Talk:Homeopathy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 03:28, 13 July 2012 (→Bias and inaccuracy: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:28, 13 July 2012 by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) (→Bias and inaccuracy: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.) A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics. Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.) A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.) A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.

Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be considered a fringe theory.

References

Jonas, WB; Ives, JA (February 2008). "Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis". Human & Experimental Toxicology. 27 (2): 123–127. PMID 18480136.

Q5: Should studies that show that homeopathy does not work go into the article? (Yes.) A5: Yes. Studies that show that homeopathy does not work are part of a full treatment of the topic and should go into the article. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Non-experts have suggested that all the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased, but this has not been borne out by the mainstream scientific community. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" be created? (No.) A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.) A7: No. Alleged proof that homeopathy works should not be included in the article. That is because no such proof has come from reliable sources. If you have found a reliable source, such as an academic study, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. Note that we do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence. Note also that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, nor to dissuade those who believe that it does work, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why. Q8: Should all references to material critical of homeopathy be put in a single section in the article? (No.) A8: No. Sources critical of homeopathy should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Misplaced Pages. Q9: Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism? (No.) A9: No. The article should not mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research or speculation. Q10: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.) A10: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Misplaced Pages. Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.) A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide, so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Template:ArbcomArticle

Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 27, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 8, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 13, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
October 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 9, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
March 2, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 4, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Homeopathy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

[REDACTED]

Alternative views High‑importance

[REDACTED]	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citizendium Porting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

To Do List
add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care. The fact that they didn't use the "heroic" measures in common use, such as bloodletting, powerful drugs like arsenic, strychnine, mercury, belladonna, etc. meant that more patients survived, since these drugs often caused more deaths. In many cases doing what amounted to nothing, i.e. placebo homeopathic treatment, was better than doing something, i.e. overkill with poisons, thus letting the body's own recuperative powers do the healing, which for many ordinary ailments is just fine.

To Do List

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique.

add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based"

homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care. The fact that they didn't use the "heroic" measures in common use, such as bloodletting, powerful drugs like arsenic, strychnine, mercury, belladonna, etc. meant that more patients survived, since these drugs often caused more deaths. In many cases doing what amounted to nothing, i.e. placebo homeopathic treatment, was better than doing something, i.e. overkill with poisons, thus letting the body's own recuperative powers do the healing, which for many ordinary ailments is just fine.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Edit request on 14 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the text

Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated. Scientific evidence has found homeopathy no more effective than placebos.

Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted and potentised preparations believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated. Scientific evidence has found homeopathy no more effective than placebos.

Because describing homeopathy as being highly diluted without in the same sentence saying that it is also potentised is a factual error and misleading. It is like saying that bread is made of flour. You cannot make bread from flour without adding other crucial ingredients and using the process of baking. Although you explain in the next paragraph that the solution is succussed you are giving people the impression that homeopathy is primarily about dilution. This is incorrect. If you had said that homeopathy is about shaking a solution without mentioning dilution the same error would have been made. Homeopathy is about the dilution and potentising of a substance.

Evidence for this:

§ 270 Organon of Medicine: Samuel Hahnemann: Sixth (Final) Edition

In order to best obtain this development of power, a small part of the substance to be dynamized, say one grain, is triturated for three hours with three times one hundred grains sugar of milk according to the method described below1 up to the one-millionth part in powder form. For reasons given below (b) one grain of this powder is dissolved in 500 drops of a mixture of one part of alcohol and four parts of distilled water, of which one drop is put in a vial. To this are added 100 drops of pure alcohol2 and given one hundred strong succussions with the hand against a hard but elastic body.3 This is the medicine in the first degree of dynamization with which small sugar globules4 may then be moistened5 and quickly spread on blotting paper to dry and kept in a well-corked vial with the sign of (I) degree of potency. Only one6 globule of this is taken for further dynamization, put in a second new vial (with a drop a water in order to dissolve it) and then with 100 powerful succussions.

With this alcoholic medicinal fluid globules are again moistened, spread upon blotting paper and dried quickly, put into a well-stoppered vial and protected from heat and sun light and given the sign (II) of the second potency. And in this way the process is continued until the twenty-ninth is reached. Then with 100 drops of alcohol by means of 100 succussions, an alcoholic medicinal fluid is formed with which the thirtieth dynamization degree is given to properly moistened and dried sugar globules.

Raznudin (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I need a source I can access to allow me to check it Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is with access. The German sixth edition (1865) is Google ID K81LAAAAMAAJ. This has at least twice been translated to English, and is in the public domain. If you like you can read Hahnemann's manuscript markups against the printed fifth edition, see PMC 3016660. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Potentizing, or succussion, has a specific in-universe meaning in homeopathy. Confusing it with increasing the potency of a drug - the absolute opposite of dilution - gives undue weight to a fringe theory and is poor writing in general. I oppose this edit, regardless of whether or not an accessible version of Hahnemann is provided. Skinwalker (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"in-universe meaning" - nice! Hahahaha! SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I also choose to deny this edit request. We say that "Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations" - and that's undoubtedly a true statement...it might also be true that they "potentize" them - but that doesn't make what we said untrue, although it's arguably incomplete. The problem is that there is no single "official" description of what homeopathy is. Books and web sites disagree on this subject - descriptions of what homeopathy is are all over the map. As far as can be discerned, the only thing that's common to all of these descriptions is dilution. If we say that it's only homeopathy if it's also "potentized" or "succussed" then we're excluding a whole range of sources that only describe homeopathy as dilution. Now, I'm sure you're just going to say that those sources are incorrect...but because this is a pseudoscience, there is no single definition of correctness here. Sure, Samuel Hahnemann was the founder of this movement - but founders aren't always authoritative either because over time, opinions on what works best change. Take your description, above, of how alcohol is used - that's the third description I've seen about how alcohol is used in homeopathy - and those three descriptions are all wildly different.

There aren't peer-reviewed published works with secondary and tertiary sources on the subject to lend one version of homeopathy special credence as "The Truth". So we're necessarily going to have to be somewhat vague here. Your edit is overly (and unnecessarily) specific. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Succussion and potentization are briefly explained in the following paragraph, and explained in more detail in the section Homeopathy#Preparation. The first paragraph of the lead is a summary, containing only the most salient facts that are covered later in the article in more detail. It would damage the article's clarity if the lead duplicated every fact that is explained later; it would lose its value as a summary. I invite you to review the Homeopathy#Preparation section and add or correct details if you think it doesn't fairly summarize the reliable sources you've found. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The dilution is an undisputed fact, and characteristic of homoeopathy. The existence of "potentization" is a poorly-evidenced claim made by homoeopaths. Hahnemann's assertions are not good evidence. Brunton (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.Yes, and potentised is the correct word to use. Some preparations are succussed, some are triturated - the collective term is "potentised", or with the z for the yanks. The fact is that all remedies are made with potentisation and not just dilution. Just diluting does not create a remedy that is used in homeopathy - it is misleading. As it is currently in the article, it is inaccurate. The suggested change is referenced, and widely available to everyone here.

The part on potentisation needs expanding anyway. But the lead as it stands is innacurarate. If we are to use one word, then potentised would be the one more than diluted. That potentised may be misunderstood can be explained in the appropriate section. As we have it diluted is equally liable for misunderstanding AND inaccurate. Cjwilky (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But we can't use the word "potentizing" without explaining that this word has an entirely different meaning for homeopathists than it does for normal people and dictionaries of the English language. Since the lede is just a summary, we can't clutter it up with long asides about the nonstandard meaning of words. This has been widely discussed and is well agreed. So if we are to say anything beyond "dilution" (which has a solid definition), it needs to be in standard English and not in homeopathese. Hence "potentization" is completely out of the question. I also strongly disagree that "potentization" is preferable to "dilution" when the mainstream view and all of our reliable sources say that the only thing homeopathists are actually doing is dilution. There is no evidence whatever that the other mysterious shaking, jiggling or bumping does anything whatever to the mixture than mix it up a bit. "Potentization" carries strong connotations that this process is making the resulting stuff "more potent" - when nothing could be further from the truth (per reliable sources). Your proposal just perpetuates the lie that is homeopathy - and we can't do that (per WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS). SteveBaker (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with SteveBaker.Dustinlull (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And your statement Steve perpetuates the fact that you are prejudiced here. To call homeopathy a lie is not scientific never mind NPOV. But even that isn't the main problem - to call it a lie is using a phrase that is not conducive to healthy discussion on this talk page.

I agree about the use of potentising in the lead, but diluting is inaccurate and misleading and is deliberately misleading the reader to your POV. The process of making up the remedy is significantly organised around other than diluting. This is what homeopathic pharmacies do. To not do it wouldn't result in a remedy they could sell or use. Cjwilky (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about the word "diluting." That's what homeopaths do. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dilute and succuss, or triturate, is what the pharmacies do. Its like saying bread is made by mixing flour and water. Cjwilky (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What ripe bullshit. We're not going to use fairy-tale definitions of drug potency. At best we can describe the preparation process as dilution followed by vigorous agitation. Skinwalker (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that for the lead. Not the childish abusive comments though, yawn. Cjwilky (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeppers. That lead would be NPOV, whereas using the homeopath specific (in this context) term potentization would be POV. Just the mere fact that my spell checker does not like the word says volumes about its appropriateness in the lead, IMO.Snertking (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. What Raznudin and Cjwilky fail to understand is that the "Misplaced Pages view" on fringe materials is always the mainstream one. WP:FRINGE says: "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." - using the word "succuss" or "protentize" does exactly that. It is not "POV" to say that Homeopathy is nothing more than extreme dilution - that's undoubtedly the mainstream view. Exactly the opposite in fact...implying that anything other than dilution is going on here is to allow a fringe opinion to unbalance the mainstream POV - and that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. At this point in the lede, we are writing about what homeopathists actually do - not what they mistakenly believe that they are doing - not what they claim they are doing - and not what they'd like the general public to believe that they are doing. We are writing about what mainstream science has shown that they are doing, which is that they are doing things like carefully taking a tiny bit of duck liver (because they mistakenly think this has something to do with influenza) then carefully washing it away until there is none of it left (thank goodness for that - raw duck liver is yukky!!) then putting a drop of water onto a sugar pill which subsequently (and unsurprisingly) has absolutely no effect on the influenza sufferer beyond what an untreated sugar pill would have had. That is (like it or not) the clearly expressed, reliably sourced, mainstream view of homeopathy. WP:FRINGE tells us that this is what we must write about.

It doesn't matter what my view or your view is or who is or isn't "prejudiced". It does matter that whoever is doing the writing is following the guidelines that this web site requires us all to follow. As it happens, those guidelines strongly favor my (highly mainstream) "prejudice" and not your (pro-homeopathy) "prejudice"...but we both have to follow those guidelines. Sadly for you, that means that if you're going to write for this article, you have to write things that you don't believe in...well, bad luck...I'm sorry about that. It is always the mainstream, reliably-sourced view that matters here. Which is why the present language in the lede is the correct wording for Misplaced Pages. We do not write this article from the point of view that homeopathy works or is correct or is in any way a sensible idea - WP:FRINGE clearly doesn't allow us to do that. We follow the mainstream scientific evidence which is that it doesn't work and that "water memory" and all of the other rationalizations of the homeopathists are complete bunkum. Per mainstream, reliables sources, homeopathy is an outmoded, rather quaint idea, pushed around by people who are either charlatans or who don't understand how the universe works.

The mainstream view is that homeopathy is on a par with flat-earth theory or ptolomeic geocentricism - and that's what this article is going to say. I know you don't like it - but those are the rules here - tough luck, you have my sympathy.

Your bread-making analogy shows why your reasoning is flawed. When you make bread, the reliably sourced, mainstream view is that tiny organisms that make up the yeast metabolize the carbohydrates in the flour to produce CO₂ that forms bubbles that make the mixture rise - so it's definitely not just mixing flour and water. When you make a homeopathic "treatment", the mainstream view is that you put a small amount of some very bizarre substance into a load of water, mix it up a bit and repeat that process until none of the original stuff is left. The best English language word for that process is "dilution" - not "potentize" which means "make more potent" or "succuss" (which doesn't mean anything at all to most people and means nothing more than "shake up" in standard English). If you'd like us to change the language in the lede to say that homeopathy involves "dilution and shaking up" of the ingredients - then it's kinda redundant because to dilute something, you obviously have to shake it up. The problem is that "potentize" and "succuss" are not words that the layman will understand in the way that homeopathists do - and using them would be exceedingly misleading.

We must describe what the mainstream believes is actually happening here - and we must do it in standard English. That's because we're a mainstream encyclopedia and not an uncritical catalog of fringe theories.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say Steve, shame you debased it with the charlatan diatribe, but...

you say At this point in the lede, we are writing about what homeopathists actually do and as skinwalker suggested vigorous aggistation.

Thats what is happening, not just dilution. It is repeated dilution followed by vigorous aggitation. Whether or not you or wiki "believes" anything is happening inside the remedy is not the point, as you yourself make clear, we are describing how remedies are made (and its by pharmacists not homeopaths). This is simple language, it should be in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dilution always includes mixing - it's the only way to get a homogenous concentration. The wording you propose makes it sound like the “final” step after serial dilution is “agitation”. --Six words (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A brief initial description of homoeopathy as using dilute substances is entirely uncontroversial. It is a description that is even used by organisations promoting homoeopathy. See for example the "What is Homeopathy?" page on the Society of Homeopaths website, which starts, "Homeopathy is a system of medicine which involves treating the individual with highly diluted substances...". It makes no mention of potentisation, and doesn't mention succussion until the third section of the page. The article here actually introduces succussion earlier than this, in the second paragraph.

And frankly, complaints that succussion and potentisation "should be in the lead" look a bit pointless in view of the current second paragraph of the lead, which says, "Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking on an elastic body, which homeopaths term "succussion". Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the effectiveness. Homeopaths call this process "potentization"".

It is already there; why demand that it be added? Brunton (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted Brunton, was no one else looking at the article?! So we have repetition in the lead - I suggest changing the sentence in question from:

Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated.

to:

Practitioners treat patients using preparations believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals which are similar to the undesired symptoms of the patient being treated.

Its far simpler and more digestible for people to have one concept at a time, and I believe that sentence in itself is clearer. Cjwilky (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The lead needs to start with a brief description of homoeopathy. The use of highly dilute preparations is so characteristic of homoeopathy that it needs to be there. The lead then goes on to briefly describe how the remedies are prepared, so dilution needs to be mentioned again there. There is, as far as I'm aware, no rule against repetition in the lead. This is Misplaced Pages, not Just A Minute. Brunton (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:) An issue that has been raised specifically with that sentence is its complexity with a third year medical student ed on here having trouble with it - too many late nights and chemicals no doubt - but it is a real problem. So I made it simpler.

The primary part of homeopathy is to treat like with like. Secondly is the issue of remedies, so put that in the second para. Following this route there is no need for repetition, even if you do have more than a minute. As the lead stands, its confusing... I refer you to what I wrote previously Cjwilky (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about descriptions of homeopathy vs. claims of homeopathy's effectiveness, in relation to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That homeopathy involves more than just dilution is the mainstream view. That homeopathic remedies are effective is not the mainstream view. This article should provide a reader a good, clear summary of the available information on homeopathy: what the practices actually are, and what is known about their effectiveness. Writings by leading homeopaths are reliable sources for descriptions of the practices. Also, our two currently cited sources for the claim that mainstream science summarizes homeopathy as dilution actually do not do so. One makes "like cures like" the main principle of homeopathy, and summarizes the second principle in terms of "repeated dilution and sucussion ". The other offers no summary of homeopathy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't fine tooth combed, but after a couple of reads of the changes BenKovitz made, I am impressed with the edit. The article reads much easier, is accurate, and still says essentially the same things. Maybe we can apply similar clarity to the rest of the article? Cjwilky (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking the edits (whichever comb you had time to use), and thanks for letting me know you found the new version more readable! I only clicked on about half of the references. I tried to keep the refs next to the facts they're about, but I may well have scrambled something (indeed, it appeared that some scrambling of refs had already happened). The lead probably has too many references, actually. Piling up five in a row seems more like trying to argue the reader into a conclusion than summarizing the main findings. The details can go in the body of the article, and the lead can contain just a few truly outstanding refs. Which do you think are the most oustanding refs, which really belong in the lead? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from extensive reading) like cures like is the central principle of homeopathy, based on the theory of humours. Serial dilution is a secondary theory, and Hahnemann's third principle, as far as I can tell, was to do with chronic disease being caused by one of three miasms, itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea.

I'm all for improving the clarity of the article as long as we do not obscure the three fundamental issues with homeopathy, namely that there is no reason to suppose it should work (similia is nonsense), no known way it can work (serial dilution is posited on a continuous deterministic model of matter, but matter is neither continuous nor deterministic), and no good evidence it does work, other than as a placebo. I always find it helpful to address homeopathy in those terms when discussing it with those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, it seems to help in making it clear. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly improving the clarity should make those things more clear, not less. Your brief comments here on serial dilution and the three miasms are clearer than anything now in the article! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy - similia is not nonsense. Vaccinations work on the same principal.

How potencies work we don't know. Its certainly not dependent on old school molecules. To say its not explained by "current" science is more accurate.

There is good evidence that it does work, just not the Egger (shang) method of meta and the bias Ernzt ones. There is evidence out there - eg the piglet e-coli experiment of 2012 - and many others. Better research and more of it is needed for sure. I know this isn't how wiki medicine works, but to make all your assumptions in the way you do is not giving the full picture as you were implying you wished to do. Cjwilky (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The "piglet e-coli experiment of 2012" linked to above as evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathy does not appear to say anything about homoeopathy; it is about inducing diahrroea in piglets. The only mention of homoeopathy in the full paper is in the title of a 2010 paper, cited to support a statement that a ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal nutrition in Europe "mak it necessary to develop sustainable alternative strategies or tools to control diseases". The 2010 paper is the most recent pubmed indexed paper I could find about homoeopathic treatment of E. coli in piglets (there was an earlier one in 2008), and is discussed here. Brunton (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: Well, Raznudin, I hope you are pleased with the edits that your request triggered. The lead now introduces dilution and succussion together, in the same sentence, and the opening sentence now summarizes homeopathy in terms of the law of similars, not potentization. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem though - not all homeopathists believe in the "law of similars" - in fact many of them (including Hahnemann) believe in the "law of opposites" instead. There are many reports of "provings" where one might use something that causes some symptom in healthy individuals at normal dilutions to cure that same symptom at high dilutions. This is a classic example of how hard it is to summarize the belief system here. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve, that's just the original method, where the proving was an undiluted substance that was capable of causing very real symptoms which could be recorded in the Homeopathic Materia Medica. This created the basis for making a remedy, which was made by diluting and succussing the original substance. This original method needs to be clearly stated in the article. The current wording ("At first Hahnemann used material doses for provings") is too muddy. "Material" doses? What the heck are our readers supposed to make of that? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the confusion, though I'd be interested to hear which homeopaths base their work on a law of opposites. What I think you are refering to is the concept of primary and secondary actions. Eg opium and chamomile at first makes you drowsy, but prolonged use will make you more irritable. The potentised remedy will act on both states. Whether you agree with that or not, thats the theory and what's relevant in my point.Cjwilky (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve, where did you read about homeopaths subscribing to a "law of opposites"? That sounds like something important to include in the article, even if it's just an interesting countertrend that goes against the main trend of homeopaths. However, I understand the example you gave to be a clear and typical statement of the law of similars. Please see the reference I added this morning. It's Hahnemann's own statement of the law of similars, explaining why it's called "homeopathy". —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In the "original method", not only was the undiluted substance used in provings, but the undiluted substance was also used to treat the patient. The dilutions (and shaking) came later. Brunton (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Area that needs discussion.

There is a serious gap in the discussion of how homeopathy works.

Has anyone in the world of Homeopathy discussed the problem that the water that they use to start the dilution process must have "memory" from whatever source it came from? How is this water memory "reset" to get rid of any previous memory?

Without that explanation, this seems like a critical failure in the thought processes behind homeopathy - because if you accept the core tenets of homeopathy: "water memory", "principle-of-similars"/"principle-of-opposites" and "dilution increases potency" arguments then you now have to explain why a tiny particle of (let's say) a few hundred molecules of arsenic in the water you started from will be diluted and potentized along with the intended ingredient to the point where the treatment would be lethally dangerous. Since there is no possibility of obtaining 100% pure water, this would seem to be an inevitable problem that would kill any hope of homeopathy working even if you accept all of their claims for how it operates.

Are there any references on either the pro- or anti-homeopathy side that raise this point so that we can talk about it in the article? I've looked around but can find nothing on either side of the debate that addresses this issue - yet it seems to be a key one because it's a serious problem for the hypothesis even if you accept all of it's tenets.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh! It always strikes me as funny when we (and we do) attempt to apply logic to homeopathy, yet there is a sort of internal logic seen at times. We'd need a source, but I suspect that some believers would argue that the act of succussion is the sympathetically magical, vitalistic, sacramental act of transubstantiation which imbues the remedy with the intention of the homeopathist, IOW, wishful thinking is translated into biochemical reality. Since many homeopathists realize (using logic) that such a statement from them would make them look ridiculous, I'd be surprised if we could find one of them actually going on record with such a statement.

A corollary exists in chiropractic. There is actually a church (created by a chiropractor for the purpose of providing exemptions from vaccination) in which he actually claims that the chiropractic spinal adjustment is such a sacramental act. That claim is consistent with the original intention, the unblocking of blockages of the free flow of Innate Intelligence from the great Universal Intelligence (god). -- Brangifer (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some substances have been found to be relatively inert when it comes to potentising, one is alcohol,, another water, and another lactose. If 1 part of silica is mixed with 99 parts of lactose, then that 1 part of silica is going to far outweigh the impurities in the lactose. Cjwilky (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide verifiable evidence that there are any substances that aren't "relatively inert when it comes to potentising"? Since 'potentising' is an entirely unproven and nonsensical concept, your assertions regarding its relative effects on water and silica are meaningless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that whilst water might in itself be "inert", the things dissolved or floating in it are not. It's interesting that you mention that silica is so homeopathically active (this claim is backed up by, for example - which points out that silica was "proved" by Hahnemann himself as a treatment for a whole laundry-list of conditions). You'd have to admit that even the purest water you can buy would contain traces of silica in it before you even started diluting something with it. Even distilled water at the highest purity that you can buy commercially comes into contact with glass containers - and glass contains silica. (Check out Purified water which says this exact thing - and points out that for laboratory work where silica is an issue, they have to re-distill the water into containers made of tin).

So it's impossible to believe that the distilled water used by homeopathists doesn't contain a measurable amount of silica. How does the water "know" to memorize the duck liver and "forget" - and subsequently "ignore" - the memory of the silica that's already in there? Worse still, where are they getting the duck livers from in the first place? The duck is sure to have all sorts of weird and wonderful chemicals in it's liver - which (if you buy into this claim) must also get potentized by the dilution.

Anyway - I'm really hoping that someone has written something about this because it seems to be a rather important question that ought to have been considered by homeopathists at some time during the development of all of the "water memory" claims.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone has taken some humorous potshots at the water memory idea. Definitely not a RS....

-- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Some homeopaths don't think water is so inert, they have 'proved' it here. Acleron (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dose-response relationship

An editor is removing "Conventional medicine has found that higher doses usually cause stronger effects, whereas homeopathy claims the opposite." How could that possibly be misinterpreted? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I mean, isn't the dilution process one of the key parts of homeopathy? And the act of diluting a substance to make it stronger does contradict conventional notions of dose-response relationship.Dustinlull (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source? JoelWhy? talk 12:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Cjwilky said that I misunderstood the homeopathic notion of strength, and the sentence reflects that. I wrote that sentence as an attempt to summarize this paragraph from this section:

Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body. This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in myriad experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats, and humans.

If something is wrong here, let's fix it first in the body, and then summarize it appropriately in the lead (if it still seems like one of the most salient facts), as suggested at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Cjwilky, can you explain the error? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "potentization" and "more powerful" - you'll find loads of homoeopaths saying that potentization makes the remedies more powerful. There must be a decent source there somewhere.

Hahnemann states in the Organon, aphorism 128, that "medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent". See also 269-270. Brunton (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks to Arthur Rubin for bringing it to the talk page :) I missed that.

In summary, I suggest leave it as I can't find suitable references at the minute, and as is said, most searching will find it written in the same way as is written here - so we'll have to go with mainstream homeopathy speak till I can find enough info to correct it.

For those interested, the reality is that the correct choice of potency and posology makes the remedy most effective, and therefore "stronger". Low potencies can be far stronger than high potencies. Indeed it is the case that a potency of say 30c may repeatedly help but symptom return, so the general process is to try a higher potency, generally a 200c, which can then do nothing. Likewise if a 1m, 10m, 50m, CM is used. In some cases going up a potency means a higher level of cure is obtained eg the symptom recede for longer or permanently. Sometimes it can be that by going down a potency, or even several potencies, a more permanent cure is achieved.

So, using the word "stronger" is misleading. What is more accurate is that a higher potency is more refined, or has a greater clarity. The more similar it is to what is needing to be cured, the more effective a higher potency will be. Material doses of things are low potency and will work on most people eg opium will calm you. Higher doses need to be more spot on, so a 10m will only calm when the person is in a specific "opium state" of irritability.

Further excerpts from my advanced course in homeopathy are at.... ;)

Cjwilky (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Cjwilky. Does the word "potency" have a special meaning in homeopathy? This page has a (poorly written) definition that suggests that in mainstream medicine, a drug is more "potent" if a smaller dose is needed to get the therapeutic effect. The current version of the article doesn't define potency even though the word plays a prominent role. Can someone find a definition from a good source in the homeopathy literature? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Levy, G (1986), "Kinetics of drug action: An overview", Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 78 (4 Pt 2): 754–61, doi:10.1016/0091-6749(86)90057-6, PMID 3534056
Boyd, Windy A; Williams, Phillip L (2003), "Comparison of the sensitivity of three nematode species to copper and their utility in aquatic and soil toxicity test", Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22 (11): 2768–74, doi:10.1897/02-573, PMID 14587920
Goldoni, Matteo; Vittoria Vettori, Maria; Alinovi, Rossella; Caglieri, Andrea; Ceccatelli, Sandra; Mutti, Antonio (2003), "Models of Neurotoxicity: Extrapolation of Benchmark Doses in Vitro", Risk Analysis, 23 (3): 505–14, doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00331, PMID 12836843
Yu, Hsin-Su; Liao, Wei-Ting; Chai, Chee-Yin (2006), "Arsenic Carcinogenesis in the Skin", Journal of Biomedical Science, 13 (5): 657–66, doi:10.1007/s11373-006-9092-8, PMID 16807664

A few good sources?

Can someone recommend one or two thorough, authoritative sources on the theory and practices of homeopathy, and one or two thorough, authoritative sources on the evidence regarding homeopathy's effectiveness? I looked a little at Google Books, and found a great many sources—way too many. I am not an expert on homeopathy, so it's hard for me to know where to begin. For example, I found Hahnemann's 1833 book easily enough, but I don't know if the first edition is the best one to summarize or if a later edition is better. (The consensus among Darwin historians is that the first edition of The Origin of Species is best, and the later editions mostly muddled things up.) I figure that to do some serious editing, I should read one book by Hahnemann, one comprehensive modern pro-homeopathy book for the lay reader, and one comprehensive modern critique. Which books do you recommend? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann developed some of his ideas further after writing the earlier editions. The 5th (the last one published during his lifetime) and 6th editions seem to be the ones that homoeopaths generally cite. Brunton (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brunton. I'm about to do some traveling. Hahnemann's 5th edition might make some good airplane and hotel-room reading. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann continually developed his ideas and adapted his practice and also went back to using older techniques. As Brunton says the later editions are better. The 5th is the best to read as the 6th goes onto other methods of remedy preparation and can be confusing. The 5th edition translated by Herring is generally seen to be the best. However, I'd suggest reading a summary rather than the original - will look out for one. Meanwhile if you want to dip into the Organon - Herrings translation is here http://www.homeolibrary.com/NewHomeo_2011/NEW_KENT/ORGANON_Hering/index.htm

I think we can all agree homeopathy isn't straightforward! Hahnemanns ideas were developed by many people, and in general I'd say methods have become more versatile whilst not necessarily being methods Hahnemann might agree with. I guess the key thing is what is homeopathy currently. I'm not sure I can suggest the best NPOV intro to that, but I'll look and get back to you.

Cjwilky (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See water.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats an inane comment even by your standards. Cjwilky (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, comment standards for homeopathy are quite low, since it is just water. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias and inaccuracy

I think the article is kind of biased. I will give an example.

The article states "These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, although there have been a few positive results" If you read the sources which support the sentence, however, they write:

CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. or

The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. and

In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. These statements don't really support the sentence These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, although there have been a few positive results.

They don't say that its effects are due to placebo. Please correct.--Alice1818 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No. How is writing that "studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos" biased, based on the sources cited? They aren't saying that 'effects are due to placebo', they are saying that homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos. If you can't understand the difference between the two statements, I suggest you need to improve your comprehension skills. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories: