Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

Some ground rules (please do not delete from top of the page)

Here are some brief comments that I hope will help reinforce our ground rules. I'm sorry I don't have time for more detailed engagement right now. Some Citizens have complained to me that homeopathy's advocates on this page are tending to purge criticisms. On this I will absolutely put my foot down. You may not do so. You may maintain that (and say in the article how) homeopaths reject the criticisms, but you may not simply delete points, and source material, simply because you disagree with them or you think they are misinformed. If you have a strong disagreement about a published criticism, you should voice it in the article, rather than removing the criticism. There may be exceptions to this rule, but (I understand) not in several recent cases in the present article. Of course, the "reply, don't delete" rule assumes that a source and criticism are important enough from the point of view of homeopathy's critics to be included. While they can have input of course, this is not ultimately a matter that homeopathy's defenders are best placed to decide. The word "skeptic" should not be used, pejoratively, to identify those who reject homeopathy in the article. If there is a need repeatedly to identify the skeptics of homeopathy, you may not use a term that the skeptics themselves reject. You must find a mutually agreeable term. I suggest "mainstream physicians." "Allopaths" won't do, either, although it certainly can be introduced, and it should be. It should not be necessary for me to point out that the article can neither endorse nor roundly condemn homeopathy. The article does not take a stand; it presents both (or all) sides on all controversial issues it presents, and leaves it up to the reader to decide for himself. The article does not endorse a position. Precisely because homeopathy happens to be a minority viewpoint when it comes to the health issues it discusses, criticism of homeopathy does not belong in a separate "criticisms" section of the article. I have my doubts whether there is any need for a "criticisms" section at all, but I can't say so until I've read the current version, which I haven't done. Selective and uncritical reporting of references is contrary to CZ's neutrality policy: this makes it appear that we officially think the literature says such-and-such, when there is legitimate disagreement about whether it does say that. When, therefore, a "skeptic" raises a question about a statistic such as 18% of Americans, we must absolutely deal with this question. I am very uncomfortable publishing information about the percentage of Americans who accept homeopathy, when it has not been made clear what "acceptance" amounts to in the survey that was performed. Therefore, either this essential interpretive information must be included in the article, or the information about the statistic must be excluded. Anything else would be, quite simply, misleading and unscientific. More generally, on a topic with this much disagreement, we simply cannot add heaps of studies and statistics to the article without adequate explanation and without critical responses where such may exist or be possible. Uncritical reportage of the results of disputed studies has an inherently biasing effect. Finally, I want to underscore that if anyone repeatedly reverts significant parts of the text without explaining and defending his actions here on the talk page, I will consider banning that person. I would ask those who are following the article more closely to make a list of such unexplained reversions, and provide it to me privately. On the basis of such information I will either issue a warning or, if the problem is very serious, a temporary ban. Let me finish on a positive note. Despite the amount of struggle over this article, or perhaps because of it, this article has grown and in many ways improved, and other articles have spun off. This is a good thing. As I like to say, if everybody is equally frustrated, that means that work is getting done and the article isn't too biased one way or the other. Still, if we can all follow the above ground rules, I think we'll get along quite a bit better. --Larry Sanger 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I want to add another point. While I do not endorse Wikipedia's inane and abusable rule "assume good faith," I do want to suggest that we need something a little like that. I might say, instead, "Assume your opponent is reasonable enough to be open to compromise." If you make that assumption, you will yourself be much more likely to propose a compromise, and to be open to one. Then, if the other person shows himself to be completely closed to any compromise, whether yours or any that he might propose, the matter suddenly becomes much clearer. Then you can contact me, saying, "Look, I proposed a compromise, so-and-so did not accept it or propose any compromise in response. What do we do?" --Larry Sanger 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

'Mad' Ennis

Should'nt we have a bit on this?

MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum. Ennis and her team found that ultra-dilute solutions of histamine – so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule – worked on the human body just like histamine. The study, replicated in four different labs, forced Ennis to admit that something inexplicable is going on with homeopathy.

And now some eminent chemists are weighing into the debate, claiming that our “understanding” of the properties of water is based on false assumptions: water, they say, has such peculiar quantum mechanical properties that we really do need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to our understanding of this root of life.

[summarised from '13 Things that Don't Make Sense', (2008) by Michael Brooks]

I see the 'other place' mentions Ennis but dismisses her research in line with the BBC's 'debunking'. Brooks is linked to the BBC.

I read an article 'somewhere' about two weeks ago on good, solid evidence of 'memory' in liquids - but blow me - now I can't find it!

Martin Cohen 17:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Martin!

Yes, Ennis' work IS important for several reasons. First, initially, she was a skeptic. Second, her study was replicated by 3 other university laboratories. And NO (!), her work was NOT debunked by the BBC or ABC News. For details about this "TV junk science," read Ennis' letter to me about how different this tv "study" was from hers: http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,55 and see also http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,58

As for articles on the memory of water in liquid, there are several good articles, though I am not certain to which you refer. I am certain that you will find whatever you may want on THIS subject here at the site of Professor Martin Chaplin: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html Dana Ullman 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This work is already covered in Memory of waterGareth Leng 13:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Net problems

Hit technical problems at the weekend - first CZ went down here just as I was starting, then my net service went down, so apologies - I'd scarcely begun; I'll get vback when I can but life is now tight for the next week or so. However, the article is too large in my view and I'd suggest moving the bulk of material on the efficacy into a focussed article on Testing the efficacy of homeopathy. Comments?Gareth Leng 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)