Talk:Homeopathy

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

As a result of an Arbitration Committee ruling in this case, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

	Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 9, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Rational Skepticism      (Rated GA-Class) This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Homeopathy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Homeopathy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Homeopathy is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. WikiProject Alternative medicine      (Rated GA-Class) Complementary and Alternative Medicine portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Medicine (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

[edit] Indistinguishable

I don't feel strongly about this, but I think MartinPhi's compromise version "chemically indistinguishable" is excellent. It's not very conspicuous or restrictive in this context, and it's likely to keep most proponents of homeopathy happy. (This is the lede. Even in a debunking article it would be counterproductive to affront believers in homeopathy long before giving the detailed arguments. I don't understand why anti-homeopathic POV pushers keep pushing against their own interest.) It's also more correct in the sense that it doesn't assume any particular testing methodology. Double blind studies are not the only way of testing; if you give two substances, one marked as homeopathic medicine and one marked as pure water or sugar, to patients, you probably get a stronger placebo effect from the former. The word "chemically" makes clear that the sentence doesn't intend to deny this. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you say "it would be counterproductive to affront believers in homeopathy long before giving the detailed arguments". The first part of the lead sentence in Hitler diaries says "In April 1983, the German news magazine Stern published extracts from what purported to be the diaries of Adolf Hitler, known as the Hitler Diaries.......". The last part of the sentence says "which were subsequently revealed to be forgeries". Using the rationale you give here, seems you might argue for the removal of that last part. Is that so? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No: 1. The number of believers in homeopathy is far bigger than the number of believers in the Hitler diaries. (There are big regional differences, so you may not be aware of that. I have seen very bad instances of homeopathic quackery while working here, and they were from the US and India. I have never heard of such goings-on in Europe.) We have to allow for their believes in the same way that we do it for silly religious dogmas. 2. The main question with the Hitler diaries is: Are they genuine or not? The main question with homeopathy is: Does it work or not? This is not the simple question: Do homeopathic remedies have a pharmaceutical effect? If the main question has a simple answer, it belongs in the first paragraph. If the answer is more complex, that's less clear. 3. The Hitler diary lede says explicitly that they were forged. Here we are talking about sneaky hinting that comes before the proper discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the Hitler lead says the diaries were forged. I already said that, so stop stealing my lines because you have hardly made a profound discovery. You totally ignored my question, and point. If the lead of an article about X says X is a forgery, why should an article about Y not say Y is a (whatever it is). Why would it be "counterproductive to affront believers in homeopathy long before giving the detailed arguments" but not counterproductive "to affront believers in the Hitler Diaries long before giving the detailed arguments"? Why do you advocate a different principle for different subjects? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for saying something that you could apparently misunderstand. Of course you know that the diaries were forged. I am not sure which of my statements you misunderstood, but I am guessing it was in point 3. (Is that correct?) By "Here we are talking about..." I meant the homeopathy article. Both interpretations are plausible, and I apologise for not being clearer. I would be grateful if you could reread what I wrote with this knowledge and tell me if you still think I ignored your question and point. I still think that each of the three (numbered) points above answers your questions. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh... Hans? People who make double blind studies are already aware of which one will get a stronger placebo effect. Actually, it's done that way on purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that homeopathic medicine and pure water (or pure whatever) are distinguishable if each is labelled according to how it was produced. Therefore edit warring the compromise word "chemical" out of this article has a strong odour of POV pushing. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think OM wants to push the point that homeopathy is not effective beyond placebo. There are two problems with this: 1. While doubtless true (in my opinion), it is not so universally acknowledged that we can just claim it in the lede without losing or affronting a large part of our readers. 2. It is only half the truth, because: a) The hypothesis that placebos labelled as homeopathic, or prescribed by homeopaths, are more effective than regular placebos prescribed by a regular doctor is almost impossible to test. b) In many situations placebo is the best treatment. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are two different points: (1) There is no known blinded method for distinguishing any physical/chemical difference in the content of two identically diluted and succussed products, with the one lacking any "active" ingredient to begin with; (2) There is no known and well-proven difference in effect beyond the placebo illusion, IOW no real lasting effects on serious illness, only a subjective effect. Conclusion: the biological results will be the same if you use the one or the other in a large and well-controlled double-blinded experiment. -- Fyslee / talk 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

... although basic probability theory predicts that if you make enough experiments some will "prove" otherwise. Apart from the fact that the placebo effect is most definitely not an illusion (this is one the few things that we know about it for sure – see placebo), that's unrelated to my point. My point is that one can't object to "chemically indistinguishable" on the basis that it's wrong or misleading:

• Even though the substances are in fact more than just chemically indistinguishable, the qualification "chemically" doesn't make the statement wrong.
• The results of double-blind clinical studies and of meta-studies are not (and cannot be, because of issues such as publication bias) sufficiently conclusive to clear out the efficacy question completely. Therefore it would be inappropriate to claim inefficacy passim in the first paragraph, before the extensive discussion of the second paragraph. "Indistinguishable" only works here because in context it's clear that it means "chemically indistinguishable".
• As a matter of style, it would also be a blunder to make this inefficacy claim in the first paragraph, where it definitely does not belong:

1st paragraph: History, ideology, description of remedies.

2nd paragraph: Selection of remedies, efficacy, plausibility, quackery.

3rd paragraph: Safety, criticism, placebo effect, regulation and prevalence.

This is just another example of pushing a viewpoint in a place where it doesn't even belong in the first place. If people could refrain from that, editing here would be a lot easier. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the placebo effect and have edited that article some time ago. I use the rather tongue-in-cheek "placebo illusion" expression to illustrate that it only works if it is a properly performed deception based on an illusion, and it only produces effects related to subjective experiences, with no proven significant, objective, long lasting effects on serious diseases. Read the best examination of the subject and all the research ever done on it, by Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche, mentioned in this section: Objective and subjective effects. I communicated with them while they were performing it (they are Danes and I have lived in Denmark for years). Their discoveries were and are very significant. The realities of the situation are that calling it an "effect" is less accurate than calling it an "illusion". The effects have been overrated and exaggerated for far too long, and their studies show that previous research has been misunderstood and misquoted, leading to these faulty beliefs about supposedly great objective "effects", even though there is a lack of evidence of such effects. -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you making an implicit assumption that we are not talking about "headache, stomachache, asthma, allergy, tension, and the experience of pain"? (The quotation is from the section you referenced.) I am also not convinced by the study before I have read it. At the time when the old studies were conducted, showing a large placebo effect, people generally believed more in regular medicine than they do now, and doctors had more time for them. I would like to verify that the newer studies have taken such factors into account. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for answering so late. I just noticed this. I am making an implicit assumption that homeopaths in general often use homeopathic remedies and make claims for far more serious illnesses than the ones you list, including the use of nosodes in place of real vaccinationns. That's what's really problematic and dangerous. If a medicine has no more effect than the placebo effect, it is unethical to use it in clinical practice. OTOH, it is essential that placebos be used in research, and homeopathic remedies are perfect placebos, because the patient thinks they are getting something that really works, when it doesn't. The deceptive use of an illusion is complete, as required in such research. -- Fyslee / talk 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"chemically indistinguishable" is misleading in that it implies that there exist other means by which they are distinguishable. I have yet to see reliable sources that show such a mean. Hans, on a comment above you say that they are distinguishable because the recipients are labelled[1]. Double blind studies mislabel part of the recipients on purpose, and don't tell neither the patients nor the doctors which are mislabelled and which are not. That allows the studies to see it they can still be distinguished. I'm not sure that you undertand what a double blind experiment means. Read Blind experiment#Double-blind_trials, please.

That double-blind clinical studies and meta-studies cannot clear the efficacy question is your personal opinion, and it's not the conclusion reached by those meta-studies. According to them, all falsiable assertions (about homeopathy working) have been proved false, so, as far as science is concerned, homeopathy does not work.

Finally, as Fyslee said already[2], presenting the conclusions from mainstream science solid studies is not pushing a viewpoint, it's presenting facts. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you can't understand the argument. What you are saying only makes sense if you read the sentence in question out of context. Our current lede only makes sense if you read "indistinguishable" as "chemically indistinguishable". Otherwise we are saying "The substances are indistinguishable, therefore one would expect that they are not distinguishable at all, and in spite of some methodical problems this is what the studies say (overall)." Why is it that so many anti-pseudoscientists insist on using circular reasoning when it's clearly not necessary? Is it something contagious that they catch from the pseudoscientists?

I did not say that studies "cannot clear the efficacy question". I said they "cannot clear [it] out completely", and it should be clear from context that by this I mean: to the point that we don't have a considerable numbers of readers who will start reading the article thinking that they know homeopathy has been proven effective because they have read (or more likely heard about) many studies and meta-studies proving that. My point in the parenthetical remark was that this is not going to change, for instance because of publication bias. Do you doubt that? By the way, the purpose of this remark was to make it clear that the fact that we have this problem is not an argument for the efficacy of homeopathy, even though many homeopaths, naturally, think it is. I am surprised that you have chosen to attack that. Were you unhappy with the surrounding paragraph and couldn't find anything else in it to attack?

You are not sure that I know what a double-blind experiment means? Thanks for insulting my intelligence. If I had that level of ignorance I wouldn't be editing here. In the first lede paragraphs we are not even in the context of single-blind experiments. That paragraph has no business talking (or hinting) about placebo-controlled studies.--Hans Adler (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the unintended insult, I see that you really understand how double-blind experiments work, you just seem to believe that they don't work fully, if I am not mistaken). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, if carried out correctly the do work fully. Of course. What I believe that this sentence has no business talking about double-blind experiments because at this particular point in the lede it would be completely out of the proper context. It's a matter of style, reading comprehension, etc.; not of science. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Hans's point about labelling, perhaps as a compromise it could say that they are indistinguishable other than by looking at the label. If you want a source for this, see question 538 from these minutes of evidence given to the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and the answer given by Kate Chatfield of the Society of Homeopaths: [3]. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring most of the points I made. As you are aware, I am not questioning that they are totally indistinguishable other than by labelling. I am questioning that it makes any sense to say so shortly, but not immediately, before we discuss this point in detail; at a time when many readers will not be prepared for the statement. I am not pushing a pro-homeopathy POV, I am pushing a "professional text that you could read in a properly edited encyclopedia, rather than an incoherent sequence of random committe-produced statements" POV.--Hans Adler (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So far nobody has responded to my concern: That once you read the sentence in context, the claim that "chemically" makes the statement somehow wrong or incomplete is completely and utterly baseless. I just realised that the problem is worse than I thought:

... According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the substance, while the essential qualities are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol.[2]

Practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state[3] of the patient, both of which are considered important to selecting the remedy.[4] Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[5][6][7][8] Common homeopathic preparations are diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product; the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible[9][10] and violates fundamental principles of science,[11] including the law of mass action.[11] ...

Perhaps we can find a real compromise that solves this problem (saying the same thing twice in different places in what should be a "concise overview") as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Most homeopaths would accept that a remedy is chemically indistinguishable (or even better, physically indistinguishable) from the carrier (lactose, alcohol, water). A homeopath would argue (and trust me, I hung out with them for four years) that the remedy is distinguishable from the carrier - just in a non-physical, 'energetic' way. For example, the so-called 'proving' of a remedy distinguishes it from a 'blank' in a homeopaths mind. In a circular fit of logic, homeopaths would also suggest that a remedy can be clinically distinguished from a blank by the fact that if given in the apropriate dose to the apropriate patient, the patient gets better. A new reader probably doesn't understand the homeopaths position - that a remedy can be clinically distinguished from a blank in the absence of any physical/chemical distinction. It is a peculiar idea after all. The word 'indistinguishable' without a qualifier is confusing. Perhaps a rewrite along the lines of:

• "Although homeopaths claim that their remedies have distinct clinical outcomes, these remedies can not be physically or chemically distinguished from ordinary water, alcohol or sugar." Naturstud (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure that they're distinguishable by clinical effects either.[4] Brunton (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you are pushing that modern double-blind clinical trials a) can't fully assess the inefficacy of a remedy b) can't take fully into account the placebo effect c) can't be right anyways because of publication bias (which means that we should interpret all of them with a certain bias instead of taking directly what they assert). That's your personal opinion, and you have not verified it with any source, and it goes against the reliable sources that have been presented on this discussion (which outright assert stuff that have been tested by those studies without hinting that the studies can't be trusted), and you are asking that the lead is changed on that opinion.

As for the lead, I don't understand how the reader can't be prepared to read that they are not distinguishable, or why we shouldn't say that outright. That's the strangest argument that I have heard for a lead change. As Brunton points out, the homeopathic argument that they can be distinguished by their effects has been verified false when tested, so there is no known method of distinguishing them and no hints of one existing. (and of course, if another method is suggested, we shouldn't add it until it has been tested right or wrong, or at least not add it on the lead). You are right that it's mentioned twice, but from two different perspectives. From the point of being distinguishible, and from the point of being actually effective even if they can't be distinguished. (the counterpoint is that, due to uncertainty, two radioactive atoms will send out particles at different times, even if they can't be distinguised from each other by any mean I'm sure that I have totally botched this comparison) Oh, and Fyslee and I have addressed your concern about "chemically", you just aren't convinced by our arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Enric, if you have trouble comprehending English, you should try to avoid complicated disputes on the English language Wikipedia. (I am already assuming good faith here. Another explanation would be that you simply think that I am a pro-homeopathic POV pusher and that you interpret everything I say that way, whether it fits or not.) You are reading a lot into what I wrote that simply isn't there. For example c) is completely and utterly wrong, both as a statement of fact and as a statement of what I said. The problem of publication bias has been discussed before, and it explains the appearance that there are more studies than expected that show (non-placebo) efficacy of homeopathy, without assuming this efficacy. The problem is not one of science, but of appearances and public discourse.

More later, when I have the time. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well. You mean that, even if the study is properly carried and it does show a non-placebo effect, the conclusion will still say that there was no effect due to social factors that cause a publication bias. Well, I'm not sure if it's due to publication bias, or due to researchers feeling that the effect was inside error margins.

And you're right that I'm reading too much, your concerns about duplication on the lead were right. Since Scintizzle has already solved the issue, I'll just go edit some other article before I accidentally insult other editor. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What we're discussing here is the substitution of the term "chemically indistinguishable" for "indistinguishable". This would imply that there are ways (other than chemical means) in which they are distinguishable. In the absence of any good evidence from RS that this is the case, we really can't include this. It would give a completely misleading impression. Brunton (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand how this might flag one's weaselmeter, but after some thought, I don't see this as too problematic. There really aren't that many other forms of distinguishability besides chemical (not including status as a homeopathic therapy, of course). One might propose things like phase or particle physics status (e.g., isotopic), but aren't those exceptional enough to avoid concern?

If not, wouldn't a simple reorg to say "otherwise indistinguishable" get around the whole issue? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise than how? Brunton (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Price?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[good one] ...otherwise indistinguishable from similar material not prepared homeopathically. Wording open for discussion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "otherwise" implies that there are ways in which they can be distinguished. This appears to not be the case. Brunton (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Try: "Water [say] made into a homeopathic preparation is otherwise indistinguishable from water not made into a homeopathic preparation." The only thing empirically distinguishing them is that this one is a HPic preparation, and this one isn't. Otherwise they're indistinguishable. That suggestion is to make my point; the exact language can be wordsmithed per consensus. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Laboratory reagent grade 1 ultra-pure water contains up to 10 ppb of total organic carbon. Using this to prepare dilutions still leaves 10 ppb of total organic carbon, the equivalent of a 4C dilution.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Otherwise they're indistinguishable"? If I were to give you 2 bottles of water, one made into a homoeopathic preparation and one not, but simply labelled (at random) "A" and "B", would you be able to tell which was which? The use of the term "otherwise" implies that there is some way of doing this. Brunton (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I started this section I expected everbody to actually look up Martinphi's edit (in which he tried to find a compromise with a pro-homeopathic editor who had been reverted), and OM's revert of Martinphi. I am not sure that anybody has done it. The lede contained two instances of "indistinguishable", and the second one (which is still there) is absolutely OK. The problem was in the first instance; but it was solved very elegantly by Scientizzle. Unless anybody really wants to add more complicated technical discussions to the lede, I think we can end the discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans. For anyone that missed it, this is the edit. — Scientizzle 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the lead

Significant parts of the lead largely consist of a series of disconnected sentences. Isn't anybody here taking account of the need for the article to have flow and be readable?Vitaminman (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

After taking a fresh reading of the current lead, I don't really see much of a problem, but I understand your concerns. Maybe the reason you see this as a problem is because of the rules governing LEAD content (not format). The lead must reflect article content, so any significant matters in the article must get passing mention in the lead. This means that the lead should get tweaked each time the article content changes. (I have my own rule of thumb: if a matter is significant enough to get its own heading in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead.) What this all means is that the lead evolves, rather than being written with a plan and proper flow. That doesn't mean that it can't be tweaked to improve flow, but that needs to be done very carefully, since every word, intonation, and phrasing in the lead has usually been the subject of edit wars, so any type of alteration can start new edit wars, and that needs to be avoided. Proposals should be made on the talk page first, and hammered out there into a consensus version everyone can live with. I hope that sheds some light on the situation, since your concerns are certainly legitimate and apply to many articles here. -- Fyslee / talk 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the order in which the various topics are addressed could be improved, and in the more contentious part the style has suffered a bit from formulation surgery. But I think overall flow and readability, while far from optimal, are more or less OK. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's badly written. Consider the first paragraph. The first sentence is a morass of etymology which, per WP:NAD, probably shouldn't be there at all. The second sentence addresses the topic but needs some polish. The following sentences then lose the plot as they digress on the issue of dilution and so must leave the reader a bit confused. Instead of being clear, focussed and simple, the paragraph tries to cram too much into a small space. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a mess, but this is typical in wiki articles that are about controversial topics. One of the reasons that the lead (or is it lede?) feels so choppy is that every facet of homeopathy that can be criticized in the main article is criticized in the lead itself. Most of the criticisms deserve to be in the article, but the question of style remains: What to do when the criticism becomes so thick that it prevents you from describing the thing that you are criticising in the first place?

For example, it is correct for the article to report that some homeopaths have "been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[18] anti-malarial drugs[19] and antibiotics". This sentence in the lead has nothing to do with the one the precedes it or follows it however. The lede reads like a shopping list of everything that is wrong with homeopathy. Perfect for a reader who already understands what homeopathy is, but nearly impenetrable for the uninitiated. Perhaps the solution would be to collect the criticisms into one paragraph at the end of the lede? The constant switching between claim/criticism is hurting us. The lede as it stands is readable - but only for the most patient reader IMHO. Naturstud (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted, I may not have noticed these reading difficulties because of my familiarity with the subject. We can't assume others will find it easy, so these comments are valuable. I wouldn't mind seeing some rearranging, as long as nothing is lost or buried, and no meaning changed. This is very important. All attempts should be made here first, so go for it. (I have taken the liberty to refactor the indents so we get some uniformity in the existing hodgepodge of confusing styles. I hope no one minds.) -- Fyslee / talk 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, congratulations. The Lead is much better now than half a year ago when I left this article. However, I think it is too long and I disagree with Fyslee that everything that is covered in the main body deserves a sentence in the Lead. Here is a Lead sentence that I think should be moved to the main article: "such as vaccinations,[18] anti-malarial drugs[19] and antibiotics.[20]" We don't need this level of detail. This is peripheral to homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a full sentence. I suppose it arose as part of a dispute, and I agree it's not needed in the lede. We may need a new reference though; or we can just put the references that we have now into a footnote. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that "significant matters" matters should be mentioned in the lead, not "everything". It is a summary of article content. Yes, there shouldn't be too much detail, but enough for readers to get the gist without having to read the whole article, which few will do. -- Fyslee / talk 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maxpont and Hans that it's unnecessary to detail that part. As far as I know, none of those details have been notable on their own. At most, leave the anti-malarian drug thing, as malaria is what caused Hahnemann to start homeopathy. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence....

Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.

....should logically come after these sentences in the lead:

Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective, they may make people feel better via the placebo effect. Thus, like any placebo, such remedies may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression.

The above two sentences describe what the placebo effect is and how it works. Logically therefore, "Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence" appears too soon in the lead, as we haven't explained what the placebo effect before the reader comes across it.

Would anybody object if I correct this?Vitaminman (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a good idea. The first paragraph explains what homeopathy is. The second gives a scientific evaluation. The third discusses its role in society. The sentence you want to move from the second to the third paragraph is part of the scientific evaluation, and it would be a bit out of place in the new environment. What is worse, the obvious hole that it would leave would soon start a big dispute about how to fill it. The most likely outcome would be the addition of a sentence very similar to the one you want to move, and then the one in the third paragraph would have to be removed as redundant. So we would be back to the current situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that that the two sentences in that last lead paragraph

Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective, they may make people feel better via the placebo effect. Thus, like any placebo, such remedies may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression.

are redundant and unnecessary. They're not about homeopathy, per se, and could be readily excised to reduce bloat in the lead. This would also completely address Vitaminman's concern. — Scientizzle 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Your explanation is true only if you restrict homeopathy to its pseudoscience aspect. But homeopathy also has a treatment method aspect to which this is quite relevant because different treatment methods are likely to have different placebo effects. (I think there is not much, if any, good research about this.) Moreover, I think the two sentences do a good job of explaining to the lay reader where the tension between subjective efficacy and objective inefficacy comes from. In other words, they are necessary if we want that readers who tried homeopathy and felt that it helped them believe what we say about it. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with points made by Hans Adler. Vitaminman's offer to "correct this" would be more mistake than correction in my opinion. Also, claiming the sentences are redundant, unnecessary and not about homeopathy seems rather odd to me, especially as the first one begins "Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective......". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it somewhat redundant because we already say in the lead, "Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence", and link to placebo effect. Further explanation of the placebo effect and how it relates to homeopathic treatment is useful, I just question whether it's necessary in the lead, particularly since we can link directly to the placebo article. Anyways, I don't feel strongly about this, it was just a suggestion. — Scientizzle 01:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two sentences are not optimal. Something like the following would work for me:

"Like all treatment methods [or whatever uncontroversial term we can put here] homeopathy may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression, making people feel better via the placebo effect."

It's at least a bit shorter. I think it would be even better as the first sentence of the second paragraph, explaining placebos where it's necessary and leaving the third paragraph more cohesive. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, that little "active ingredient"!!!!!

A recent edit reminds me that I wanted to ask whether we can get a consensus for something like the following:

The dilutions in some, but not all, homeopathic remedies are extreme. Very much so. The article already says so repeatedly and tries to give the reader a feeling for how extreme the dilutions can be. Every editor who wants to add yet another sentence that describes how extreme these dilutions can get should:

1. Read all the other explanations of how little active ingredient there is (in many, but not all, cases).
2. Count the similar descriptions of superlatives in Sun or Milky Way for perspective.
3. If the edit really makes sense, remove one other sentence that describes how incredibly diluted this stuff can get.

By the way, did I mention that some of this stuff is practically pure diluent? Who would have thought it. Perhaps that's where the term "homeopathical doses" comes from. There's practically nothing there. Wow. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you can't in any practical sense make a dilution containing less of a substance than the dilutant does. If you use watter that has impurities of only 10 ppb (unavailable in the 19th century) the most it can dilute something is by 10^-8. Beyond that what you have is a "remedy" based on the impurities in the water, not on the nominal substance. Extreme dilutions are entirely bogus. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The point is that we are writing an encyclopedia, not collaborative homework for school. Apparently you still can't see the problem. This is a long article. One of the reasons is that we keep repeating the same points in different words. In Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion:

• 24X/12C is marked as the point where the dilutions stop having molecules of the original substance. (In table – details omit an assumption and seem to be the result of an incorrect calculation.)
• 60X/30C – your edit. (In table)
• 12C – under certain assumptions 0.602 molecules/liter.
• 15C – chances for retaining a molecule are negligible.
• Lake Geneva example.
• Atlantic Oceans example.
• 13C corresponds to 1 drop in all of the earth's oceans.

In Homeopathy#High dilutions:

• (Ordinary water should be treatment for every imaginable condition.)
• How huge a container 30C solution would have to be to contain a molecule.
• How much lactose would be needed to produce enough 30X pills that one contains a single molecule.

Did you actually see all these other instances? What do you think was new about what you added? Why was it needed in the particular place where you added it?

BTW, I suspect you made an incorrect "calculation". Having 0.602 molecules on average is of course not the same as a 60.2 % of having at least a single molecule. This kind of precision is preposterous anyway, when doing back-of-an-envelope computations as we are doing here. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rereading my post from yesterday, I fear my usage of the word "you" may have been taken to mean "you, Hans Adler:, but that was not my intent. I meant it in the third-person-indefinite. Sorry if it came across wrong. To your last point, you are correct.

A more formal statistical presentation would have invoked the concept of expected value, which struck me as beyond the level of mathematics that many readers of this article would likely possess. We could use other phrasing such as "on average 0.6 molecules" if that's more acceptable to you. Please note that anyone with a rudimentary popular science grasp of quantum mechanics should have no conceptual difficulty with fractional molecules. I'm quite sure Robert Park's understanding of physics is sufficient to get this, so I infer he was engaging in oversimplification for the sake of communication or else just wasn't thinking too clearly when he made the quoted statement. Curiously, a corollary of Bell's theorem would effectively say that the entangled states of doses of remedies beyond 24C would, hypothetically achieving a single cure, render the remaining doses made from diluting that 24C to be void and hence unethical to dispense! Probably not the "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein was thinking of...

I wouldn't let the 98k article length trouble me, there are many longer at WP:FA. Still, If trimming is desired, I'd suggest that the bulk of "High dilutions" can be condensed into one para. It shouldn't be a surrogate for a "Criticisms" section, which are discouraged at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. The table can effectively replace the numeric content of the section. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this deeply, but there is a page on Homeopathic dilution which could do with some assistance, and perhaps more references to this and more material copied there would be good. In general, things should be mentioned whenever relevant and in proportion. The question of dilution is very prominently featured in nearly all discussions of homeopathy, although I personally think it interesting and important when discussing possible mechanisms for homeopathy, it is largely irrelevant compared to the lack of evidence for any therapeutic effect (bar placebo, regression, etc). Sorry if this has all been said. Verbal chat 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, no, I didn't misunderstand you. Thanks for replying to my second point, although I am not sure that you have understand the "back-of-an-envelope" part: Saying 0.602 rather than just 0.6 amounts to lying because it gives the impression that this kind of precision makes any sense in the context. It's exactly the same kind of nonsense as the population of "19,297,729" that is mentioned in the New York article (which even says it's estimated; it says for which year, but not for which day and minute, as one would expect with this precision). I am not sure why you didn't reply to my first point, which was in short: We already had 9 instances of basically the same statement, and you added a 10th instance. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. One digit precision is more appropriate given the cumulative errors involved. I didn't get that was your concern, it's now fixed. As to your first point, the place for discussing serial dilution is in the section on Dilution and succession, not all those other places. Pick the best explanation. Put it there. Chuck the others. I've done some.

I agree that the serial dilution aspect of homeopathy is overstated in the article - especially given the new breed of infinately more concentrated (and potentially dangerous) homeopathic remidies. Arsenicum 2X anyone? There is a scary trend to mix physiologically active concentrations into modern homeopathic preparations. The article should mention the trend and the resulting debate between these 'new homeopaths' and the classical homeopaths. Naturstud (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of this as a recent phenomenon, although it is of course possible that it had disappeared for half a century or so and is coming back now. So far as I know this was discussed extensively among homeopaths from the beginning. If you want I can see if I find a few sources for this. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot who it was, but I think someone had removed quite a few instances. It looks like the article will soon be saturated again if we don't do something about it. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations misapplied?

Can someone explain how it's possible for a guy (SH) who died long ago to tell us what "practitioners" do today? For that matter, how is the Organon even considered a WP:RS on current practice?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Organon" plays the role of the "bible" of the homeopaths, and their modern practice seems to be generally quite close to what he wrote. You are right that it's not an adequate source – if someone actually has doubts about the statement itself. You seem to be the first one – so now is the time to do the tedious work of looking for a better reference about modern practice. Thanks for notifying us of your doubts. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case for practitioners of "classical" homoeopathy, which is a major school. See for example the current "message of the month" on the website of the International academy of Classical Homeopathy[5] (my emphasis): "The term classical homeopathy was termed by George Vithoulkas in the mid seventies to indicate that the rules of Hahnemann, as expressed in the Organon, was to be followed, not to be transgressed or changed in order for one to claim he was practicing classical homeopathy." Brunton (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The statement in question (in first lede paragraph, about selection of treatments) is probably true to a lesser extent for "clinical" homeopaths as well, but we really need a better source. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this sort of approach to The Organon as some sort of inviolable "holy book" has been discussed here before.[6][7] Brunton (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Organon is the 'bible' only to some homeopaths, and is routinely ignored by others. It is important that the article not present the illusion that there is only one 'official' form of Homeopathy, with a dominant set of rules and common practices. I would compare the term Homeopathy to the term 'Christianity'. You can find some homeopaths who believe that remedies are only potentized if succussed against the Organon, just as you can find some Christians who see the bible as a literal description of events. Christianity holds many sects and sub-sects, some of which violently disagree with each other, and there is no central authority that governs and defines the term 'Christianity'. Similarly, homeopathy is a loose connection of ideas, not a clearly defined set of beliefs or practices. There is no central authority that will take away your license for breaking one of the Organon's aphorisms. Naturstud (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes & references

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thank you.