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)

History of

Having noted the above debate, it seems that Paracelsus DOES have enough of a role in the history of homeopathy to deserve a mention, if not in the intor, in the relevant section. So I've put him back there. I do think those removing him earlier should have considered doing this kind of 'constructive' change rather than the 'deletionist' kind. In fact, the link ot the 'history of' page is not very impressive - there is little new materail here, and indeed much of the current page's scientific interests are rehearsed. The c&a medicine page is not in fact a page indicating or even hinting at the wide variety of information and material there is on this to be (eventually) found, but rather a brief and IMO crude dismissal of the topic. We can surely do better than this!Martin Cohen 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin, in due respect, you must provide references (and credible ones) to your ideas about Paraselsus being the "father of homeopathy." When I previously deleted this info in the intro, I provided concerns about this which you still have not answered. Please answer them here before going to the article. Paraselsus' concept of "signature" is a very primative understanding of the principle of similars. Hahnemann brought a specific experimental method to this principle, learned the value of potentization, and coined the word. There is only one "father of homeopathy" and Paracelsus ain't him. Dana Ullman 06:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I did add back in some info about Paracelsus. I have also deleted a bunch of inaccurate info about Galen and 4 humors. Actually, most medical historicans assert that Galen and the humors had nothing to do with homeopathy or the principle of similars (it is mostly the use of opposites!). This section is much improved, though it needs more improvement. By the way, for people interested in history, the History of Homeopathy needs a lot of work, especially because very little info there is on history...it is mostly a review of homeopathic theories. Eeeks. Dana Ullman 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(written while Dana was writing the preceding response:)

I have googled Paracelsus+Hahnemann. My conclusion is that the influence of Paracelsus on Hahnemann, a very erudite person, was major. There are far more resemblances between P and H than this (signatures). Should we say "father of homeopathy"? perhaps, with a cautionary note. Should we have references, and well researched article on Paracelsus that we could link to? Sure. But the last things that are needed are hasty deletions and fragmentations of this article. Yes, CZ is an hypertext. But we're still creating this homeopathy article! The scientific aspect of homeopathy was transferred to a controversial article, "memory of water", without proper examination of the non-controversial aspects of the materials science of water or homeopathic preparations, described in Martin Chaplin's website. Now, we are supposed to give up Paracelsus, until Martin Cohen can find references and back "his" case? This is not collaboration. There are no material scientists who have studied water in CZ. There are no specialists of Paracelsus. But there are some persons who want to learn.

Returning to fragmentation. What's happening here is a process that took place in Diderot's Encyclopedia. The subarticles contain tools and info to question and actually rewrite the root article. Encyclopedists found that it was a good way to transmit info that would have been rejected if they had been in top topics. Who decides, in CZ, when it is appropriate to put things about the material science of water as an ancillary topic, under a highly controversial heading ("memory of water"), thus effectively presenting homeopathy as a scientifically undefendable superstition or hoax? Who decides that Paracelsus, the magician, the alchemist, cannot be associated with Hahnemann?

Asking the question answers it.

Matt Innis pointed out this problem in the forum discussion about neutrality notes. I agreed, and Martin had comments along those lines. How is it possible to have a Neutrality note about an article if it is the absence of some things in the article that is considered (by some) as the bias? This is the problem of demarcation.

When I first began researching on the materials science relevant to our case, the motto was Matt's "let's take our time and do it right". So I work, with very little help (but some support). Suddenly, I get the message that the article should get approved sooner than later. My work gets transferred elsewhere, I give up... and weeks later I notice that the timeline has changed: people are taking their time again.

What if I told you that Paracelsus' influence seems to require more "let's take our time and do it right" and less "give your references, build your case, and don't forget you're not an expert"?

I'm going to tell you why I chose to embark in this homeopathy article adventure. I wanted to test if CZ can handle scientific controversies. Yes, if and only if we take our time, discuss, build closer collaborative ties, and invite experts (by recruiting or through readings).

--Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing is to accept what an expert says.e.g.I had a tough time inserting the sentence that homeopaths treat acute bronchitis, until Gareth looked up the Net and found it to be true. I think Larry should look into this.—Ramanand Jhingade 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pierre-Alain and anyone else, I welcome whatever references you provide that verify that Paracelsus was the "father" or "founder" of homeopathy, but I insist that this should not be placed in the article until there are good references for it and there is consensus on the Discussion pages. I can tell you that I am fairly knowledgeable about Hahnemann's history and have written and published widely on the subject, and I cannot remember a single incident in which Hahnemann quoted or referenced Paracelsus. Even if someone were to find some specific statement, it is unlikely that it would be adequate enough to supercede Hahnemann as being the father or founder of homeopathy. I've said enough on this subject and don't plan to say more until substantial evidence is provided. Dana Ullman 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back "if it doesn't work"

I rolled back "if it doesn't work", which Ramanand added to a sentence about when to call for conventional medicine. The context suggests that homeopathic treatment should always be the first form of therapy, and conventional physicians called in only "if it doesn't work." Ramanand did not qualify the context to indicate if the homeopath has any medical training, to make a rational choice if the condition is one in which there could be immediate danger without appropriate treatment.

Versions of this point have, to an extent, been an edit war. Dana made the reasonable point yesterday that with cholera, the medical training of most homeopaths would say that oral replacement therapy (ORT) must come before everything else, other than IV fluid replacement if the patient cannot swallow. Not replacing fluids and electrolytes, in acute cholera (as defined by the WHO and CDC), is quite likely. ORT is hardly a toxic conventional drug: it contains water, sodium, potassium and carbohydrate. A quite useful improvised ORT, for developing countries, is to take the water in which rice boiled, put in a spoonful of salt, and mash part of a banana or pour orange juice into it (both are rich in potassium).

The idea of trying homeopathic treatment first for everything is at the center of the fears by conventional medical physicians and scientists. If the practitioner is dual-trained and chooses, with informed patient consent, to try a homeopathic remedy for a non-life-threatening condition, that's between the patient and practitioner. Indeed, if, in that case, the homeopathic remedy worked, I'll call that patient choice.

Gareth and Chris, I believe, have tried various rewrites saying that the chief concern about safety is that inappropriate delay in providing medical treatment can cause dangerous delays. An unqualified "if it doesn't work" is simply not acceptable from the medical standpoint, unless, for example, Dana is correct that most homeopaths are medically as well as homeopathically trained. I still would like to see sourcing on that training, and I believe Dana agreed that there are unlicensed practitioners. It is the latter, practicing pure homeopathy, that are of the greatest medical safety concern. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths do use homeopathy as the first line of treatment, so we should have that matter I inserted or remove the whole sentence.—Ramanand Jhingade 10:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm hearing a fundamental difference between Dana and Ramanand. Dana suggests most homeopaths are medically trained, and, if a patient presents with a potential medical emergency, they will use nedical techniques within their scope of practice and refer otherwise, quite possibly complementing the medical with homeopathic remedies. If, for example, such a practitioner, especially one already part of a multidiscipinary team, wanted to use homeopathic methods as part of the treatment of a condition such as fibromyalgia, I might be comfortable with that.

Ramanand seems to be saying that India has both conventional medical and classical homeopathic training and certification, and that 10 percent of the population uses homeopaths as primary care providers. It is this 10 percent that especially concerns me, as Ramandand has offered no information that students in the homeopathic curricula get thorough medical training. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism and do people read things properly before deleting?

Dana has deleted my Paracelus point although reinstated him later, for which I thank her - magnaminous!

She also announced problems with the history of Homeopathy page - exactly the problems I just pointed to above - did she read that? At least we agree t here is a problem. The page could be said to be advancing... but my mina concern is certainly not being addressed. I don't say everyone has to change their way of operating, but I do think there needs to be some restraint on deleting contributions, as Pierre hints too, as though a 'rule' has been established and certain persons are entitled to interpret and enforce it on the page.Certain persons are entitled to do just that. See belowHoward C. Berkowitz 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text again:

"Paracelsus (1493-1541) is considered by some as the "founder" of homeopathy, and is also credited with popularizing the theory "of signatures". According to this, the medicinal use of plants is revealed in exterior signs such as colours or shapes. "

There is nothing remotely controversial about this, and I changed the text to ensure that. Dana can look it up for herself in any reputable homeopathic source.

(Here's a typical reference: "The doctrine of signatures was a purely philosophical notion until Boehme's predecessor, the alchemist Paracelsus, had applied it to medicine ..." from page 27 of The American Institute of Homeopathy Handbook by Edward, M.D., D.Ht. Shalts (Paperback 2005))

I don't think the contribution is terribly original, or interesting. It is however relevant to the history of the subject and leads us towards other areas. I'd like to see it reinstated, and if not, I shall raise it as an issue on the forum for general discussion. Many historical, cultural and 'traditional' aspects of homeopathy are are neglected in this page which, to repeat, is adopting an inappropriately narrow and exclusive 'scientistic' approach. Most of the debate paraded here as 'central' is 'marginal' - Dana makes that point too, in a way, in her edit here:

"Although homeopathy is practiced by medical doctors, other health professionals, and consumers in virtually every country in the world, homeopathy is not accepted by majority of mainstream medical doctors or conventional scientists today."

Calling this 'improving the sentence" is disingenuous, though, Dana, and I don't think it improved the article. It struck a political note where one would expect a neutral tone. However, as I say, Dan in my view raises the issue of the gap between the 'scientific-medical' and the 'health care' or indeed general public perspectives. The homeopathy article should not be constructed from the first approaches perspective at the expense of excluding the others. At the moment, it is - and so is the 'history of homeopathy page', and the 'alternative and complementary medicine' page. We have to accept new perspectives in order to start to balance the pages. A start would be by restoring Paracelus to his proper place, which, whether it is as elevated as 'some' claim - is certainly important. Martin Cohen 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not roll back a revert without discussion on this page, and usually Editor approval. Revert wars are regarded quite severely here.

Incidentally, Paracelsus must have some powerful techniques, as you appear to have performed gender reassignment on Dana. Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean by a "first approaches" perspective, but the general philosophy of CZ is not to insist on bringing in every idea that might bear on a subject. Actually, under CZ, "certain persons are entitled to interpret and enforce it on the page". They are called Editors for the workgroup. Dana is a Healing Arts Workgroup editor, and, whether I agree with him on the deletion or not, I do know, as an Editor in other workgroups, that his ruling will stand and be reinforced unless more Editors disagree, or his ruling is disapproved by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Council (of which I am a new member, but I'm not guessing).

Who is "we" such that "we have to accept new perspectives?", and who will compel "us"? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I asked for a reference for your "fact," and the reference that you provided did NOT verify it. In the future, please do not reinsert deleted comments, creating an edit war, until there is some consensus from the Discussion page. Your assertion that Paracelsus was the father or founder of homeopathy is not simply "controversial," it doesn't seem to be true. I showed good faith by incorporating what you were trying to say about Paracelsus, and I will continue to try to collaborate with you and others to create the best possible article. Dana Ullman 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, i thought that Dana is male? Chris Day 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That had been my impression as well, but do remember that Martin is an advocate of alternate positions. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Geez, all you gotta do is go to User:Dana Ullman, where Mr. (Dr.?) refers to himself a gazillion times as "he" or "him" or some such.... Hayford Peirce 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. Chris Day 03:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendly amendment further improving precision?

Dana,

I like your last

Some of the principles of homeopathy has been utilized in some form for thousands of years, but its basic principles were first methodically set out by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843), who observed that a medicine sometimes evoked symptoms similar to those of the illness for which it was prescribed.

Would it be even more precise to say,

"Some of the principles of used in homeopathy has been utilized in some form for thousands of years. The term homeopathy and its formal definition came from German physician, Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843). His key observation was that a medicine sometimes evoked symptoms similar to those of the illness for which it was prescribed, and his key theory was that very small doses of such a medicine would heal a matching set of symptoms."

I'm not happy with ...and his key theory..., but I think breaking up the first sentence both makes it clear what Hahnemann actually did, as opposed to what influenced him. Since this is not rocket science, I'll borrow the analogy that Kostantin Tsiolkovsky can't be said to have originated rocket-propelled space flight, since it was Robert Goddard that actually developed a rocket engine designed, as his book was titled, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. Short-range gunpowder rockets that stayed at low altitudes had been around for centuries, and Tsiolkovsky and others talked about an evolved rocket that could go to high altitude, but it was Goddard that defined the actual technique. Paracelsus might have described a goal, but did not, as far as I know, speak of the key concept of similars.Howard C. Berkowitz 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Howard. However, Hahnemann did not simply define "homeopathy;" he created the methodology underlying this system of healing. Further, we would be more precise if we said that his "experiments" (not simply "observations"). Therefore, my suggestion would be:

"Some of the principles of used in homeopathy has been utilized in some form for thousands of years. The term homeopathy, its formal definition, and the methodology of this medical system derived from German physician, Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843). Hahnemann's experiments on human subjects discovered that a medicine will elicit a curative effect on people who exhibit the similar symptoms to which the substance causes in overdose. Later, Hahnemann developed a specific pharmacological method, called potentization, that significantly reduces the size of the dose of the medicine while seemingly increasing its therapeutic effects." Dana Ullman 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was, I thought, essential, aside from anything else, to say explicitly that he was the first to use the term, and then explain his other work. Whether or not one believes in the paradigm, it is only fair to say, as you did, that he both defined "homeopathy" and "potentization". Paracelsus made some observations and connections, but it was Hahnemann that defined an actual system. Is there any serious argument that we are not working from Hahnemann's definitions in this article? We may have arguments about efficacy and other matters, but, up to a couple of days ago, there didn't seem to be much disagreement about the starting point.

While some may want to bring other ideas in CAM into this article, it's fair to say that several people have been struggling for precision for months, and, until there is consensus there, insistence that alternate perspectives need to be considered now, in this article, takes us back to a starting point. It may well be that some of the alternative perspective ideas could go into the complementary and alternative medicine, but this article is about a specific system. Even in the CAM article, the CZ way to do things is building on what is already there, or, if one really wants to tear apart what is done, either reaching a consensus that is needed, or waiting until it's fairly obvious no one is concerned with changes. I have torn apart articles, but I gave plenty of warning I was doing so. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to mention Paracelsus in a way that doesn't diminish the importance of Hahnemann.—Ramanand Jhingade 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

MCI

I'm providing a ref to the Medical Council of India web-site to show that the Dept. of AYUSH is a separate entity.—Ramanand Jhingade 11:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Potency/Dilution

I've started putting together a table at Homeopathy/Catalogs. However, I'm not sure which are the standard potencies that are used. I added LM as 1LM 2LM and 3LM just as experimentation but maybe 1LM (or just LM?) is the only one that is in standard usage? I saw a few references to 10L, 20L and 50L, are these commonly used? Are there others? Some notes on the reasons for the different dilutions and their relationships would be interesting to our readers, I think. Chris Day 15:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Those potencies are designated, 'L/1', 'L/2', 'L/3', 'L/4', 'L/5', 'L/6', etc., with 'L/3', 'L/6', 'L/9', 'L/12' being the most used.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, I have never seen reference to "L" potencies. I assume that you mean "LM" potencies. "LM" refers to 50,000, and it refers to dilutions of 1:50,000 (instead of 1:10 or 1:100). Dana Ullman 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, I found several references to L potencies (or in some case M); 1:1000 dilution? LM potencies i also saw used with a Q nomenclature. This was part of the reason i thought some kind of table would be useful to clear up the inconsistencies as well as explaining which are the major ones used and for what purposes. Chris Day 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it was the LM potencies I was refering to.

Chris, I believe it's best you leave all that to a homeopath, because an M (1000) potency is different from an LM potency, which is different from a Q potency (mother tincture).—Ramanand Jhingade 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I was suggesting. I was asking you to fill in the blanks and make it relevant. All I did was add some things I found on the web. Chris Day 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference Integrity

A reference from an Indian Government site states that homeopathy is recognised as one of the Indian 'National Systems of Medicine'. Another contributor is recverting this to 'Alternative Systems of Medicine'. The issue is simple - what does the reference say? it says National not Alternative. So please, either find a reference which says something different, or else leave this alone, but do not make a lie of the reference by changing the wording to be inconsistent with what the reference says. This rule is absolute - never change the wording of a directly referenced statement in a way that makes it inconsistent with what the reference says.Gareth Leng 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check your email. D. Matt Innis 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If some aspect of this continues, it would be nice to know, briefly, what India means by "national system" (traditionally Indian, such as ayurvedic?), and where conventional medicine fits. An article, comparable to National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, for Indian National Systems of Medicine could be a nice addition to CZ. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The ref mentioned is the official web-site, so I don't think I can find a 'better' ref. There is a mention of, 'these complementary alternative systems of therapeutics' at the end of that page, so I hope you can look into it. You (Gareth) and possibly Dana should correct that.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I am reading from [1], with emphasis. "In 1948, the Committee by Planning Commission in 1951 and the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Committee in 1962 testify to this. At the instance of the recommendation of these Committees, the Government of India have accepted Homoeopathy as one of the national System of Medicine and started releasing funds for its development" A different sentence says "Homoeopathy in India enjoys Government support along with the other systems of medicine because Government is of the view that presence of all these complementary alternative systems of therapeutics offers a much wider spectrum of curative medicine than is available in any other country."

I can see this as confusing. The home page of this section says that"The Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) was established as Department of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homoeopathy (ISM & H)".

• The first direct quote says "homeopathy is one of the national systems of medicine." It doesn't say the national systems are alternative, or even what the systems may be.
• The second sentence includes "Government is of the view that presence of all these complementary alternative systems of therapeutics" It doesn't use the word "national" with "alternative", although they are on the same page
• Nowhere on either page is any mention of conventional medicine.

So, I agree that the reference never calls homeopathy an "alternative", but rather a "national", system of medicine. The reference does say that homeopathy is among a recognized set of CAM, but doesn't use the word "national" Putting the two sentences together, one can infer homeopathy is a national systems and the national systems, which do not mention conventional medicine at all, are complementary and alternative. In other words, it never explicitly calls homeopathy one of the alternative systems of medicine, but I can see how one could infer it from the text. "National" does seem the only phrasing that can be supported with a direct quote, although it can be inferred, but not quoted, that homeopathy is one of the government-recognized systems of medicine.

Could everyone restate what this comment and reference are trying to establish? I think it's fair to say that a branch of the Indian government recognizes homeopathy as an established method of care, and it is of the national standards. The specific department, like the U.S. NCCAM, is only concerned with alternative medicine. The reference never explicitly calls homeopathy an alternative system of medicine, but it suggests that it is. It's just not a site that supports the "alternative system of medicine" as a direct quote.Howard C. Berkowitz 10:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

badly worded sentence in lede paragraph that can lead to confusion

The third sentence: "Although homeopathy is practiced by medical doctors, other health professionals, and consumers in virtually every country in the world, homeopathy is not accepted by the majority of mainstream medical doctors or conventional scientists today." is badly worded and potentially confusing.

It first says that "homeopathy is practiced by medical doctors", then goes on to say that it "is not accepted by the majority of mainstream medical doctors". This makes the reader say, "Whuuuh?"

The easiest solution is to rewrite the first part to say "homeopathy is practiced by some medical doctors" by adding the word "some". If, of course, this is what the sentence actually intends to say. Since I don't think that pure homeopaths are called "medical doctors", I *suppose* this is the intended meaning. If not, then the entire sentence should be clarified by rewriting. Hayford Peirce 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Hayford. That entire paragraph seems repetative. We are going to lose most readers by the second paragraph. It needs consolidating. D. Matt Innis 03:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. Dana Ullman 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Matters arising

First of all, this page is too long, can 'the page's owner' archive some of it, please?

Secondly, Dana, my apologies for misstating your gender, a false assumption about the name 'Dana'.

Third, please stop misstating my actions - I have not reverted any edits. I have argued a case for the inclusion of Paracelsus in the history of homeopathy, and provided links and evidence for this. Your constant assertions of 'reverts' are factually incorrect, please acknowledge this here.

It is a matter of easily verifed fact that 'some people' consider Paracelsus to be the 'Father of Homeopathy'. Here is another such 'person':

http://www.angelfire.com/in4/alchemy2084/paracelsus.html

Robert Coon, the author in this case, is what we might call an 'unreliable source' - except in one thing - he knows his own opinion. He is a 'lectureer' in homeopathy, and he thinks that Paracelsus is the Father of ... am I making a point clear?

I am open to the idea that the page would be 'overstating' his claim, if we used the formulation I first of all offered, but my statement is NOT factually incorrect. The ommission of Paracelsus reflects no credit on the way this page has been constructed and debate handled.

Howard has already been 'corrected' in his attempts to assign 'ownership' of pages, I'm surprised to see him still doing it. However, that is for others to clarify.

Gareth makes an interesting point about the abuse of editing powers above - of course the quote cannot be modified. Why was the response put in an email? What is going on here? Much of the world considers homeopathic medicine to be 'real' medicine, I understand (without being there at the time, so 'some' may dispute it) that Gandhi said this:

"Homeopathy cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer, more economical and a most complete complete medical science."

I've tried to make a modest contribution to this page and certainly the response is not impressive. My benchmarks are these:

The page should reflect these: Homeopathy is a subject much larger than the Western European 200 year old invention version ... Paracelsus belongs 'somewhere' in the 'true' history of homeopathy.

Here is a link to some well-founded comment on that. I suggest Dana incorporate some - or perhaps a Constable would confirm that I and others will be allowed to without having our entire contribution swiftly and indiscriminately deleted (as happened to me here originally) and followed up with inaccurate and ad hominem comments on the talk pages.

I still believe we can work together on this topic! The page is NOT at a 'final stage', it is woefully lop-sided and and much needs to be done. Recently, despite all that is said above, the page has made progress - hasn't it? Martin Cohen 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)'

Hi Martin, you "own' this page! Just cut and paste the sections that you want to archive into this page. You can do this any time you like. Just remember to keep active sections on this page. D. Matt Innis 03:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

More on Paracelsus

"A text on pharmacology in nursing credits Paracelsus with exerting “a profound influence upon the medical beliefs of his time and of succeeding centuries” (Bergersen and Goth, 1979). In Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences, Higby (1990) lauds Paracelsus for “sparking the growth of the modern pharmaceutical sciences.” Countless textbooks, handbooks, encyclopedias and dictionaries (general and special), and monographs give him similar credit. Other sources refer to him as the “Father of Toxicology.” Furthermore, his name appears as a significant figure among voluminous numbers of works on homeopathy, natural medicine, alternative medicine, and botanical studies. A Web-based Paracelsus mailing list is part of a “health web system,” and the Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation runs the Bledsoe County General Hospital of Pineville, Tennessee."

from http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Paracelsus-Dose-ToxicologyOct01.htm

Martin Cohen 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that Paracelsus is a major historical figure in medicine. Paracelsus belongs in any history of medicine article that covers his era.

This is not a general article on the history of medicine. It is on the specific subject of homeopathy. Every available reference says that Samuel Hahnemann created the word, definition, and basic methodology. While it may be in the parthenogenetic sense, that makes him the father of homeopathy. Unless you can find a source that Hahnemann specifically said his methodology is built on that of Paracelsus, there is no more justification for saying he is the father of homeopathy than was Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle, or Bucephalus.

Further, a Healing Arts editor has made, I believe, an editorial ruling on fact, under CZ rules, that Paracelsus was not the father of homeopathy. Again under CZ rules, that ruling stands, unless it is overruled by at least two Workgroup-specific Editors, the Editorial Council, or the Editor-in-Chief. These rules are in existence precisely to stop the sort of endless content arguments that characterize Wikipedia. I agree with Dana on very little, but, as an Editor in other workgroups and as secretary of the Editorial Council, he seems to have made a straightforward ruling with which I agree. Gareth Lang is the other active Editor in this article; you may ask him as well, but I doubt you are goig to get a different answer.

If necessary, that ruling can be enforced, by the Constabulary. May I suggest that you drop the Paracelsus argument before enforcement measures are taken? I'd note that this is a very difficult article for reaching consensus, and the Paracelsus argument is a tangent from several months of work. If anything, people are trying to reduce the article size, putting, again by CZ policy, some materials into subarticles. Please try to understand the rules and customs of this community and not try to substitute your own. If there are policy issues with which you disagree, you may variously address them to the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Council, or discuss them on the Forums.

This is a talk page for Homeopathy. An authorized Editor has ruled that Paracelsus is not within its scope. Further argument about Paracelsus is not appropriate here. Is there anything ambiguous about that? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to mention Paracelsus in a way that doesn't diminish the importance of Hahnemann.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a look at this by Constables, then. Not on the claim Howard has just unhelpfully rehearsed despite my long explanation to the contrary just above, but on the 'actual' issue:

I think the Homeopathy page should include Paracelsus, who 'some' people consider to have had a major influence on the subject. I have given a couple of explicit examples and references to indicate this, I think it would be fair to say that Ramanand and Pierre have supported the notion (from their more expert perspectives) that Paracelsus is part of the history of homeopathy, and that Dana himself has allowed a mention on the page. Yet Howard is stating - again - as a 'rule':

"This is a talk page for Homeopathy. An authorized Editor has ruled that Paracelsus is not within its scope. Further argument about Paracelsus is not appropriate here."

If this statement is left unaddressed, I fear it undermines the basic principles of CZ.

THREE notes:

1. The original edit offering 'Paracelsus IS the Father of Homeopathy' has been amended, willingly, by me, as indicated above - it is a view held by some, and can be argued for, but the'decision' of Dana and others here has been accepted and no one is arguing that that phrase should be used. It's repetition by Dana and Howard is misleading and seems to be intended as a 'strawman' tactic.

2. The current text on the page (as edited by the major contributors to this page) now INCLUDES a reference to the role of Paracelsus, which in 'content' terms, seems satisfactory to me. However, Howard's statement attempts to set a precedent that would exclude such adjustments.

3. I also note the unhelpful indeed aggressive comments added to my own talk page complaining about a page I have started and wish to have linked to this one. The 'theories of ' page is at a very early stage, but is intended, as I have again labororiously indicated, to allow space for some of the more general 'philosophical' issues that 'alternative medicine' raises, and are in my view (here speaking as a philosophy editor) inadequately addressed 'thus far' here. Howard seems, in fact, to be looking for confrontation, not consensus. I raised this with him before and I hoped to avoid this conclusion.

Constable Response: The question of Paracelsus is a content decision for which there are remedies through the editorial and author conflict resolution processes. I suggest that everyone review them. They are there to allow articles to progress through dissagreements such as these. Constables remain at arms length from these decisions for good reason. There is nothing that asks or allows a constable to stop a citizen from making comments on article or user talk pages so long as they are professional. However, it can become an issue if metadiscussions spread from one article page to another as they become inflammatory and this gets dangerously close to unprofessional behavior. We cannot solve professional disputes on Citizendium, we only report them. Again, use your workgroups. D. Matt Innis 16:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"if it doesn't work" is back again

I see that this sentence has once again been edited to read: "Some physicians, however, still maintain that even benign homeopathic treatment is relatively unsafe, because it might delay effective, conventional medical treatment, if it doesn't work."

I thought it had been agreed, or possibly even ordered, that "if it doesn't work." would no longer be attached. (In any case, if it *is* permitted to stand, it should be rewritten as "does not" rather than "doesn't". Hayford Peirce 19:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding. It reappeared at 06:55, 12 December 2008. There was discussion about it a few hours later, but no one actually took it out. That may be nothing but an oversight. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to take out -- I'll do it right now. Hayford Peirce 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I explained that adequately. That sentence needs to be qualified. The, 'if it does not work' conveys the meaning that not all homeopathic treatment is unsafe.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How would, 'unless it works' be?—Ramanand Jhingade 07:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How about ""Some physicians, however, still maintain that even benign homeopathic treatment is relatively unsafe, because it might delay more effective, conventional medical treatment." Oh, and a reference for the assertion, of course. Richard Pinch 07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reference for that quote, so I think it's better to delete that sentence.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dana has 'toned' it and I'm OK with what it says now.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to demand, Ramanand, that you leave this text alone in the future. You repeatedly re-inserted this bit, and it was clearly explained that your addition made the statement virtually nonsensical. One iron-clad, absolute rule of wiki editing is that you must not edit sentences in a way that makes nonsense of the point they were trying to make. Obviously, you were trying to "neutralize" the sentence there, which I respect, but you went about it in the wrong way.

The most recent edits to this not only removes your "if it does not work," it even removes "while homeopaths assert there is far greater danger by first using conventional medications due to their questionable efficacy and their side effects." Gareth made these edits. Since he is an editor, you are not free to re-insert that text, which I suspect you'll want to do when you notice it.

If I'm not mistaken, the reason he removed that additional text is that the "Safety" section immediately goes on to discuss those concerns. If you want to make sure the homeopathic view on the safety of modern drugs and vaccines is stated sympathetically (but bearing in mind that the other side must also be stated sympathetically as well), that would be the place, I think. --Larry Sanger 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna add/remove anything there now - I'll leave it to Gareth and Dana (I hope they do the needful). My point was that that sentence needs to be qualified. The, 'if it does not work' conveys the meaning that not all homeopathic treatment is considered unsafe.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"not even a single molecule" -- why I think this should be restored

I definitely think that to such an extreme degree that in most homeopathic remedies, that, by later understanding of molecular concentration, "not even a single molecule of the original substance remains.", although perhaps in another place in the overall article.

You don't have to discuss the nature or structure of water in order to have this phrase -- it is a well-known argument by anti-homeopathic skeptics such as Martin Gardner and others. And it is one that is pretty easily understood even by people with very little grounding in science.

If you want, you could then add something like, an assertion that homeopaths dispute on several grounds. Hayford Peirce 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible location could be in the dilutions table at Homeopathy/Catalogs. One problem is that this all depends on the concentration of the orignal mother tincture. Nevertheless we can add in the notes the point at which dilutions to less than one molecule per drop (or percontainer) occurs for most remedies. Chris Day 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it generally assumed that 24X or 12C is the point in which there should be no remaining molecules (beyond Avogadro's number). Homeopaths do not deny that there may not be any molecules in these potencies, but this is like asserting that a magnetic field doesn't exist because a magnetic field does not have any molecules in it (THAT isn't the point). And for the record, a large number of homeopathic medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies throughout the world are in lower potencies, 1X to 23X (or 1C to 11C), which are doses in which it is not proper or accurate to say that there is "nothing" there. Dana Ullman 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the main reason it would be useful in the table, to put some perspective on the different potencies that are available. I think the notes section in the table could have a lot of interesting tid bits that would destroy the flow of the article itself. Chris Day 04:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Representative Remedies table

I originally formatted some existing text about remedies into a table, but, at this point, does the information actually add to the article? We have an article on Oscillococcinum and perhaps someone would like to write an article on some other remedy mentioned in the text (e.g., in a trial). Otherwise, let's either fill it in more solidly, or delete it. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not

"Where a cause cannot be found, for example a viral attack which does not have a reliable method of testing yet, homeopathy can be more effective."

This is an opinion, possibly a fair one, but has no place in this article. We must not assert efficacy as though it was an editorial judgement. The question of efficacy is one that we are accepting as being in dispute and one that we are leaving to the article on Testing. So please no insertions anuywhere in the text of editorial claims that homeopathy is effective or editorial assertions that it is ineffective. (Though we may report such claims and assertions, judiciously).

To emphasis, any statement in this article that implies that homeopathic treatment has an efficacy above placebo will be disputed. This article must not include any editorial assertion of this form; to include any such statement would be to make an editorial judgement of disputed fact, and I will delete any I see.Gareth Leng 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Gareth. I agree. That said, it may be more appropriate to say: Homeopathy has a history of efficacy in the treatment of 19th century infectious disease epidemics, and because there is modern-day research that has shown efficacy in using homeopathic medicines in treating select viral illnesses, such as influenza, it may be prudent to consider homeopathic medicines as a part of a comprehensive treatment program for viral illnesses.

Also, I haven't looked to see exactly where an editor placed the previous statement (or where Gareth deleted it), but I want to inform others on this site that because a conventional medical diagnosis is not necessary for homeopathic treatment to be determined, homeopathic care can be considered for those patients whose ill-health is not adequately diagnosed or understood. Dana Ullman 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have much less problem with your second paragraph than the first. Especially for diffuse chronic diseases, such as fibromyalgia, where conventional treatment may or may not help, I'd certainly agree that it is only fair to inform a patient that there have been some clinical trials indicating that homeopathy might help. Complementary (I'm not saying alternative) therapies are certainly worth of consideration.

As far as considering homeopathic medicines as part of a treatment program for viral illnesses, I am far less willing to agree with that being in the article, at least with respect to influenzas. We now know immensely more about not just epidemic influenza in general, but the specific extreme virulence factors of the 1918-1920 pandemic. Given that there are finite budgets, I would want to be comfortable that there were adequate stockpiles of the demonstrably efficacious neuraminidase inhibitors, and even the less effective hemagglutinin inhibitors before expending additional resources on homeopathic remedies. Since we do have a good molecular understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms, and we know that Roy's assumptions that went into Oscillococcinum were wrong, I don't think, at least with respect to epidemic influenza, that CZ can justify including "it may be prudent to consider homeopathic medicines as a part of a comprehensive treatment program for viral illnesses." Using homeopathic medications in a viral infection, when there are no known treatments, and it doesn't divert resources, could be patient and clinician choice. There's not much to lose with rabies or Ebola by trying complementary therapies. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Just popping in quickly and probably popping out.) I am confused. Gareth made what I thought was a very definite, clear-cut statement: "To emphasis, any statement in this article that implies that homeopathic treatment has an efficacy above placebo will be disputed. This article must not include any editorial assertion of this form..." Then you, Dana, said: "Thanx Gareth. I agree." And then your very next statement was: "That said, it may be more appropriate to say: Homeopathy has a history of efficacy in the treatment of 19th century infectious disease epidemics, and because there is modern-day research that has shown efficacy in using homeopathic medicines in treating select viral illnesses, such as influenza, it may be prudent to consider homeopathic medicines as a part of a comprehensive treatment program for viral illnesses."

It seems to me that while you say you agree, you are not in fact agreeing with Gareth, or perhaps you misunderstood him (but that would be hard to believe, because he was, as I said, quite clear). Dana, you want the article to say, (a) "Homeopathy has a history of efficacy in the treatment of 19th century infectious disease epidemics" and (b) "in treating select viral illnesses." These seem to me to be precisely two statements that imply that "homeopathic treatment has an efficacy above placebo." Gareth says that such statements "will be disputed" and that we "must not include any editorial assertion of this form." So, Dana, will you please clarify? It seems you should say one of three things. (1) That you think the article should make your statements (a) and (b), but these statements do not imply that homeopathic treatment has an efficacy above placebo. (Explaining that would be a trick!) (2) That you think the article should make your statements (a) and (b), and since these statements do in fact contradict what Gareth said, you are in fact disagreeing with him and were wrong to say you agreed with him. (That would be puzzling.) (3) That, actually, you somehow misspoke or misunderstood and that you didn't mean to assert (a) and (b), but some revised (a') and (b'), which do not imply that homeopathic treatment has an efficacy above placebo. (This seems most promising.) I leave it to you to straighten this out. --Larry Sanger 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are important things that I agree with Dana about. In particular, I agree with him that in the 19th century, conventional medicine was pretty rotten, and their "cures" were often toxic - worse than the disease; conventional medicine at the time sought treatment based on theory - on understanding the disease, but they didn't have much clue, nor did they have a systematic way to evaluate efficacy anyway. I agree that Hahnemann saw this very clearly, he rejected theory, relied on his own judgement and observations of patients, and sought to use the lowest effective doses to avoid side effects. As the drugs actually were ineffective, there was no lowest dose. He was also a humane and insightful health reformer, who promoted cleanliness, good nutrition, careful nursing - and homeopathic hospitals which implemented these and avoided toxic cures did better than conventional hospitals. So they had a history of relative efficacy compared with a frankly counterproductive conventional medicine. But their death rates then do not indicate any efficacy compared with modern active treatments, (he comparison is inappropriate of course). I have no objection to the article stating claims for homeopathy (I have inserted a section on these); my only objection would be to endorsing them; I don't think it's for CZ to say what is prudent and have tried to avoid that - we can say what homeopathy advises and what conventional medicine advises and leave it at that.Gareth Leng 13:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Both sides here have agreed that, "Especially for diffuse chronic diseases, such as fibromyalgia, where conventional treatment may or may not help, I'd certainly agree that it is only fair to inform a patient that there have been some clinical trials indicating that homeopathy might help" and "There's not much to lose with rabies or Ebola by trying complementary therapies". I hope you (Dana) can insert that appropriately.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you are quoting me, Ramanand, you are incorrectly quoting me. That I might personally agree that it is useful to inform a patient is a general comment on informed consent. That is my personal opinion. I would also insist that the clinician would say there is no evidence that they will help, and going to homeopathy may create false hope.

If I had rabies or Ebola, I would not, myself, accept homeopathic treatment. Instead, I would request ICU support that has, in well over a century, saved one patient with clinical rabies. If I had no response to that, I would explicitly ask for appropriate terminal comfort care, such as high-dose opioids and/or barbiturates. I would not consent to homeopathic treatment. So, when I speak of a hypothetical informing of a patient, that is not "both sides agreeing". It was stated as an option. There are complementary therapies that I would try in otherwise unresponsive fibromyalgia, but, again, I would not consent to homeopathic treatment. Now, if one wanted to inform the patient "There's not much to lose with rabies or Ebola by trying complementary therapies, but there is no evidence they will help, and trying them may simply lead to a more unpleasant death because they are incompatible with terminal sedation," I'm OK with that. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to insert that homeopathists are willing to treat rabies and Ebola. Not willing to offer advice to patients in any form.Gareth Leng 13:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Larry for waking me up on my confusing statement. What I meant was that I agreed with Gareth on his rejection of the statement in the article "Where a cause cannot be found, for example a viral attack which does not have a reliable method of testing yet, homeopathy can be more effective." I believe that there should be some research on the homeopathic treatment of a specific condition before we include reference to it. That said, we have given reference here to a Cochrane Report that review four large clinical trials testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza. There IS a body of research here! As for fibromyalgia, there are two trials here, one of which was published in the BMJ (1989) (this was a double-blind, placebo control trial WITH a crossover...a very impressive trial) and one of which was published in Rheumatology, 2004, which found clinical relevance AND objective changes in EEG readings in homeopathic vs. placebo patients.

We could also say that it may be prudent to consider trying homeopathic medicines in the treatment of conditions for which conventional medicine has no known efficacy, but we need to be very careful on creating this list. We have to word this so that it doesn't sound as though homeopaths claim efficacy for such conditions (unless someone can provide evidence). Dana Ullman 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, yes, there are studies described as "promising" in comparing homeopathy with placebo in upper respiratory infections. Unfortunately, I don't remember if these were specifically for influenza, and, if so, for which types of the virus.

The second issue, however, would apply specifically to influenza treatment. If homeopathy demonstrably was better than placebo, that is indeed worth reporting.

For true influenza viruses, however, there are conventional medications that have demonstrated efficacy and are in general medical use: the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir, which are effective against both Influenza A and B, and the hemagglutin inhibitors amantadine and rimantadine, effective against A only and to which resistance is being seen. Proper perspective, if discussing influenza, would assess efficacy with respect to the best available conventional treatment, not to placebo alone. Let's not get too enthusiastic about placebo controls when there are accepted means of medical treatment; the general pharmaceutical industry is, properly, being challenged to demonstrate that their new drugs are better than what is already available. "Better" can mean safer, if efficacy is roughly equivalet. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific basis

Gareth, while I think I wrote the last bullet under "Scientific Basis of Homeopathy", would you agree it should read:

• clear and irrefutable evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, evidence that cannot be explained in conventional scientifically acceptable terms

If the section were not entitled "Scientific basis", I could settle for: clear and statistically significant evidence..." Obviously, there are any number of areas, in conventional medicine, where a treatment works, and either the mechanism remains incompletely understood, or the wrong mechanism was long assumed. As an example of the latter, think of all the approaches to treating gastric ulcers until two Australians figured out the role of Helicopter pylori and earned a trip to Stockholm. I'm not sure where, however, I would move a sentence saying there would be acceptance if the statistical evidence was overwhelming even though the full mechanism was unknown.

Howard C. Berkowitz 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my phrasing was clumsy and clearly I didn't get the intent across. I meant that we need a) robust evidence that the remedies are effective and b) to be convinced that the efficacy doesn't have a conventional explanation (e.g. the placebo effect). Have a go please if my intent is clearer nowGareth Leng 18:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You were looking at a different aspect than I was; perhaps we need to converge. When you said "conventional means", I wasn't thinking of a placebo effect, but something that was measurable but hadn't been observed before. Hypothetically, if one observed that after a homeopathic remedy was administered, there were reproducible objective changes versus placebo (e.g., creatinine level no longer rising in renal failure, CD4 count increasing in HIV), but no explanation for the mechanism of those changes, one would still have to accept that they were accomplishing something. When you speak of placebo effect, I'm assuming you mean that the placebo arm and the homeopathic arm of a trial had the same results.

Is this closer? The key points are safety and efficacy are demonstrable, without requiring the mechanism to be understood

• clear and irrefutable evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, evidence that cannot be explained by placebo effects and does show statistical significance of efficacy
• clear and irrefutable evidence for fewer side effects of homeopathic treatment, with equal or better efficacy, than the accepted standard of medical treatment.

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of comparing, in a statistically meaningful way, when the homeopathic assumption of individualization would seem to imply that there is no concept of an effect that is replicated throughout a treatment cohorts; the idea of a cohort doesn't seem to be acceptable in homeopathic models. The sine qua non is that there has to be a mutually accepted statistical paradigm, such as some being proposed for pharmacogenetics.

Sadly, I am not aware of any research by homeopaths into "how can we define a meaningful controlled trial given our constraints", rather than "we reject controlled trials." As I've mentioned for genomic medicine, this is a problem that is wider than homeopathy — yet the researchers in the new paradigms are trying to find statistical methodology that makes sense. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Remedy selection is highly individualised in Homeopathy, so if a person catches cold immediately after getting wet in the rain and if another person catches a cold only after getting wet in the rain everyday for 3-4 consecutive days, the remedy each would get would be different, because their susceptibility/immunity differs. Now having said that, there are enough refs in the article to show that Homeopathy is more effective than 'placebo'.—Ramanand Jhingade 08:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gareth Leng, a responsible Editor, has ruled that he will not approve a statement, in the article, that flatly says homeopathy is superior to be placebo. When an Editor has made that sort of content ruling at CZ, it becomes CZ policy for the article, unless it is overruled. It may be overrule in one of three ways: two or more relevant editors, the editor-in-chief, or the Editorial Council determines the ruling is wrong.

There is little point in arguing it on the talk page. You need to take find two or more editors to overrule Gareth, get Larry to overrule, or take it before the Editorial Council. My own observation is the articles do not, paraphrasing Gareth, such superiority, establish an unquestionable superiority, but I understand the process well enough that if I disagreed with him, I would be starting an appeal, rather than continuing to argue the point. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up some things in Howard's comment: While I think two or more relevent editors would certainly apply some pressure, there aren't any rules that suggest that they can or cannot overrule another editor. Currently, this is the status of the the role of editors in conflict resollution in our editorial policy on dispute resolution. D. Matt Innis 14:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I agree in principle that the rules don't specifically have a provision for overriding, I realize I had a special case in mind. If that unlikely event took place, I'm sure it would wind up in the Editorial Council or some quickly formed community response.

As I read the Approval process, and I am not saying this is completely clear-cut, it would appear that two or more Editors could Approve an article even if another workgroup editor disagreed. I have no idea what would happen if there were only two relevant workgroup editors and they disagreed. You are right that the policy could be more clear; this is my interpretation as an individual contributor.

Nevertheless, I believe one point I made is valid: if a relevant Editor, such as Gareth, makes a content ruling and asked the Constabulary to enforce it, there is no real value to continue arguing it on the talk page. The rational course, at such time, would be to invoke an appeal process. Seriously, is that a fair interpretation? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see why you made that assumption - it would appear that two or more Editors could Approve an article even if another workgroup editor disagreed. This is covered in the CZ:Approval Process#Overview where it explains that one editor may remove the ToApprove tag:

• If another editor in the article's workgroup finds that the article is so objectionable that approval, in his considered opinion, should not be granted, then the "ToApprove" metadata is removed by this editor, who puts his reasons for this action on the talk page. (This is a fail safe rule, to prevent the approval of articles that are inaccurate or misleading.)

So there is nothing that dictates that two ediotrs can overrule another. Otherwise, the policy seems to encourage discussions away from the article talk page, perhaps shifting to the workgroup talkpage/emails to editors/the appeals process which your last paragraph illustrates. Hope that helps.

D. Matt Innis 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Avogadros

Deleted the first use of this because it is repeated later, but mainly because the calculation given was I think wrong. Maybe someone can check mine - I think seawater contains about 35 g NaCl/litre, so the deleted footnote was incorrect.Gareth Leng 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends which sea. :) Chris Day 15:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost said that. It also depend, I suppose, if you make your molecular guacamole from Florida or California avogadros. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

California Avogadros, LOL, now that is funny, I don't care who you are :-D D. Matt Innis 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is droll. Salinity of 3.5% by weight is sort of standard for sea water. I compute that one spoonful gives 1/3 molecule NaCl per liter water after dilution by a factor 10⁻²⁴. Same order of magnitude.--Paul Wormer 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's also the order of magnitude that Dana cites above in the dilution potenciy section. Chris Day 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)