Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

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.&mdash;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 below Howard 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.&mdash;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.&mdash;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.&mdash;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).&mdash;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.&mdash;Ramanand Jhingade 07:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's what I am reading from, 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'.

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.

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."

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)

Martin, I've just now read your comments above--I'm afraid I must ask you please to refrain from attempting to characterize your fellow contributors. That's common practice on WP and many online forums, but not here. You can think of us as a "moderated discussion group" similar to old-fashioned mailing lists with rules about collegial behavior.

On the more substantive matter of whether Paracelsus has an important founding role in homeopathy (is that the issue under dispute? I really couldn't tell precisely), I think that your case would benefit greatly if you were to lay out more evidence in greater detail. This is especially obvious if a true expert about homeopathy in our midst, Dana, expresses considerable skepticism about a text you describe as "nothing remotely controversial." (Obviously, it was, or it wouldn't have been deleted, eh?) All this discussion would be rendered unnecessary if you were to (1) state exactly the minimum claims you want to ensure are in the article, and (2) find some credible sources supporting those claims, if after exact formulation they still turn out to be controversial.

On the other hand, if the one sentence about Paracelsus now in the article is enough for you, then no more needs to be said on the subject, I guess (please! :-) ). --Larry Sanger 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The role of Paracelsus reflects the view one takes of homeopathy - that is to say, if one looks at it from a cultural and historical perspective or from a 'scientific' perspective as a medical 'method'. To some extent then, yes ther eis m09re to be said about Paracelsus's role in medicine, but given the page's overall character, perhaps not here. In a few wrods - yes, one sentence will do! Martin Cohen 13:20, 18 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)


 * Clearly, Dana was aware of such evidence, and no doubt what stopped him was (1) a failure to get very clear on what the article should say about Paracelsus, and (2) if what you want to say is that many informed people think he is a founder of homeopathy, offering evidence on that precise point is necessary. The items you listed above don't support the precise claim in my (2) here.  They support the less controversial claim that Paracelsus is lauded and discussed a lot by homeopathic practitioners and medical doctors alike. -- But it appears that in the days since the above was written, a suitable conclusion was arrived at.  It's a shame that so much digital ink was spilled over just one sentence. --Larry Sanger 04:34, 18 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.

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.&mdash;Ramanand Jhingade 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How would, 'unless it works' be?&mdash;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.&mdash;Ramanand Jhingade 07:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dana has 'toned' it and I'm OK with what it says now.&mdash;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.&mdash;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.&mdash;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)


 * Howard, there IS presently reference to this review of research on homeopathy and influenza from the Cochrane Reports (see reference #65). While those conventional drugs may presently be proven to have greater impact on influenza symptoms than homeopathic medicines, these conventional drugs also presently have much greater risks too, especially in comparison with homeopathic medicines.  One could also say that heroin gets rid of pain with greater frequency than homeopathic medicines, but many people determine what medicine they want to take in light of the various benefits and risks.  For many people, they prefer greater safety in their treatments.  Also, there is growing evidence that Tamiflu and other flu medicines are having decreasing benefits as the viruses adapt to them.  Dana Ullman 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the Declaration of Helsinki (see informed consent), it is unethical to give a placebo if an established treatment exists. There are existing treatments for influenza, which is of major pandemic concern. I'm not really interested in handwaving about the possible risks. Either homeopathic remedies are more effective against influenza than neuraminidase inhibitors, the gold standard of treatment, or they are not. In preparing for pandemics, there are resources to stockpile one or two classes of drugs.
 * "While those conventional drugs may presently be proven to have greater impact on influenza symptoms than homeopathic medicines"
 * Thank you. In an influenza pandemic, increased risk of side effects is quite acceptable, if the drug with proven greater efficacy can limit or stop an outbreak. Gareth said
 * "clear and irrefutable evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies"
 * and that certainly would be the overriding public health consideration in an epidemic.


 * Oh -- heroin is a safe and effective drug for severe pain. Diacetylmorphine simply crosses the blood-brain barrier faster than morphine, but not as fast as some of the new synthetics. It is banned in the U.S. only for political posturing. Fentanyl and sufentanyl are more addictive by any reasonable standard. Please stop changing the subject. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dana, Homeopathy is equally effective in influenza, as long as one has prescribed the simillimum.&mdash;Ramanand Jhingade 07:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Howard has exaggerated the case of "proven" efficacy of conventional drugs by asserting that it is "unethical" to use other treatments for the flu. Please give a notable reference for this specific situation. When we consider the additional risks to these drugs, the ethical equation changes. Further, increased use of these conventional Rx in minor flu symptoms decrease their potential efficacy for more serious flu syndromes as flu viruses adapt to these drugs. There is a case that can be made for how widespread use of these conventional drugs prior to the emergence of a deadly bird flu can have the potential to create public health crisis because such overuse can reduce their benefits if or when the real bird flu hits. Dana Ullman 03:56, 19 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 can not 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.


 * I've modified - but not added side-effects; I don't doubt that homeopathy has no side effects.Gareth Leng 14:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 &mdash; 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'.&mdash;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 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)


 * So are y'all suggesting I e-mail Larry, since there are enough refs in the article to show that Homeopathy is more effective than 'placebo'?�Ramanand Jhingade 07:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First, there are not enough references to say, generically, "homeopathy is more effective than placebo." There could be a reference that says that "homeopathy is, with high statistical confidence, superior for placebo in well-defined (e.g., ICD) condition X". Second, if there is a medically accepted treatment for condition X, it is unethical, under the Declaration of Helsinki, to do a placebo-controlled trial, with some specialized exception. The generally accepted standard of proof, when there is an accepted treatment, is that the experimental treatment is equal or superior to the established treatment."


 * There is, incidentally, a difference between y'all and all y'all, :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramanand, I'm not suggesting you do anything, however, if you are not satisfied with an editor's decision, this is one place where it is discussed. D. Matt Innis 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

measures of efficacy
Joining the conversation rather late - I don't agree that this sort of issue should be deemed 'not open to discussion' - such language seems not merely regressively hierachical, not merely to stifle the free flow of ideas, but also to create scope for ill-thought-out and inappropriate views to be inserted in pages without the normal benefits of collective review and editing.

On the precise issue of homeopathy's benefits, it seems to me that there are legitimate benefits to treatments 'perceived' to work, even if 'in fact' they do not. That is to say, many 'conventional' medical treatments are counted as having a medicinal value even when statistical evidence shows them to not merely ineffective but actually associated with worse health outcomes! Healing Arts writers will know better than me the cases - but I might tentnatively point at heart disease in particular (whereconventionally tested and 'approved' drugs still result in worse health otucomes) and cancers.

A related example we might consider in passing, is the very plain example of broken wrists. These are treated in UK hospitals with 'rigid' repairs, surgery and pins included, but in China through manipulation of the wrists and tight bandages. Often homeopathic remedies will be added. The Western treatments have appallingly low success rates (in terms of return to normal use of the wrist) compared to the 'alternative'. Yet the language of this page in 'ruling out' any evidence of medicinal effect for homeopathy contributes to the perception that (say) someone who has broken their wrist will be better treated through surgical intervention in a UK hospital than through visiting a traditional Chinese doctor.

My suggestion would be that specific claims here and elsewhere for health benefits can be justifiied through appropriate 'scientific' trials, or through 'user satisfaction' and surveys of actual effects and results. Ramanand's contributions (which seem to have been edited out largely?) on this are IMO relevant and should be incorporated.

Secondly, conventional health treatments should be described and discussed in an equally sceptical way to their 'unconventional' ones. Any thoughts? Martin Cohen 14:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, as I was telling Ramanand, if you are not satisfied with an editor's decision, this is one place where it is discussed. D. Matt Innis 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Matt. It seems one thing to deal with an author on a particular matter and then say 'end of discussion' - but the matter itself, in particular when it is central to the page, needs must remain open to discussion - or (IMO) we do not have a collaborative system at all. Can we clarify this matter? I've had no response to these points, which is as though they ARE 'banned topics' - would someone say that is the policy - if it is!


 * I'd understand it better if the objection is simply that the issues ahve been 'done to death' already - but even then, new ideas need to be permitted and treated on their merits. Martin Cohen 13:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, this community is your community, which means that you have input. Citizendium's model is spelled out in the CZ:Neutrality Policy, CZ:The Editor Role, CZ:The Author Role, CZ:Professionalism (to name a few).  The way I do my job is spelled out in CZ:Constabulary Blocking Procedures.  The model is designed to be maleable according to community input through the forums and the CZ:Editorial Council, and other projects are in their infancy (or in some case, prenatal) stages, such as the CZ:Editorial Appeals Committee and likely CZ:Judicial Committee.  There is nothing wrong with Gareth making a decision from the outset, but I assure you that it has a history beginning with Archive1 and several reverts on the article page.  We encourage editors to make these decisions to avoid the type of metadiscussions from occurring on these talk pages and keeping work from progressing.  That is not to say that you are discouraged from talking about it; you just have to do it through other means (the link I gave you before).  Please feel free to open those doors. If there is no workgroup there, by all means, please help us start one. (Also notice that Larry has already checked in - that was one of your choices in that link).    D. Matt Innis 04:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

ps.[ note: this relates to the earlier, not the immediately preceding paragraphs - MC]

And it seems to me that certain statements are breaching this principle: "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"Martin Cohen 14:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to extend this discussion; I've made an editorial ruling here that implements my understanding of Citizendium neutrality policy. The article should nowhere make an editorial statement affirming the efficacy of homeopathy, nor should it make an editorial conclusion denying efficacy; it should report the views of homeopaths (that their treatments are effective) and report those of conventional science and medicine (that they are placenbo effects), with attribution and leave it to the reader.


 * If there is anything you think is in breach of this principle, be specific please.Gareth Leng 14:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how about this section:


 * The theory underlying homeopathy is not considered plausible by most scientists working in academic institutions in Europe and the U.S.A. ... The conventional view is that homeopathy, insofar as it has any effect at all, exploits the placebo effect - i.e. that the only benefits are those induced by the power of suggestion, by arousing hope, and by alleviating anxiety.


 * This seems exactly as it should be - the article is reporting the opinions of mainstream scientists and physicians and attributing the opinions to that group. If the article said "The theory underlying homeopathy is not plausible; homeopathy, insofar as it has any effect at all, exploits the placebo effect - i.e. the only benefits are those induced by the power of suggestion, by arousing hope, and by alleviating anxiety." then it would be expressing an editorial opinion and would be contrary to neutrality policy.Gareth Leng 16:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'safety' section implies that homeopathic remedies are responsible for some half a million deaths a year too! Martin Cohen 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense, of course it doesn't; it says that the measles vaccination programme was followed by a massive fall in deaths; that's a fact, introduced to explain why conventional medicine considers anti-vaccination advice as irresponsible. Gareth Leng 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Gareth, your overt rejection of discussion of this important, indeed central issue, seems to me to be wrong. I'm not sure that editors should be able to block general discussion of key issues - perhaps this would benefit from some exploration more generally in the Forum. As a 'philosopher', perhaps I can hlp spot where language is prejudicial to the neutrality policy we I'm sure accept, and where it falls short.


 * Yes, Martin, this is not the place to discuss policies. D. Matt Innis 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondly, if your policy here: 'nor should it make an editorial conclusion denying efficacy' allows statements like :"The theory underlying homeopathy is not considered plausible by most scientists working in academic institutions in Europe and the U.S.A. ... The conventional view is that homeopathy, insofar as it has any effect at all, exploits the placebo effect - i.e. that the only benefits are those induced by the power of suggestion, by arousing hope, and by alleviating anxiety. " then it is not one I have got the finer points of. I t seems to me to be inconsistent with the neutrality policy and I shall suggest an improvement here now. See what you think! But if you don't like the change, I think it would be useful, in a positive spirit, to then use this as a dscussion starter in the Forum to help us all understand how to implement the neutrality policy in practice. Martin Cohen 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This text looks messy left on the page as a footnote, although I think it 'could' be justifed there. But better would be on a page discussing vaccination policy.


 * Childhood immunization against chickenpox prevents herpes zoster. Martin Cohen 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin--first, you say, "I'm not sure that editors should be able to block general discussion of key issues," thereby implying that Gareth had attempted to block discussion of key issues. It is obvious to me, at least, that he had not attempted to do so.  Second, having worked with Gareth a fair bit over the last 18 months or however long it's been, I trust his judgment on neutrality issues very well.  Third, this whole discussion suffers greatly from a lack of clarity about what, precisely, you are disagreeing with Gareth about.  What text is problematic?  Fourth and finally, if the entire exchange here concerns only whether the text beginning "The theory underlying homeopathy is not considered plausible" and ending "by alleviating anxiety" is neutral or not, then I am confused.  You have not made it clear why you think this text is not neutral.  I'm sure that Gareth and I would be very interested to know your reasons for thinking so, but I don't see that you have offered any reasons yet.  For my part, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the text.  It (I assume) factually describes a situation and, I imagine, even homeopaths can agree with it, grudgingly, even if they don't like the situation factually described: that homeopathic theory is rejected by most mainstream physicians.  It is also obviously important that we say this in the article, if it is true.  Of course, we should also make it clear in the article--whether we do now or not, I won't comment on here--that the mere fact that mainstream physicians do reject homeopathic theory does not mean that the theory is wrong.  Of course, anybody who blindly follows mainstream medicine will draw that conclusion, but that is their choice, not a conclusion we are forcing them to make.


 * Anyway, Martin, if you can clarify why, precisely, you think the text is not neutral, then we can make some better progress here. And please--let's have no more comparing of credentials about who has the right to declare what is or is not neutral; let's compare arguments instead. --Larry Sanger 03:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite right Larry that we need to make clear that science is fallible, and to be aware that even if the reader accords authority to the opinions of scientists, arguments must be judged on their own merits. I hope that the article is moving to (very concisely) encapsulate the reasons behind the views of scientists, not merely asserting those views; please take a look at the Overview section. Gareth Leng 12:06, 18 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&minus;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 not even a single molecule section. Chris Day 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Avocado's number has a very high calorie content, I think. (Glad to see us go off the deep end at times). Dana Ullman 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Avocado, Dana?&mdash;Ramanand Jhingade 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramanand, hopefully this will be an enjoyable contribution. Avocados are a fruit that grow in semi-tropical areas of the United States; they may have another name or not grow in your region. Unusual among fruits, they are very high in fat content. California and Florida avocados look very different on the outside, although the inside is comparable. It was merely meant as a play on words. A low-calorie serving of avocado would have to use a good deal of dilution. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mithridates
Mithridates was King of Pontus, not a Roman emperor, so I've corrected that. However there appears to be some confusion in the classical sources as to whether he took poisons to habituate himself or whether he had a special antidote or theriac called "Mithridatum", supposed to have been rediscovered or improved by Galen. In any case I doubt that the story is much use as anything other than a metaphor. Richard Pinch 19:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just put in a footnote about the Housman poem. Also, I am gonna look up his actual name -- the VI in the middle seems weird to me. Hayford Peirce 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough Mithridates VI Eupator is his "actual name". Why would you assume it wasn't?  Richard Pinch 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I googled it and got very conflicting info; some hits call him that, others say he was *also* called that, others say a third thing altogether. I'm now turning the pages of my Webster's New Biographical Dictionary, let's see what they call him. "Mithridates VI Eupator. Called the Great". Hmmm. That's pretty authoritative. Let's see, what my 1940 EB calls him. They call him "Mithradates VI. Eupator, called the Great". With an "a" in his name (they say that the "i" is commonly used but is incorrect). And, for some reason, a period after the VI. That's good enough for me -- I'll change it back. Hayford Peirce 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Over-the-counter
Gareth, do you have a total OTC sales figure for non-homeopathic medications, to put it in context?


 * £1.2 billion total OTC in 1994, haven't found anything more recentGareth Leng 18:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Stray question: do you know the EU/EC or UK labeling requirements for OTC preparations? In the U.S., the normal FDA requirements are that all ingredients must be identified, on the package, with the standard nonpoprietary name. The box of Oscillococcinum, however, only identified the active ingredient in Latinate traditional homeopathic terminology. Is that a universal exception for homeopathic remedies? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The homeopathy-placebo ruling; some practical advice
I don't think it's useful now to question Gareth's editorial ruling.

You see, I just added a research update to one of the 2 other homeopathy articles (Memory of water is one, Tests of the efficacy of homeopathy‎ is the other). These two articles address the core issues of the scientific plausibility of homeopathy theoretically and clinically, respectively (they were part of the homeopathy article initially).

For now, this Homeopathy page tells that there is a majority of conventional clinicians thinking that homeopathy is no better than a placebo, and pro-homeopaths who think the opposite. Those are facts, but presenting this as a useful way to deal with such a topic is biased.

The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology published a refutation of the famous 2005 Lancet (the meta-analysis claiming that homeopathy is at best a placebo). It used the same data and showed the opposite. The point is that you could have a number of competent epidemiologists agreeing that the Lancet study actually supported the superiority of homeopathy over placebo, it wouldn't change the "majority view vs minority view". We're dealing with mass behaviors; Martin would have a lot to say about this. So if neutrality in this Homeopathy article means presenting majority vs minority dichotomies, instead of going to the key issues:
 * the controversy over the Lancet study,
 * the replication of Benveniste's study (see above, Madeleine Ennis),
 * The media debunking that followed (see Dana's correspondance with Ennis)
 * The materials science of water at the *mesoscopic* scale and Martin Chaplin's respected work,
 * the placebo-independent studies in plants, animals and cell cultures,
 * The publication bias against homeopathy,

... those interested will just have to move on and work in the background, since it's been put there by editors. --Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 08:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the JCI paper; to call it a refutation is I think not true. Indeed the paper (from two homeopaths) confirmed that Shang's calculations were correct, they look at how the calculations are influenced by chosen cutoffs. What Shang et al showed was that the size of the reported effects of homeopathy diminished with the size and quality of the trials, so that if only the biggest and best trials were analysed there was no significant effect seen above placebo. What the JCI paper shows, (perhaps not surprisingly), is that this depends on the cutoff chosen; if, instead of counting just trials with more than 98 subjects (Shang's cutoff), trials with more than 66 are included, then there is an overall significant effect in favour of homepathy. The JCI authors say "This result can be interpreted differently. Following Shang's perspective it can be explained by small study bias (which includes publication bias). In contrast, one may hypothesize that Shang's result is falsely negative." In their conclusions they thus state "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite. " Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this paper is their analysis of variance in study outcomes. The outcomes were more variable than expected from a random distribution, so one possibility is that homeopathy is effective in some conditions not others. The JCI authors noted that four of the 21 best trials dealt with preventing or treating muscle soreness - these consistently found no benefits to homeopathy, so if it is accepted that homeopathy is not useful in this condition, the remaining 17 trials show an overall significant effect. However, the overall positive result "was mainly determined by the two trials on influenza-like diseases"


 * Generally, for any statistical analysis to be valid, it must be guided a priori by a clear hypothesis - in most simple terms, if you have a sample population with different heights, you can't take the tallest 10%, compare their heights with the shortest 10%, and conclude they are significantly different. This is fundamentally the difficulty with selecting the two influenza trials (the top 10%) and the four muscle soreness trials (the bottom 10%), you just can't do this and expect the statistical conclusions to be sensible. (I'm simplifying; the JCI paper was more subtle, and they didn't claim that they can draw such conclusions, but raised them as a possibility). Shang's hypothesis was that all homeopathy is placebo effect; it's a hypothesis that, like all scientific hypotheses, can never be proved, but only tested - exposed to attempted disproof. Their hypothesis survived attempted disproof; this is how science works. It's counter-intuitive for non-scientists - we work by trying to show that our ideas are wrong, not by trying to show they are right.


 * It was never the case that the Shang study proved homeopathy was all placebo - and nobody should state it in these terms - what it showed was that the results overall from the trials analysed were consistent with them being placebo effects. The JCI paper says that they are equally consistent with some treatments (muscle soreness) being ineffective and treatments for influenza being effective. This seems fair. Overall, the results of trials do not provide compelling evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, but leave open the possibility that it is effective in some conditions and ineffective in others.


 * Dana, do any homeopathy sites advise practitioners against treating muscle soreness on the grounds that treatments are ineffective?Gareth Leng 13:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Each of these issues is interesting, and appropriate to explore carefully but to do so in a way that is clear and accurate will just take a lot of space and a lot of time. Pragmatically, this article is never going to get approved if these issues are introduced here. Arguments about statistical analyses get highly technical and are often irresolvable objectively - and in the end the bottom line is clear, scientists do not consider the evidence for efficacy to be compelling. Attempted replication of Benveniste's study is covered elsewhere and is disputed, Martin Chaplin seems a sensible person and I'm sure deserves respect as we all do; but don't imply that he's well known or highly cited or influential; he's an academic in a minor teaching University and not as far as I'm aware research active - and as far as I am aware he's an agnostic rather than a believer in homeopathy (I agree that agnosticism is rare among scientists). The memory of water explanation lapses on the key issues of a) how the structure in water could be detected (and how a mechanism for detection could have evolved) b) how a detection mechanism can be specific for the type of memory and then linked to a specific adaptive response and c) how the structure is preserved in pills without water. Thus the memory of water notions do not explain homeopathy, but at best would provide a possible small starting point. Placebo-independent studies - well there has to be some reality check here; there are several thousand journals in PubMed alone and this excludes many many shoddier journals. Now even in the best journals, many papers just get it wrong and virtually all studies (of everything) are flawed in some key way. Scientists do not take any study at face value - because they know of so many ways in which people can just get it wrong. They do read papers look for flaws and filter - the results of the filtering you can see for example by looking at citation data - is the paper regarded as sound and important - is it cited, who is it cited by, how is it cited - and what is it cited for? You can easily these days find every paper that has cited any published paper. We cannot here write a commentary on every published paper and its weaknesses but have to filter by impact and notability in some way. If there is enough reason to interrogate these studies then OK, but it will be a harsh blitz I'm afraid - but maybe needed. On publication bias - careful about the wording because publication bias technically refers to bias in favour of reporting study outcomes when they are significant and not when the outcome is not significant - this is a bias that favours reporting of positive outcomes. Bias against publishing papers from homeopaths - well its questionable whether it exists; hard to separate this objectively from judgements about scientific quality of the study.Gareth Leng 09:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, Pierre-Alain, those are all good and worthy topics. I hope that you can make some headway here.  I hope that you will begin to take a stab to a NPOV review of each item.  I think that it is not hard to summarize the recent Journal of Clinical Epidemiology review of research in a non-technical way.  As for memory of water issues, I'm glad that Gareth acknowledges that Martin Chaplin is a good objective source who is not an "advocate."  His website is reference-laden, and although he doesn't seem to conduct research himself, he provides the blessed service of reviewing objectively the research of others.  The challenge is to keep it simple (non-technical) and non-detailed, with links to the best references.  Dana Ullman 03:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with this topic from my perspective is that once you open this door the whole article gets swamped with the discussions of mechanisms of homeopathy. And given that much of this work does not generalize very well, and is contested, it detracts for where the focus of the article should be. As a reader i want the big picture perspective of homeopathy. Bring in too many details and the article is less enjoyable and IMO, less informative. Chris Day 03:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Following up on Chris' comment here, I think it is key and feasible not to limit the number of appropriately linked articles, so, for example, one gives the big picture of homeopathy. The possible mechanisms of homeopathy is a different topic at a different level of detail. Certain articles, as in many technical fields, may have to have (preferably stated) assumptions about the reader's background.


 * There are the questions about publication and acceptance bias. There are questions, to which Gareth gave me an interesting U.K. government report link, about how to assess things that simply don't lend themselves to classical clinical trials.


 * I have started on an article, integrative medicine, for which I have a fairly specific focus in mind, and I would hope people can collaborate in that focus. The article is intended to look at the current practice of interdisciplinary groups that consciously mix conventional and complementary disciplines, and, for that matter, exclude certain conventional and alternative methods. The article is focused on current practice, and I really would hope to avoid arguments about "well, why don't they include discipline XXX" &mdash; because I think it is useful to see how working interdisciplinary teams, trying for best patient health, use different disciplines. Incidentally, has anyone else noticed there is no article on nursing, one of the most integrative approaches around (at the leading edge)? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin's changes
The Measles section I'm perfectly happy to see in a footnote; it's important to include because the issue of vaccination misadvice is probably the single biggest reason for deep antagonism to hemeopathy, but is tangential.

On the minor change that I reverted - here it's simple, the article is declaring the consensus view, not a suggestion. Is it the consensus scientific view? - well here we differ from Wikipedia because we have experts who should know what the consensus view is and I am one and other Health Sciences editors will correct me if I am wrong in this.Gareth Leng 09:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good! I think the article conveys better now what I am sure was the original intention.Martin Cohen 11:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re.Larry's question above and the role of Paracelsus - this question reflects the view one takes of homeopathy - that is to say, if one looks at it from a cultural and historical perspective or from a 'scientific' perspective as a medical 'method'. To some extent then, yes there is more to be said about Paracelsus's role in medicine, but given the page's overall character, perhaps not here. In a few words - yes, one sentence will do! Martin Cohen 13:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re. Matt and Larry and 'stifling debate' - I am not intending to reduce thhis to a personal matter - as far as I'm concerned Gareth, Howard, Dana and I are all 'trying' to reach the same ends... Apologies if I have implied otherwise!

Re. Matt, above. Thanks, Matt. My idea was that it seems one thing to deal with an author on a particular matter and then say 'end of discussion' - but the matter itself, in particular when it is central to the page, needs must remain open to discussion - or (IMO) we do not have a collaborative system at all. Can we clarify this matter? I've had no response to these points, which is as though they ARE 'banned topics' - would someone say that is the policy - if it is!

I'd understand it better if the objection is simply that the issues have been 'done to death' already - but even then, 'surely' new ideas need to be permitted and treated on their merits. Martin Cohen 13:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, perhaps I can put this into some perspective. If you wanted to pursue a debate about a "cultural and historical perspective" on homeopathy, as you say, then given that the others here evidently don't share your understanding about this, I think you ought to try to explain your thoughts in more depth.  Right now, as far as I can tell, you've just made a bare, and to me quite vague, assertion about a "cultural and historical" character of homeopathy, and complained that this is not well represented in the article.  I'm sorry, but by itself, this unadorned complaint is shrugworthy, and that is no doubt why nobody has responded much to it.  To rectify the situation, you might write several paragraphs that explain this broader view, and which might or might not be included in the article.  Then, you might offer some sources, credible to those who know about homeopathy, that explicitly or at least clearly endorse this broader view.  (Just as a data point, it obviously was not at all clear that the sources you offered above supported the notion that Paracelsus was the father of homeopathy per se.  As far as I can tell, you might say he was a precursor of homeopathy in about the same way that Locke was as precursor of the political thinking of the founders of the United States.  But you'll find many people disputing that Locke was literally a founder of the U.S.A.)  Just try to understand the situation, please.  When you, a philosopher like me, come to this venue where there are two practicing homeopaths (one of them a leading published authority on homeopathy from a homeopath's persective), a professor of physiology who knows a lot about homeopathy, a chiropractor who is also a healing arts editor, and someone who just happens to know a fair bit about medicine--and others!--have all been working for months on an article, and you start complaining that the article lacks certain legitimate perspectives, the burden is decidedly on you to explain the allegedly missing perspectives clearly and to provide adequate evidence of them.  The burden really cannot be on others to guess at what you might mean, and to judge claims that are plainly not obvious to them (the experts, after all!) without any evidence.  The point here is that nobody is attempting to silence you or stifle debate.  If there has been a disappointing lack of response, my guess is that it is because the others feel they have not been given enough to respond to.


 * Also, to everyone: please sign all of your comments! It's very annoying to have to figure out who wrote what. --Larry Sanger 15:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Larry, I see that some people here are deleting names/signatures - I hope you can warn/ban them.
 * Martin, I got this quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica at, 'http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270182/homeopathy':-

practiced by Paracelsus ( in Paracelsus: Assessment. ) ...for sin administered by mountain spirits. He was the first to declare that, if given in small doses, “what makes a man ill also cures him,” an anticipation of the modern practice of homeopathy. Paracelsus is said to have cured many persons in the plague-stricken town of Stertzing in the summer of 1534 by administering orally a pill made of bread containing a minute amount of the [pateient's excreta]... I'm sure you can condense & insert it because it's a reliable source (of course you should mention that web-site as a reference).&mdash;Ramanand Jhingade 08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem I've added this - but on checking it seems this report comes from Paracelsus' own account, so I have ammended the wording.Gareth Leng 16:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to Paracelsus! Response to Larry's questions
Thanks Ramanand - another well-chosen suggestion in my view - but look Larry, and Gareth and Howard - you've made heavy weather of the Paracelus contribution so far, so I'd ask someone else to add this sort of information in.

And yes, it is hard to 'navigate' on this talk page, I made that point earlier, but it's clearly 'more than my life's worth' to archive it myself...!

To respond to Larry above - and my edit adding Paracelus - well, what was the problem with it? Larry, contributors to CZ do not need to make lengthy 'pre-edit' arrangements do they? My contribution was barely a line long based on the odd failure to mention Paracelus in the article. I expected this to have been corrected without complaint or controversy - yet it has led to endless wrangling! `None too friendly either..

As mentioned above, I suspect the problem is that the article is attempting to impose a narrowly Western interpretation of the science of the subject. That's not an accusation against the other editors/ authors, it is a 'suggestion' that despite the best intentions, things have gone amiss here and there. Not necessarily big issues either. I think the 'roots' of homeopathy have been downplayed, and the disputes about scientific testing overstressed. Larry, you say this sort of feedback is 'shrugworthy' and I should write a small essay on it instead! Well, I think we have two kinds of feedfback. One is a sentence long and may or amy not be right. The other is an essay and is equally debatable and takes everyone too long both to read and write. Summation is not a bad thing. If people are open-minded, they will consider my point. They don't need an essay with it.

But I'm not asking to determine the nature of the page, only to be able to make suggestions - usually as edits to the page proper, for that is what a collaborative encylopedia is about - and offer feedback. I'm sorry to 'apparently' find myself and see other contributors being 'warned off' for doing the same - or do I misread things?

Larry, the fact' is that Paracelus is a noteworthy figure in the history of homeopathy. Even as I was being told flatly on the Talk page that he was 'NOT to be mentioned again", one of the Health editors was reinserting a reference. Nonetheless, the initial editing judgement was made to delete my original contribution in its entirety, rather than modify it. This, I think was wrong, and reflects something also wrong with the way CZ is operating. I suggest instead that when a contribution is made which is 'controversial' in one respect, that aspect is modified, and the rest of it, assuming that it is 'uncontroversial', is accepted. In the case of my edit, I reinstated the text modifying it to remove the 'controversial' claim (I'd say it is ambiguous, rather) that he is the 'Father' of Homeopathy to say this:

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

Note that I changed the word 'Father' to 'Founder' and I inserted the word 'many'. I'm not saying that this edit was brilliant, the final word, etc etc, but I am saying that I modifed my modest contribution in response to the criticism of the first version. 'Founder' may have been WORSE than 'Father' in fact, but it was an attempt to deal with the objection. I additionally added some examples to the Talk page (see Ramanand above too!) of people according Paracelsus a significant role. The Theory of Signature is discussed on the page (in the form of the related 'Law of Similars')  - again without reference to Paracelus. The text I thought went some way to correcting that too. I acted in a positive spirit of co-operation throughout and I can't see the encylopedia benefitting from the precedent advanced here - even now by Larry? - where contributors have to justify their material 'off the page' rather than make them directly.

By editing the page directly, what has been the outcome? A good 'compromise'has emerged, I think, in that Paracelus is allowed a role in the development of homeopathy, albeit a minor one, and the link between the theory of signatures and hoemeopathy is indicated, which others can expand on through a new page I am sure if they wished. In other wrods, the page has benefitted and improved from the process of collaborative editing of the page proper.

So far, the message here however is against direct editing of pages. Can I have some reasurance that that is not the intention? Martin Cohen 13:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I didn't say there was anything wrong with your edit adding Paracelsus. I don't claim to know anything about Paracelsus or have an opinion about the merits of anything you're saying about homeopathy. I was responding to your own complaint that there a "cultural and historical perspective" on homeopathy is lacking. I thought you were saying that this perspective would be added satisfactorily (to you) only if the article were rewritten or added to somehow, with far more than just the Paracelsus sentence. Or, as you now put it, the article suffers from a "narrowly Western interpretation of the science of the subject." (I don't know what Paracelsus has to do with the non-Western perspectives, frankly.) You responded to me by saying, "Larry, you say this sort of feedback is 'shrugworthy' and I should write a small essay on it instead!" Sorry, but you are incorrect. I did not say that this sort of feedback is "shrugworthy," but that a particular "unadorned complaint" was shrugworthy. Which, I reiterate, it was. Sorry, but it's true.

My point, which should not be at all controversial or even insulting, is that if you were to elaborate your complaint, so that people knew what you were talking about, then they might not shrug it off! If you think that there is a problem about a "narrow Western interpretation" of homeopathy here, I'm afraid the burden is on you to give some of the information about the non-Western perspectives that are missing. Since we are all volunteers here, with minds of our own, we cannot demand others to include some perspective they're not familiar with, or even agree to it if they are; but we do have the right to engage them in a dialogue, of course. (And here, your collaborators may have been in the wrong in one or two instances.) You say, "If people are open-minded, they will consider my point. They don't need an essay with it." But I'm not seeing evidence that they understand your point about non-Western perspectives, at least, in the first place. You have to elaborate that point at least some more, it appears, if you want them to consider it. Isn't that, well, kind of obvious? And if all you want to do is to make a suggestion and offer feedback, and not persuade others, then apparently you've done that to your own satisfaction--right? But your behavior here indicates that you don't just want to make suggestions and offer feedback, but that instead you want to persuade others.

You say: "I'm sorry to 'apparently' find myself and see other contributors being 'warned off' for doing the same - or do I misread things?" If anybody warned you off, the comment should have been deleted by the Constabulary with nocomplaints. Show me where the warnings-off are, and I will delete them myself. In any case, consider yourself officially welcomed by the Editor-in-Chief. And you also say that someone told you that Paracelsus was "NOT to be mentioned again"--I can't find that exact quote on this page or in /Archive 8, so this apparently was not an exact quote, or it was (properly) deleted by the Constabulary. As Editor-in-Chief, I hereby declare that you have the right to discuss Paracelsus on this talk page. It is pointless to complain about this sort of thing. Just know that anybody who presumes to warn you off, or instruct you that a certain subject cannot be discussed, probably doesn't know what he is talking about.

You also say: "Larry, the fact' is that Paracelus is a noteworthy figure in the history of homeopathy." Wait a moment--Paracelsus was a Western figure and perspectives on him are presumably not non-Western perspectives. Do you have two separate concerns, then, one about Paracelsus and one about the dearth of some (as yet undescribed) non-Western perspectives?

You say again: "Nonetheless, the initial editing judgement was made to delete my original contribution in its entirety, rather than modify it. This, I think was wrong, and reflects something also wrong with the way CZ is operating." That's your opinion; I disagree. If its removal was discussed, it was within the boundaries of acceptable practice on CZ. Do we really need to keep talking about this?

You also say: "I suggest instead that when a contribution is made which is 'controversial' in one respect, that aspect is modified, and the rest of it, assuming that it is 'uncontroversial', is accepted." That sounds reasonable. I would hope that that is what we already do in most cases. If we didn't do that in this particular case, probably somebody did make a very minor mistake--not a major mistake that merits going on and on about.

You say:


 * In the case of my edit, I reinstated the text modifying it to remove the 'controversial' claim (I'd say it is ambiguous, rather) that he is the 'Father' of Homeopathy to say this:


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


 * Note that I changed the word 'Father' to 'Founder' and I inserted the word 'many'. I'm not saying that this edit was brilliant, the final word, etc etc, but I am saying that I modifed my modest contribution in response to the criticism of the first version. 'Founder' may have been WORSE than 'Father' in fact, but it was an attempt to deal with the objection.

This looks fine to me as described. You've just described what happens in the rough-and-tumble of collaborative editing. The text as it is now is, I hope, fine with everybody.

A bit more from you: "...and I can't see the encylopedia benefitting from the precedent advanced here - even now by Larry? - where contributors have to justify their material 'off the page' rather than make them directly." That's incorrect as a generalization. Sometimes contributors do have to justify additions on the talk page first, but very rarely and only for good reasons, I would say. On the one hand, you were in the right to make the addition to the page that you made, as you saw fit. On the other hand, others were in the right to remove your addition and then ask you to discuss it and give more evidence.

"So far, the message here however is against direct editing of pages. Can I have some reasurance that that is not the intention?" Of course, but I think it was hasty to draw the conclusion or suggest otherwise in the first place.

Anyone who suggests that articles may not be edited directly and vigorously, and that all or even most editing must be done only after lengthy discussion, is just wrong. But then, I don't think that anybody was suggesting that here, frankly. I do agree with you, Martin, that some people might have been wrong in their attempts to "shoo you away." Shame on them. But is it really necessary to complain or discuss any more about this?

Can we stop the meta-discussion now, and turn to elaborating those unelaborated non-Western perspectives? For my part I'm pretty sure this is all I'm going to be able to contribute to this page, unless something very dramatic happens... *groan* --Larry Sanger 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Larry, thanks for going through all this, and I think, quite honestly, it's more about not knowing other people's style and methods than any great issue, worthy of so much attention! I'm reassured about the spirit of CZ and any further referencing/ explanation of the points above will just waste your time, so I won't offer any. As far as I'm concerned, the debate over this page has been rather fraught but nonetheless productive. But most of all, I agree, it's a good idea to bring it to a close! Martin Cohen 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin, as for archiving, you might have missed it when you went out of town, but Hayford did archive just after you asked for it . You are allowed to do this as well anytime you like. D. Matt Innis 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Apropos signatures, homeopathic parallels, etc.
Hopefully to avoid some conflicts, I'm working on some other articles that may be of interest. Some may appear to overlap, and some are defined in a way that they really do not.

First, let me mention something I wrote after discovering something from a U.K. link that Gareth sent me: Bach flower therapy. Bach makes clear that he is not talking about homeopathy, but does credit the British Homeopathic Pharmacopeia for the method he uses to create his "mother essence" or "mother tincture". He makes it clear, however, that he is not using the Law of Similars, and that he doesn't ultradilute. Why I thought it interesting, however, is that while he does not explicitly credit Paracelsus, he specifically uses the term "signatures" and also speaks of shapes, colors, etc. It might provide an interesting compare-and-contrast.

Another new article, which I'm still editing and creating -- there will be tables that are being rearranged -- is integrative medicine. This is a relatively new paradigm that I've sourced to a number of highly regarded medical institutions (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Columbia) where they have a joint center where biomedically trained physicians and selected alternative practitioners collaborate. In that article, I am specifically trying to cover which medical and complementary techniques are being used together now, and how the groups address such things as interactions, different paradigms, and possible interactions. I would appeal not to add arguments that "X,Y or Z" should be added, because I'm trying to describe current practices and their arguments for the choices they have made. Truly "alternative" systems that want their models used exclusively simply are not part of integrative medicine, but, hypothetically, if a patient had a chronic pain syndrome, the patient might, simultaneously have analgesics or muscle relaxants prescribed by a rheumatologist, a homeopathic remedy that the homeopath and physician agree is compatible, acupuncture, massage with essential oils prepared by an aromatherapist, etc. All these practitioners have agreed, in their model, that the combination could be safe and effective, although it will be closely monitored. I am going to be discussing the paradigm these practices use, and I'd appreciate not trying to superimpose other paradigms or disciplines they "should" use.

One striking contrast is that they have a great deal of nursing involvement, which, by and large, is not discussed anywhere on CZ. Columbia's center, indeed, is part of their School of Nursing. There is a strong movement in the nursing profession toward wellness and chronic disease management, with their focus not being on "cure". Howard C. Berkowitz 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done for now
My concern has been to get this article in a swift state for approval so that we can all relax and get on with other less heated things - including the many related articles that should appear and which should be less problematical. As I see things, this article is "about there" - I've inserted an example proving - I've done my best with what I could find, I chose bamboo jusy because I could find two commentaries on the proving, both of which declared it as exemplary. I've tried to stay close to the words of the reviewers. But the example may not be representative, I wouldn't know. I've trimmed and revised the testing section, including at the end what I think is a clear statement of homeopathic objections. I've added an Overview section, mainly from a scientists's perspective (I can't really help that) but acknowledging the fallibility of science. I've also extended the bibliography and external links. I've added references and detail as I found them for things that I thought needed checking, and the process of checking has led to occasional revisions. I would prefer it if the article had at least one or two illustrations, but I am not competent in that sphere.

I've tried to nudge the prose to be clear and direct natural language rather than technical language or jargon. Basically I've followed the rule "if it's not obvious to me what something is saying then it must be changed". So, I'll stand back now, and watch.Gareth Leng 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Great job
It's in far, far better shape. There are a few places where edits may have lost some transitional words, and I will provide those soon. Just to avoid edit conflicts, I'm not going to make even the typographical edits.

Section: Homeopathic manufacture of remedies

 * may I suggest that (preferably) the very visually impactful but incomplete table of four representative remedies be removed, and perhaps replaced with a link to appropriate online references? I assume, but am not certain, that would be a materia medica, and I have seen several links.
 * The 3,000 remedies seems to have gotten separated from the text in the 5th (last) paragraph of Conflict with conventional medicine. See below.

Section: Similia similibus curentur : the law of similars

 * typo: should be analogous
 * Given that there's only a small amount of text before the subhead, I do think "Homeopaths consider that two conventional concepts, vaccination, and hormesis, can be considered as anal a gous to homeopathy's law of similars and the use of small doses." needs a note that these analogies, for technical reasons mentioned below, are not accepted by mainstream sciences.

Section: A typical homeopathic visit
There were, I thought, some references that indicated patients of homeopaths were especially satisfied with the quality of the interaction, and this should be noted. Now that the times of the initial and subsequent visits have been noted, I wonder if it might be observed that many conventional physicians, if they are freed from economic pressures, prefer those ranges as well. Recognizing that anecdote is not the singular of data, my personal experience is that the physicians I've found do best often do a 45-120 minute first visit and 5-20 for followups, the latter when no procedures are involved.

Section: Conflict with conventional medicine

 * 5th (last) paragraph: the numbers of conventional drugs here were originally a compare-and-contrast made with 3,000 remedies, and were making a point that conventional physicians do individualize and have a wide range of methods, especially when polypharmacy is considered, to do so. This should either move up to Manufacture of homeopathic remedies or the 3,000 remedies should move here, but I did see them as an appropriate description of the compare-and-contrast.
 * Gareth, there is good discussions on alternatives to the classic randomized controlled trials in the Parliamentary report link you gave me, That might be very good to work in here.

General
Without looking at the metadata, I thought the original language variant was AE, but, not surprisingly with Gareth's work, it's now tending more toward BE. When any more substantive changes are made, may I suggest that we decide on one or the other, and do an appropriate copy edit? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The language is American English. This is not something we have ever changed in an article just because somebody made a lot of edits without consideration of the language variant we're using. --Larry Sanger 05:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Just didn't know which direction to copy edit. Thanks. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)