. Another issue is what to place in the section headed 'homeopathic use.' A simple outline could be given but it would not fairly represent true homeopathy because a remedy is matched to a symptom totality of a person, not some disease label. thanks Peter morrell 12:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be meaningless to homeopaths with access to a pharmacopoeia, but to the general public it is the main way of accessing homeopathic preparations. It is notable, verifiable, interesting, and I'm sure can be sourced reliably. We can include only the best selling or most prescribed over the counter preperations or some such criteria. You do agree that over-the-counter, self-prescribed homeopathic preparations are part of homeopathy (and the biggest part)? I thought 100 and 200C was also common? I'm no expert, so if this is the case that there are very few dilutions over-the-counter, then perhaps instead a section describing these common dilutions, scientific/homeopathic notation for them, and about the preparation. I don't mean to replicate the homeopathy page section, just something specific to remedies with links and explanations where appropriate. Does this make sense? :) --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK that's fine, but it might appear a bit repetitious that's all. 6c and 30c are the only ones I have seen on general display. 200c are not displayed as far as I know and as 200c is considered to be a strong potency, I would suggest we just keep to 6 and 30. But go ahead and add this when you wish Peter morrell 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably every remedy we mention will come in all of the common dilutions available in shops to the public. A column of such things will just be repetitive. Also, really, this article is not a guide to self care, so why focus on the drugstore-available strengths??? Finally, the strength used really is not a specific function of the particular remedy, so it doesn't make sense to list it after the remedy. It is not internally consistent with the field of homeopathy. Abridged talk 15:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve things a bit

I think before this becomes any worse, we need to come up with some rules of engagement, considered widely by the entire community interested in these things. Adam Cuerden proposed an Arbcomm ruling, which might not happen at this writing, by all appearances. As an alternative, I suggest that we consider convening a mediation and work on forging a Memorandum of Understanding or comparable document that all can sign on to, and then display as evidence of community consensus on homeopathically related article talk pages. Editors arguing tendentitiously and disruptively against the MoU would then be subject to normal administrative penalties. Hopefully we could come to some agreement and compromise about how to handle this situation so we can all be productive instead of fighting each other.--Filll (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first rule is to have some actual knowledge of this subject; the second is to respect those who do; the third is to desist from implementing hatchet jobs. How does that sound Cool Hand Luke? Fourth rule to be banned from the project if this is all you can do. Peter morrell 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't have much interest in participating in this article; however, I thought that those that do would be interested in this article - List_of_plants_used_as_medicine - and this category - Category:Medicinal_plants. Perhaps they will serve as some guidance for this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this: WP:V. Feel free to add whatever you can source as a common remedy. Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Praise and Dilutions

Firstly, this page is looking great so far. It may be useful to add a common dilutions column. I know the dose is "indivdualised", but we can go on the health shop / Boots (UK chemist that used to have standards) / US equiv standard doses --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How many in the list?

I had originally suggested 50 or so substances (10 to 15 each from plants, animals and minerals). Peter says that there are about 60 solid notable substances. Now I hear numbers like 200 or 3000. Well a table or list with 200 entries even is a bit unweildy. And I am a bit nervous about forming a list, and then it getting steadily longer as people add more to it, and take it as a license to create "mini homeopathy articles" or sections in literally hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of other articles.

I am also particularly concerned about this given the aim of several homeopaths here to create mini homeopathy articles or sections in the biographies of every single famous person who ever tried homeopathy. This will soon get completely out of hand. I think Queen Victoria's use is notable of course, but do we need 10,000 or 20,000 mentions in biographies?

This is why I am a bit nervous about expanding this list too extensively. It should be a starter, and a place to direct people to more comprehensive homeopathic references. Astrology is extremely complicated with many forms and over the centuries, many people have used it. Should it be promoted in a similar fashion on Wikipedia? Some mention is fine, but there is a limit as well.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the list could be endless. We are not writing a multivolume book length materia medica here. I would defer to PETER, DANA, or other folks who are field experts to suggest the numbers and the specific remedies. They need to be referenced, of course, but I would suggest we defer to them to pick the list. Abridged talk 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, 60 or so is easily enough. These are the most common remedies in use by all homeopaths. That is surely all we need? I also think 200 or 300 is getting ridiculous. Hope this clarifies. The bulk of the data is actually in the refs so folks can go to the refs to check out the details of that substance in off-wiki articles and websites, books, etc. This is what I had envisaged, but maybe others have a different vision of this item? if so, then comments might help to clear this up. thanks Peter morrell 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a few uses to each remedy. My intetion is to add some potencies, and more common remedies in the same way--to extend the list to about 60 as previously stated. If anyone does not like the present arrangement or wishes to chip in with a view, then please feel free to do so. The next step is to start adding references for each of the uses listed, so the list is then seen to make no unusual medical claims beyond citing every symptom or ailment of the remedies homeopaths consider them suitable for. Hope this clarifies. thanks Peter morrell 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. My only concern is that potencies may be harder to verify. As I understand it, potencies are to be tailored to the patient, so that many may be used for any remedy. Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Used for... Mostly used for..

I really like the new table, it's going very well. One point, the words "used for" and "mostly used for" seem redundant, and could be removed. I've also noticed some inconsistency in capitalisation: "all potencies" vs "All potencies", and is it C and X or c and x (I thought the former)? Well done to Peter and the others --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all OK; feel free to improve it as per. Lower case x and c is most common, although some places use D for decimal instead of x. Do we also need to add links to botanical/herbal medicinal uses of some? e.g. Aesculus, Hamamelis, Ledum, etc? Just a thought. Peter morrell 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What a fun article

I'm really enjoying adding stuff to this article. I'm going through right now and adding all the homeopathic remedies from the controversial inclusions on other pages. One thing we may wish to do in the future is make different tiers for popularity. I'm not sure how we're going to measure popularity, but hopefully we'll find a way. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better source for Strontium chloride? Looking at revision on Strontium chloride where it was mentioned, the cited reference is Homeopathy and the Elements. Clicking on the heritage link there reveals that this is an on the edge
A "cutting edge" of homeopathy, the information is interesting, yet much of the materia medica is synthetic and, therefore, theoretical. It should be approached with caution. Not for the notice homeopath or one without experience.
this source seem to fall a long way short of the requirments for this page. --Salix alba (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s. the above quote comes from Heritage of Homoeopathic Literature which might be a good indication of the value of works within the homoeopathy literature. --Salix alba (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We should have a source indicating some threshold of use or notability; it might not merit mention in either article. Are you familiar with this remedy, Peter? Cool Hand Luke 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And if our resident experts agree, we should probably remove aloe as non-notable. Also: I made a comment in the table, but is white or red phosphorus used, or does it matter? Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aloe is very seldom used. It should be removed, in my opinion. As for phosphorus, I have not seen a reference as to which form is used in the initial stage of the dynamization process. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Aloe should go. Also Strontium Chloride is not notable and in my opnion should also go as should Oscillococcinum. Why? It is only prominent in the US, and homeopathy in the US is a fraction of 1% so why should that be considered globally notable? And it is not a major remedy in any sense. Peter morrell 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kali bich and Strontium now stand out as not being included correctly with citations and with correct formatting. Unless this can be corrected then please suggest rather than edit so the list stays consistent in appearance and formatting. This creates work for others to tidy up. Much better to do the donkey work BEFORE adding stuff. Peter morrell 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

commonly used potencies

  • I would recommend against listing commonly used potencies for each homeopathic remedy. Instead I would suggest adding this note at the top stating:
The choice of potency (dilution & succussion level) to be used is determined at the clinical level by physicians and homeopathic practitioners on an individual basis. Some limit use to the lower potencies of 4X (4D) through 30X (30D), while others use 3C through CM potencies.[1][2]
The note you suggest could be a footnote ref'ed from the top of the potencies column, but the common and store-bought potencies should remain. The title should stay as the neutral "homeopathic preparations" --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with both suggestions. I think potencies are not verifiable. I also see nothing non-neutral with "homeopathic remedies." If you think that it's bunk (like I do), it's something like saying "voodoo curses." It's by far the more common term, and it might even be a term of art. WP:NAME suggests we should move it back to the most common and well-sourced title. Cool Hand Luke 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So whose suggestions are you agreeing with? Mine, or the suggestions that DrEightyEight had made? Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, well I said (1) that the potencies are not verifiable (implying that they should be dropped), and (2) that the title should be changed to "...homeopathic remedies." Those were your two suggestions, right? Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the paragraph idea at the top of the article. In which case the entire column headed 'potency' would be redundant and can go too. Perhaps a decent cite or two can also be added to the paragraph about potency? Peter morrell 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DrEightyEight moved the paragraph to the bottom, and removed one of my reference citations, without discussion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi sorry, I missed this section (I had the page open still and hadn't refreshed). As a note, I think the paragraph works much better at the bottom. I'm just trying to find out how to put an link from the potency section to the note at the bottom. The List should be at the top, not a discussion about potencies. Please AGF --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it would have been more appropriate for you to propose moving the paragraph to a position below the table, rather than just doing it - since there had been 2 editors who thought having it at the top of the article was a good idea. However, that is not my main concern. When you moved the paragraph, you also removed the word "physicians" and one of the references. I have no major problem with where the ultimate placing of the paragraph is, but I do have a problem with removing "physicians" and removing a solid homeopathic reference for a homeopathic subject. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A little research showed me that in the US, physician commonly refers only to MDs and ODs. Not homeopaths. Not sure about other places and how firm this rule is.-_Filll (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., "physician" is a licensed health professional: either medical physician, osteopathic physician, or chiropractic physician. That is what their licensing certificate states (in Illinois, at least). I personally know physicians in all 3 categories that currently use homeopathic medicines (both oral and injectible) in their practices. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we need a suite of WP:RS for this.--Filll (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Chiropractic Physician" [2], "Osteopathic Physician" [3], "Medical Physician: [4] Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • All three types of physicians have some who utilize homeopathy: [5]
  • Partial list of MDs (Medical Doctors) and DOs (Doctors of Osteopathy) in the US that use homeopathy: [6]
So it should say "homeopathic physician" to make clear that it is not all ohysicians, by a long way. Or it could just be removed as the two terms are redundant --DrEightyEight (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jacques Jouanny The Essential of Homeopathic Therapeutics. Bordeaux, France: Delmas, 1980
  2. ^ Dana Ullman Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 1991. ISBN 1-55643-108-2

Remedies or preparations?

The word 'remedies' is the word in common use in homeopathy but some claim it is 'loaded.' Maybe comments would help on this? Peter morrell 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME doesn't have such an exception: we label religious experiences, wars, and all sorts of things with their most common name, whether they're "really" what they claim to be or not. We should move the article to "...remedies" but add some paragraphs explaining that there's skepticism that any of the remedies are effective (except by placebo effect) because they're at utter odd with our understanding of physical science. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They really are preparations. Some objected to the word remedies so this was chosen as a neutral compromise.--Filll (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "preparations" has never been used as the name for these. The only names that are used are "homeopathic remedies" or "homeopathic medicines". Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is up to consensus. The group that calls them medicines or remedies is of course a small fringe group, by many measures. I would support a link from Homeopathic remedies to this page however, but that is up to consensus.--Filll (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid having a lengthy discussion about whether homeopathy is effective on this page as well as all the others, it is probably best to keep to a neutral term that is correct and doesn't imply any effect. A redirect here isn't a problem. They are homeopathic preparations, so the description is correct. --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it then that "homeopathic remedies" has 100 times more hits on Google? Even Stephen Barrett uses the term after putting it in scare quotes on first use. "Remedy" does not mean "efficacious." We don't decide whether a title is merely "correct"—the correct title is the one actually used, and we follow reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which roughly translated means...what? One assumes it means we use the term remedies. Triumph of common sense? Peter morrell 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion we should make sure that commonly used descriptions redirect here so people can find them. So homeopathic remedies and maybe homeopathic medicines and any other common terms should redirect here so readers can find them. As to the name of the article itself, that has to be the subject of consensus I would venture. They are preparations, but possibly for google searches the article should be called remedies? I dont know if many will be looking here on google searches of homeopathic remedies though. Comments?--Filll (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course people will look here for homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy is already the second hit for "homeopathic remedies," as well as first for homeopathy. Check out Google trends This shows the relative number of times that homeopathy, homeopathic remedies, and homeopathic preparations are searched. Homeopathic preparations is so rare that it can't even display a graph. Cool Hand Luke 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Salt?

Is Natrum Muriaticum, i.e. sodium choride, halite, table salt, notable enough for this table?--Filll (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of the more commonly used homeopathic remedies. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

CM

Someone needs to clarify what the acronym "CM" means, in the dilutions column. The main homeopathy article mentions nC and nX dilutions but not "CM". 212.49.210.38 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - there also appear to be others, like LM, Q, etc. I think someone has added CM. Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved, I think — Potency column title WikiLink'd to non-existent section of Homeopathy — I fixed to point to Homeopathic dilutions, which DOES define "CM". Mwr0 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of homeopathic preparations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_homeopathic_preparations/Archive_1&oldid=1046921850"