Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:51, 23 February 2008

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is within the scope of the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Homeopathy. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 26, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

I've changed 'remedy' into 'substance' for no sources of the effectiveness of this 'remedy' were cited. Furthermore, the encyclopedic value of this article is disputable.

This article seems to be full of POV-pushers

I've just found this article, and wouldn't you know that I find many of the most frequent anti-homeopathy editors here. Hello everyone! This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too. This article deserves better than where it is now...let's try to maintain the good wiki-spirit in this process. My apology if I'm sounding a bit arrogant or paternalistic, but coming to this article fresh, I can't help but feel that the editors here are asleep at the wheel (and seem to be proud to be asleep). Eeeeks. Dana Ullman 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than jumping in and calling people "POV pushers" (which is insulting), and referring to "anti" editors and "pro" editors, can't you just try and open a friendly dialogue and Assume Good Faith. I think you've been reminded of this before. This isn't going to get editors already here open to your point of view (you know, the "POV" that you're "pushing", in your words)--88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a helpful addition to the understanding of homeopathy, especially since "placebo effect" cannot be attributed to the mice. I've corrected the reference formatting by adding {{reflist}}. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, the placebo effect is complex. If the vet or other people around the animals know which ones are getting the verum and which one the placebo, the animals can react to the (unconsciously signaled) expectations. (More likely to play a role with horses or dogs than with mice.) If the vet or technicians evaluating the improvement of the animals are aware of who's who, then their evaluations can be influenced by their own expectations. (Whereby the subjective element for some measures is greater than for others.) There is no excuse for not blinding a study at anything above the pilot level, and the results reported from a non-blinded study should always be treated with caution. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

88, you're right: maintaining good faith is so important to wikipedia. Perhaps then, you and other editors who have worked on this article can show good faith by explaining why this article asserted that there was "no" research testing this medicinal substance. "No research" is a very precise and absolute assertion. I find that it is interesting that certain editors are very good and fast in inserting references to anti-homeopathic literature but ignore and even delete references to good research published in high impact journals when the results are positive. Dana Ullman 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Defies logic

If a patient is suffering from arsenic poisoning, because they are being exposed, via the water you drink, to arsenic, in the amount of X per day, how is giving dx, where dx is an additional but infinitesimal amount of arsenic, for a total of X+dx, going to "remedy" the arsenic poisoning? It doesn't. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WnEo46h4A, which discuss homeopathic dillution. I will be adding this to the article. TableManners 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source (without the video):

• Williams, Nathan (2002-11-26) Homeopathy: The Test, Horizon (BBC) Retrieved on 2007-01-26 (transcript)

youtube is probably not the best reference, but the BBC is per Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press. TableManners 08:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there TableManners. I have no problem with people being skeptical of homeopathy, though I do not yet understand people's skepticism of the primary principle of homeopathy: the principle of similars. I'm a little confused why you don't see the logic to the homeopathic principle of similars (treating like with like). I assume that you know something about and have respect for vaccinations and conventional allergy treatments, two of the few methods within conventional medical care that work by augmenting immune response...and what a coincidence, they utilize that principle of similars. In addition to the logic to using the homeopathic principle of similars is the body of animal and human clinical trials that have been conducted, have been posted here, and have been deleted by people who follow my contributions. Hopefully, you will help me maintain this information here, and perhaps, you can help refine the information so that it incorporates info about the semi-blinding aspect to some studies and the size numbers. As for the BBC's "test" of homeopathy, I suggest that you do some simple reading about the validity of that test. It was supposed to be a "repeat" of the work of biochemistry professor M. Ennis, but clearly, it wasn't: It wasn't until late 2003 (over a year AFTER the BBC had conducted their trial) that Ennis was shown the protocol that was used, and she was shocked to discover that there was little similarity between her trial and the one that was created by a "medical technologist" at Guys Hospital who had never conducted or published reseach on basophils (yeah, it was THAT bad!). Here's some more info about the BBC's and the 20/20 "tv experiments": There is more depth and breadth to homeopathic research than you may realize. Dana Ullman 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, why do you keep repeating this same arguments when it's been explained to you that they aren't valid on other pages? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ullman's studies

is by homeopathic manufacturer Boiron, published in a minor journal, and which says in the abstract that it's a pilot study ("This pilot study was conducted on 20 males and 19 females of village Dasdiya") where over a third its subjects dropped out. As such, it does not pass WP:RS.

The second article's site is not working at present. However, The New Scientist article and related piece have some oddities, but the one unrelated scientist interviewed says that he is "extremely skeptical". I'm sure w ecould track down response letters.

The third one is claimed to be in a "major journal" (J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987.)

Unfortunately, the journal "Human Toxicology" does not seem to actually exist, and an online search for the title () comes up with no reliable source. Adam Cuerden 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your objections. I also disagree with your selective quoting. The article actually stated:

"Although Gescher told New Scientist he is "extremely sceptical", he adds that the study is interesting."

Remember, consensus is an inherent part of the Misplaced Pages editing process. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Human Toxicology does exist. Not every publication is online (yet).

(2) Just because a homeopathic manufacturer such as Boiron has sponsored research does not make it invalid. Who do you think does the research on new medical drugs before they are marketed? Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As per point (1), in may exist, but it's certainly not a "major" journal, as the text explicitly claimed, as major journals, indeed, almost all minor journals, are indexed and so on so that researchers can find relevant articles. Per point (2) - To some extent, yes, however, strong regulatory binding does mitigate this, as does recent moves to force pharmaceutical companies to announce all trials when they start, so that the ones they don't publish can be known and inquired into. No such restrictions apply to Boiron, as far as I am aware, making their studies far more doubtful. Adam Cuerden 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is claimed that Human Toxicology is a major, high impact journal. So major and high impact that u+c

It's been 5 years since the New Scientist article. What has happened since? Any follow up? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened since the New Scientist's article 5 years ago? Did you not see the info about the HUMAN clinical trials that not only showed some clinical results but also showed significant objectively measured changes in various lab measurements. It is very challenging to do such human trials, and these researchers were impressively sensitive to the ethical issues involved in the use of placeboes in treatment, though they did have a placebo group in their studies (it was simply smaller than the treatment group). In referene to Adam C's statement above, I hope that people are seeing that he consistently provides partial information that only supports his point of view. I sincerely hope that we all make an effort to avoid the obvious truncating of quotes. Dana Ullman 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a self-described pilot study run by the same group as the mouse study. We can mention it briefly, but that's about it. Adam Cuerden 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The section about "Claims of efficacy" now has provided undue weight to the fringe-minority belief that this substance does something. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address this just. I'm not entirely happy with the study that is currently still there being included. It doesn't prove anything, and the conclusions are so weak--RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting properly sourced scientific data, without reaching a consensus with your fellow editors, is not the best way to edit Misplaced Pages (or any other encyclopedia). Using "fringe-minority belief" as justification is simply not acceptable. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to reconsider the AGF notice you have on your userpage. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Linde metaanalysis

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis . Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. ) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy ), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Linde et al, Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy, J Clin Epidemiol Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 631–636, 1999, doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7

Since Linde et al. have rejected the findings of their metaanalysis after further study, I believe the results from it should be considered superseded. Adam Cuerden 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam...in THIS case, you are mixed up on the various meta-analyses that this team has published. You're confusing their clinical meta-analysis published in the Lancet (1997) with the one I cite here (1995) which is their meta-analysis on environmental toxicology studies (animal research, not human). The meta-analysis to which I referenced here was published in a major toxicology journal. If you think that I'm wrong (though I'm not), please provide verification. My advice is: slow down a bit. You're getting sloppy (we all get sloppy when we do too much). Also, I deleted the reference to the Shang review because it didn't have any direct research on Arsenicum album (remember: THIS is the subject of this article). Dana Ullman 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Dana, but the 1994 (not 1995) study is being misused here all the same. Here's a quote from that article:

"As with clinical studies, the overall quality of toxicology research using SAD preparations is low. The majority of studies either could not be reevaluated by the reviewers or were of such low quality that their likelihood of validity is doubtful. The number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology"

You've ignored the findings of Linde et al, and instead reported the bits of data that suit your point of view. Hesperian 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, you're right...it is 1994, not 1995. Thanx. My writing pointed out that most of the 105 publications used in this meta-analysis were of low quality. I prefer to simply ignore low quality studies and instead only focus on the high quality one (this is not "cherry picking"). There are 9 points that are a part of the abstract to this meta-analysis. #6: "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects" (I reported this, and it was deleted) Point #7 says: "Four of 5 outcomes meeting quality and comparability criteria for meta-analysis showe positive effects from SAD (serial agitated dilutions) preparations. Point #8: Average percent protection over control in these preparations was 19.7% (this research was published in a leading toxicology journal; the authors are highly respected physicians who specialize in analyzing research design; this information is RS and V).

By the way, Hesperian's quote above continues and says: "Our indepednet analysis of high quality studies and meta-analysis of comparable experiemnts did show some surprising findings. First, experiments using the 'high' dilution range had higher quality evaluations than experiments in lower dilution ranges, making their validity more likely. Second, our reevaluation of results form these studies using the raw data showed that over 70% had positive effects. Finally, the meta-analysis also demonstrated positive effects for preparations in which no effect is expected when the data form multiple studies was combined. These studies provide the strongest evidence that 'solution'effects may indeed occur." My previous writing in this article provided this summary, but it has been deleted several times. I am concerned that Hesparian chose to truncate the quote above. I will assume good faith, and you can show good faith by you summarizing this body of information for this article. Is that reasonable? Let's be reasonable. Dana Ullman 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to note one other important fact here which I also previously wrote in the article (but that was deleted): Of the high quality studies, 27 were found to show "a high degree of evidence for activity. In contrast, only 13 sutides were found showing no effective in these dilution ranges." Dana Ullman 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to cite Linde et al., is it perhaps worth mentioning that Linde and Jonas don't seem to think that their work has proven homoeopathy effective? In a letter published in The Lancet in 2005 they wrote "Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"; presumably they wouldn't have felt the need to express this regret if their earlier work had established the effectiveness of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation in first paragraph

Friends, the statement "rare reports of arsenic poisoning from poorly-prepared homeopathic treatments have been reported" needs to be striked. First, it is a report from India with such a low dose of arsenic that it would be illegal to have in the U.S. or any European country. Dana Ullman 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a V RS backed statement, perhaps it could use some rephrasing? —Whig (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be V and RS, but it needs to be significantly changed or deleted because it suggests that a medicine that is impossible to buy or get in the US and Europe has undue weight. See, I'm learning Dana Ullman 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the V and RS statement because it shouldn't happen where you live sounds a bit like suppression of information. That doesn't tend to go down well on wikipedia. How about just adding a bit of context, if required? Then again, the statement is factual and this is a real scientific paper, and it is clearly notable that some (incorrectly) high doses are toxic --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This "V and RS" statement is a reference to a 1X potency, and yet, in the US, the OTC dose of this medicine is a 6X. Although I recommend deleting reference to this statement, I'm open to keeping it if there is adequate consensus, but you need to mention that this patient's experience took place in India with a 1X dose, and the American and European laws do not allow the over-the-counter sale of such toxic doses. In fact, the lowest potencies allowed of this medicine are 1,000,000 more dilute than the dose in this statement. Because my editing tends to be reverted, often without comment, can I ask you to make this change? Dana Ullman 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the information you've provided, but we need a source for the legal levels --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source: Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, published by the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the United States, it is updated yearly. This book is recognized by the US FDA as one of the compendiums of drugs. Once again, the dose in which Arsenicum album is an OTC drug is 6X. By the way, I appreciate your thoroughness. I really do. I hope that we can collaborate more together. Despite our differences, there is a lot upon which we can agree.Dana Ullman 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

An important study was deleted

The below statement was deleted without comment. This is a RS (the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field): Another animal study testing various homeopathic doses of arsenic on mice was published in a leading toxicology journal and showed statistically significant effects.

Based on the paragraph above that describes one more study, it seems a little funny (and inaccurate) to refer to all three studies as "preliminary." As for the mechanism of action, it wasn't until somewhat recently that we began to understand how aspirin works...and this didn't influence its acceptability. The reference to the "mechanism of action" has no place here. This article should emphasize what is known, not necessarily what is unknown (if we were to say what we don't know about something, then most of each article would discuss the various things we don't know. Further, this is an article about Arsenicum album, not the entire field of homeopathy. The reference #3, #6, and #7 and the partial sentence connected to it have no place here.

Here's what is presently written with my recommended changes (I suggest that we add the above study after reference #5): Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album; however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, among other things, says we cannot delete the mainstream view. No large-scale trials of the remedy itself have been done. However, there is strong consensus on homeopathy as a whole, and we can't weight small trials, at least one of which i s self-described as a pilot study, over large-scale analyses of the purported mechanism by which they would work. Adam Cuerden 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the study you advocate is from an obscure journal that is not available online, is not pubmed indexed, and which only gets 7 google hits under its title: , all seven of which are the exact same opinion piece which cites the article at the end. Calling this a "major study" being unfairly ignored is hyperbole of the most excessive sort; indeed, it's not even clear from the online sources if this is, indeed, on Arsenicum album or on some other arsenic-containing remedy. Adam Cuerden 08:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the description of that study in that opinion piece, which is similar to wording you have previously used, two questions: #1. Is this opinion piece your source for discovering this study, or are you the one who informed Mr. King of it for his opinion piece? #2 If not, then how are you aware of such an obscure article? Adam Cuerden 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Adam...please remember that not everything that is available online, and how you searched came up with much fewer references than when I just searched under Google Scholar using: Cazin "Human toxicology". It is referenced in several journal articles and in several books published by leading medical/scientific publishers. Further, this study in this respected journal was a part of the Linde meta-analysis (1994). This study was recognized by Linde et al as one of the high-quality studies, even though I didn't find it via Google as cited in this article (but I have a copy of it, and I not only see it there, it is highlighted by the authors). By the way, I previously erred. The "new" name of this journal is "Human and Veterinary Toxicology". Let's be fair, especially nowadays. Dana Ullman 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that not everything is available online, but such low numbers of references to it - your method gives 20, and none of them look particularly impressive - does seem to limit what claims can be made about its importance to somewhat less than what you are making it out to be. A search for "Human and Veterinary Toxicology" stops at #14, although it suggests that there are really about 365.

In short, it becomes somewhat difficult to consider this study notable unless you can provide some really good reason why. Adam Cuerden 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasons that the Cazin (1987) study is notable is that it was published in one of the leading journals in toxicology. It was conducted at a major French university and department of pharmacology. It showed a statistically significant result. It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial." It has had several replications that have confirms its results. It has V, RS, and 3rd party confirmation...it has them all. At this point, it is your responsibility to assert why it should not be in there. Dana Ullman 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying it's a leading journal of Toxicology, without offering any evidence to that effect, and it is missing most of the trappings of a major journal - pubmed indexing, actual mentions in the literature online. Adam Cuerden 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports lists 76 journals in the "toxicology" category. It doesn't list journals entitled "Human Toxicology", nor "Human and Veterinary Toxicology", but it does list a journal named "Veterinary and Human Toxicology". When listed in order of impact factor, H&VT ranks 68th out of 76 journals. Hesperian 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This journal gets more and more mysterious. Who publishes it? Adam Cuerden 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not mysterious at all. The correct name is Veterinary and Human Toxicology. I'm glad that you've confirmed that it is a recognized peer-review journal in toxicology. We can strike the word "leading," but it is still a NPOV source, and the various 3rd party referencing of this study make it notable. Oh...and here are some more new and NPOV references:

--BELON P., BISWAS S.J., KARMAKAR S.R., BANERJEE P., BANERJEE A., DAS J.K., PATHAK S., CHOUDHURY C., BHATTACHARJEE N., GUHA B. Is an elevated anticuclear antibody titer in subjects living in two groundwater Arsenic contaminated villages indicative of a time-dependent effect of Arsenic exposure? Environmental Science (2007) , vol 2 (1), 10-16 --BANERJEE P., BHATTACHARYYA S.S., PATHAK S., BOUJEDAINI N., BELON P., KHUDA6BUKHSH A.R. Comparative efficacy of two microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum album, to ameliorate toxicity induced by repeated sublethal injections of Arsenic trioxide in mice. Pathobiology 2008 in press Dana Ullman 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, it was you who initially described the journal of the Cazin paper as "one of the leading journals in toxicology". While I note you have now said " We can strike the word "leading,"", I would like you to tell us why you chose to describe it as "leading" in the first place. On what basis did you make that assessment? Once again I thank you in advance for your prompt reply.OffTheFence (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... it's not in press, as far as I can tell. Pathobiology publishes the contents of their next issue online: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=Ausgabe&Ausgabe=234549&ProduktNr=224272 and it's not listed there. In any case, science usually requires replication by independent groups. These articles are by the exact same people who did the other two studies already in this article. Adam Cuerden 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam, for now for providing an explanation for why you have been so adamant about deleting the 1987 study by Cazin, et al, published in "Human Toxicology" (previously mentioned). This newer work are the replication studies of the pervious work...and now, there are several replication studies...and further, there are a confirmatory human trial. This body of work follows ALL of the RS and V and NPOV that wiki loves. Will you now recognize the Cazin trial, and if not, how many more trials do you now want to delete from wikipedia on the similarly flimsy grounds that you have suggested for not accepting Cazin? Dana Ullman 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I refer to the varying ways in which you have cited the journal in which the Cazin paper appeared- "the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field"; "The "new" name of this journal is "Human and Veterinary Toxicology". Let's be fair, especially nowadays."; "It is not mysterious at all. The correct name is Veterinary and Human Toxicology". Please can you explain why you were unable to cite title of the journal correctly. Please also specify how the blinding was performed in this study. You wish it to be regarded as a "high quality study" and for it to be sufficiently reliable to be included in the Ars Alb page, the nature of the blinding and the adequacy of the controls are vital. I thank you in advance of your prompt attention to this.OffTheFence (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The abstract of "Is an elevated antinuclear etc", available here, appears to have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy. What makes you think it is a replication of Linde et al? Perhaps, Dana, you could lay out for me all the relevant published studies into this preparation, indicating the significance of each? Hesperian 04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, Environmental Science: An Indian Journal appears not to be indexed by any body at all. As far as dealers in reputable journals go, it apparently doesn't exist. Hesperian 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, you're right...THAT study is not a replication study. It verifies and specific problem, and THIS study shows the effects of homeopathic Arsenicum in help reduce the problem. This study was previously deleted from this article. And please slow down a tad and read my posts properly. I never said that this study was a replication of Linde's. My reference to Linde was that he referenced the Cazin study and confirmed it as a high quality study and one with significant results. As for that Environmental Science pub, it is a new pub and is not presently notable. Now, do you want to put in the Cazin study or shall I? Dana Ullman 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether the Cazin study should or shouldn't be included, as yet. I'm trying to form an opinion, but I am confused. I imagine it is at least possible that my confusion will not be resolved by "slowing down a tad and reading your posts properly." Considering you gave a wrong year above, a wrong journal title above, a wrong journal title in the article citation under dispute, and put forward a reference that turns out to be unsuitable for this article, I think you may bear at least a small portion of responsibility for my confusion.

I really think we could all benefit from you doing as I requested a post ago, and laying out all the relevent published studies into this preparation, indicating the significance of each. If I only had a clear idea of what had been published, what was a replication study of what, and the quality of each journal, then we might be able to get to the bottom of all this.

Hesperian 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for some of my errors (it proves I'm human). My initial posting made reference to several important studies and I provided some detail about them ]. Please note that Linde, et al (1994) is an important meta-analysis. Typical of virtually all scientific research, they found that most studies were not a "high quality." I recommend that we only evaluate and write about the results of the "high quality" studies. Cazin's work is mentioned specifically as one of the high quality studies. There have now been several replications of this work, and now, there have been human clinical trials (please note that this clinical trials not only found reduction of arsenic in the treatment groups, as compared with the control groups, the researchers also found certain increased laboratory measures that confirm a physiological effect experienced by those given homeopathic doses of Arsenicum album. Dana Ullman 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have finally found the absolutely correct reference to the Linde meta-analysis on homeopathic doses and environmental exposures. Here's the link: ]. The correct title of this journal is: Human and Experimental Toxicology. My apologies. On a different but still important subject, anyone interested in basic science evidence on homeopathic doses might benefit from reviewing: ]. You will note that his is a review of 67 in vitro studies, 1/3 of which of the trials reviewed here are replication trials. Dana Ullman 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I am curious and would appreciate a clear explanation. On 29th Jan 2008 you wrote, "Hesperian, you're right...it is 1994, not 1995. Thanx. My writing pointed out that most of the 105 publications used in this meta-analysis were of low quality. I prefer to simply ignore low quality studies and instead only focus on the high quality one (this is not "cherry picking"). There are 9 points that are a part of the abstract to this meta-analysis. #6: "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects" (I reported this, and it was deleted) Point #7 says: "Four of 5 outcomes meeting quality and comparability criteria for meta-analysis showe positive effects from SAD (serial agitated dilutions) preparations. Point #8: Average percent protection over control in these preparations was 19.7% (this research was published in a leading toxicology journal; the authors are highly respected physicians who specialize in analyzing research design; this information is RS and V)." You have now written, "I have finally found the absolutely correct reference to the Linde meta-analysis...". When you wrote what you did on 29th Jan, were you in possession of the full paper or only the abstract? I thank you in advance of your prompt reply.OffTheFence (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic Clinical Trials Are a Higher Quality Than Conventional Medical Studies (Lancet, 2005)

First of all, the Lancet (2005) article was not a "meta-analysis." It was a comparison of studies (conventional vs. homeopathic). Although many physicians and scientists have reported sharp critique of this study that has no external validity, this article ignores one of its important conclusions. The researchers found that 21 of the homeopathic clinical trials were "high quality," while only 9 of the conventional medical studies were of a similar "high quality." Because people in this article on Arsenicum album include a statement about the quality of homeopathic research, we need to have a statement that a more recent analysis and comparison of homeopathic and conventional studies found that "more than twice as many of the homeopathic studies were of high quality as compared to those testing conventional medicines." Although I suggest that the reference to Lancet and Int'l Journal of Epidemiology articles should be deleted, we should include this observation from the Lancet article if we are going to include them. Dana Ullman 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You and I must be reading different articles, or I'm just not getting what you're saying. But to quote the Lancet article, the conclude "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." Which means, homeopathy is no different than drinking water. Ooops. It is drinking water. There will NEVER be evidence that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo because 0 molecules of anything can't have any clinical effect. Although drinking that water is probably good for the kidneys and bladder. OrangeMarlin 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the Shang analysis found several medical trials to be inadequate for one reason or another as it did with the homeopathy trials. That is not surprising or important. The important conclusion is that as the quality of trial increased, the medical trials showed significant effects against the placebo while the homeopathic preparations showed little difference from the placebo. Acleron (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I know what article I'm reading, but it seems that you're only reading the abstact. Because you are chosing to being prolific in editing homeopathy articles, it would be helpful if you read the research, not just their abstracts. My statement above about how many trials Shang defined as "high quality" is absolutely correct. What is interesting (VERY interesting!) is that he never provided any statistical analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality conventional medical studies (luckily, a major journal will finally publish this analysis shortly). Instead, Shang asserted that although these high quality studies were all randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled, they were "biased" because they had under 80 subjects in them. By choosing to include only larger studies, he then limited the inclusion of studies to those that used only ONE medicine (or a placebo) for the treatment of everyone with the same illness (despite homeopathy's insistence upon individualization of treatment, except in a select minority number of conditions). In order for Shang's analysis to show homeopathy in a bad light he had to ignore two of the large 300+ clinical trials on the treatment of the flu with Oscillococcinum (he used only 1 of the 3 studies; and he used one pilot trial of using this medicine in the prevention of the flu...this trial was conducted by a competitor to the makers of Oscillo!). Shang also didn't include any of the high quality studies of Reilly at the University of Glasgow, and he didn't include the Jacobs' trial published in PEDIATRICS. As the Church Lady said, "How convenient." Dana Ullman 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your personal opinion of the Shang analysis, it has been accepted by the scientific community and no good criticisms of its conclusions or methodology have been published in the literature. I know you're aware of discussions that have rebutted your claims (a cursory Google search will show you've participated in these discussions and been shown to be wrong). --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In DUE respect, there have been a significant amount of critique of the Shang article, unless you now consider the Lancet to be non-RS. In fact, the letters published ripped up the Shang analysis, and Shang's response was inadequate. In addition to the published letters in the Lancet, several other peer-review publication have also published strong and credible critiques. Are you saying that you haven't seen these critiques. Dana Ullman 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that letters are just letters, no matter who publishes them. I'm also sure you're aware that all these criticisms have been addressed, unless you don't understand, or are refusing to understand (cf. serial dilution), the issues. This is understandable if you've had no scientific training. Why don't you ask for help on the bits you don't understand? --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand and don't need your help here in seeing the lack of external validity that the Shang paper had. Shang never responded to that critique, nor did he (or you) give us an analysis of the high quality trials. Do you or do you not have this analysis? Please give us this information or acknowledge that Shang purposefully left it out because it would give credence to homeopathy...or are you now saying that high quality randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials are "unscientific"? As for critique of the Shang paper, there are so many good critiques that there are even editorials about the junk science that it was: Are you now choosing to ignore editorials too? Dana Ullman 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes the Journal of CAM, hardly a RS for criticisms of Homeopathy; no bias there! --DrEightyEight (talk)

Just because a medical journal doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that it isn't RS. There has already been a lot of discussion on this topic, and this peer-review journal is a RS. Further, I couldn't help but notice that you did not answer my previous question: What was the analysis from the 2005 Lancet/Shang study on the 21 high quality homeopathic trials and the 9 high quality conventional trials? Further, now that others have brought up the issue of the quality of research at this article, this 2005 Lancet article shows that more than twice as many homeopathic trials are recognized as "high quality" as conventional medical trials. Should you make this editorial change or shall others? Dana Ullman 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you banned from editing the mainspace, Dana? That paticular finding of the Shag analysis is irrelevant here, and I know you're aware of previous places where this has been discussed with you. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If others have accepted the issue about research quality, this opens to door to a reference to Shang's Lancet article that showed that homeopathic research is more than twice as likely to be of a higher quality than conventional medical research, unless you prefer to delete all of the references to Shang's questionable "study." Dana Ullman 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shang took the best homeopathic trials they could find. Why do you find this remarkable? The main point is that when the the best trials where examined they showed the inadequacy of homeoptathy.Acleron (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge target

There seemed to be consensus at the AfD that this should be moved somewhere. Shall we try to establish a consensus where? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision was to KEEP this article, not to merge it. Dana Ullman 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana: what part of "The result was keep in the sense of "not delete". There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles, but that is a matter for editors to work out." did you fail to understand? Hrafn_Stalk 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that merging it to arsenic trioxide or water (or more accurately lactose) would be violently opposed by pro-homeopathy editors, and given that homeopathy is already quite large, would it be appropriate to suggest List of homeopathic preparations as the first candidate for an up/down vote on merger? Hrafn_Stalk 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be merged since it is notable in its own right. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and having just gone through AfD it would be pointless to continue the debate. Let's work on making this a good article, it is clearly notable, but if there is insufficient content to justify it being separate from a larger article of homeopathic remedies it can be merged at a later time. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The result of the AfD specifically noted that almost all !votes were to merge it somewhere, but that merge is considered keep as opposed to delete. If there really were two or more plausible merge targets, then keeping the article would still be appropriate, even if the consensus were to merge. And there was no finding the subject is "notable in its own right." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that you failed to provide a reason for your own vote and did not respond to a request for clarification, you should know that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. —Whig (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no justification in the AfD for the subject being notable, either (although there's a slight justification on this talk page, not in the article). And my "explanation" would be that the reasons given in the "keep" !votes justify my proposed merge, instead. (Which should have been clear to any readers.) Unless this is the prinicple homeopathic remedy, it should be merged into the list and then (if too long) be separated on other grounds. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It hardly matters, there is no rush to merge. If you think a merge is appropriate then propose it and post the banners. —Whig (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. We need to decide where to merge the article, before the detailed proposal is posted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to merge, I oppose your merge proposal. If you don't even know where you want to merge it, then I think that it is premature to discuss. —Whig (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An objective observer would probably find consensus to merge. As no such (objective observer) has appeared, we'll have to agree to disagree until the merge target has been specified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no merge target has been specified, so your desire to merge...somewhere...but nowhere in particular, seems just to be a desire to override the vote to keep. Please stop being disruptive. —Whig (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a number of potential merge targets were listed in the AfD; Arsenic trioxide, list of homeopathic preparations, water, homeopathy, bollocks, urine, alcohol, .... List of homeopathic preparations seems best. One could make a case for Arsenic trioxide, but I don't think it would be correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I could propose an appropriate merge target, but would interested in feedback as to whether there is a better target. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I have reported this disruption. Please stop. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I have reported your action as disruption. Please stop. Seriously, does anyone else have a suggestion for a merge target? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge it to the list of homeopathic preparations. I previously voted to keep it as an example. Seeing the edit responses, it would be better merged. Acleron (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nominator TableManners banned

I don't have a horse in this race, but, FYI, the person that nominated this article for deletion has been identified as a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinately. See .--Hjal (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo again??? Sheesh. That bugger has hundreds. Suppose it might have been more obvious had I been watching Richard Sternberg. Adam Cuerden 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside, uninvolved opinion from User:Keilana

Hello. I've been asked to provide my uninvolved opinion on whether or not a merge is appropriate, so here I am. Looking at the AFD, which was quite recent, it seems that the majority of editors wanted to keep the article. In my opinion, as there are so many potential merge targets, a merge would be quite lengthy and difficult to perform, and some of the content would likely be lost in the merge process. There is also the possibility of upsetting the currently shaky balance on other Homeopathy articles, causing more drama. Arsenicum album seems to have enough references to establish notability and verifiability, yet another reason to not merge. To boil this down: I do not think a merge would be appropriate at all. Keilana| 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Active sock puppetry by User:DrEightyEight and User:RDOlivaw here

Friends, it was discovered yesterday that these two editors were sock puppets of User:Unprovoked. I think that any and all of the comments that they have made above can now be ignored, and any and all edits and deletions that they did can now be undone. Is that right? It is more than a tad ironic that people who assert themselves as being definers of science, as arbitrators of what is a "reliable source," and as defenders of mainstream medicine are themselves not very reliable. Dana Ullman 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, thats not really how things work around here. Most of the things that they (singular I guess) brought up had some support from other editors. And even though they resorted to sock puppetry, lets stop with attacking them anymore. They already have egg on their face. Baegis (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of those accounts have been indefinitely blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. User:Unprovoked was blocked for 24 hours, and may choose to return to edit constructively. —Whig (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Baegis. It was not my intention to "attack" them anymore. I have only been actively editing on wiki since late November and am unclear on certain policies. I also felt that it was important to let other editors know about these socks because they were very active here and seemed to create the illusion of much greater support than really existed. Further, I am still concerned that some good references that I have given have still been deleted from the article (such as the study by Cazin). Other problems with this article:

-- The second half of the following sentence from the article is without substantiation. There is no specific reference to the research on Arsenicum album in any of the cited references. This half of the sentence needs to be deleted: "Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album; however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect."

-- I am not clear why this sentence is in this article because there are numerous studies using this medicine in animal trials. This sentence should be deleted: "It is generally accepted in medicine that conclusions as to the efficacy of any preparation cannot be made from a single study."

-- I have previously placed information in this article that was deleted without discussion. It should be re-inserted: Besides the above arsenic trials, there is a body of animal research using homeopathic doses of various toxic substances to reduce the effects of crude, toxic doses of that specific substance. A meta-analysis of 105 trials was published in Human and Experimental Toxicology. Although most of these studies were not high quality research, the studies that tended to show the most significant effects from homeopathic doses were the high quality studies. The researchers found that there were 40 high quality studies, of which 27 showed positive results from homeopathic doses (there were 50% more positive results than negative results). Of special interest were nine studies on mice which tested homeopathic doses beyond 15C that demonstrated a 40% decrease in mortality compared to mice in the control group.

Many people here may be familiar with the high standards of research for which Linde and Jonas are known. Their metaanalysis is WP:RS and WP:Notable. 24.5.193.22 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Dana Ullman 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards the sentence you thought did not belong in this article, I agree and deleted it. If reliable sources were removed without discussion then they should be reinserted or discussed. —Whig (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still many problems with this article, and my statement above describes some of these problems and gives specific suggestions for improving it. Unless anyone provides reliable and verifiable information for why the above changes should be made, these changes will be made. Dana Ullman 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana - have been busy, but better late than never... It sounds to me like the material you propose should be added.

As for User:DrEightyEight and User:RDOlivaw, it's not clear they're socks... they may simply have been using a common, public wireless connection. But we should discuss adding material on the merits alone, and again, the ones you propose look fine.

Regarding the sentence "It is generally accepted in medicine that conclusions as to the efficacy of any preparation cannot be made from a single study", that's true but not entirely relevant here. What might be noted is any findings of reviews of Arsen. Alb., or if none exist, that fact should be noted. regards, Jim Butler (t) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim, multiple checkusers and multiple arbitrators have already looked at the evidence and said it is convincing. On at least one occasion they used the same private IP, not a common, public, wireless connection contrary to the statements RDOlivaw made. There is not much chance of them being unblocked. —Whig (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Was speaking from old information. This place moves fast! cheers, Jim Butler (t) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Claims of Efficacy"

I don't mind the link to "Evidence based medicine" but find the link to the homeopathy article doesn't provide adequate NPOV. I also find it curious that this section quotes from the New Scientist article and uses only a skeptic's viewpoint, not the primary researcher's point of view, for which the article primarily focuses. I hope to find an appropriate quote and place it here. Any objections? Dana Ullman 06:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it... --Jim Butler (t) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing information?

Did we reach a consensus that this edit was acceptable and I missed it? PouponOnToast (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

and this? PouponOnToast (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. We cannot have this article completely gloss over the fact that homeopathy has very little serious proving of it's efficacy. Completely removing all detracting evidence is a serious violation of UNDUE. All of this has already been covered way up at the top of the page. Also, I have serious misgivings about the Linde study, especially in light of what has already been covered (see above, again). Baegis (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it was appropriate to remove that irrelevant material. The problem is that material had been added with the intent of "debunking" and discrediting homeopathy in general, and has no place in an article on arsenicum album. We should never underestimate the intelligence of Misplaced Pages's readers. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, but do you see existing consensus to remove it? Was there a discussion I missed? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that Dana's probation apparently allows for edits that are good but not discussed, I should be clear - I do not believe the entire section on effectiveness adds any value, but if we have to include the fringe studies by true believers, we also need to include the meta analysis that debunks them and the standard view that it's placebo. I consider Dana's edits to provide undue weight to a fringe view that this substance does something by removing any and all mention of the cited view that some people believe the substance does nothing. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana is not on probation. —Whig (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dana is. and . PouponOnToast (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you are mistaken to call that probation. —Whig (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Boldness

Per WP:BRD I have removed the difficult section on "Claims of efficacy" as it doesn't add much to the article generally and is the locus of dispute. I will not take reversion of this edit as edit warring whatsoever. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing research data that is WP:RS and WP:V does not improve this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert only some of the removed data? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

General studies on the homeopathic research should not be in this article, (unless, of course, you intend to merge the article into homeopathic concoctions, or whatever the appropriate article name is....), only studies related to this substance. I'll remove all comments, positive or negative, about homeopathy in general, unless there's some objection. (But that may be a different edit than PouponOnToast is talking about. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I supported your edit - in fact, I made it first. Arion reinserted only the positive statements about homeopathy in general. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the general Homeopathy probation, I don't think either of us can take further action without further discussion, especially, since I'm just coming off a 3RR block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article once, perhaps twice today. I don't intend to edit it again this week. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that general studies on homeopathic research should not be in this article, especially a meta-analysis which did not evaluate or include studies mentioned here on arsenicum album. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you reinclude them in this edit? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I only added back the studies on arsenicum album. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you review the edit I linked to? How was that edit adding back studies about arsenicum album? PouponOnToast (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Linde meta-analysis on environmental toxicology deleted

Arthur Rubin deleted this meta-analysis that includes information about the arsenic studies and confirms the of this high quality research. The meta-analysis provides a good review of animal research on environmental toxicology and has direct meaning/value to this article (please note that I am NOT referring to the Linde meta-analysis in 1997 on clinical trials...that is a different article). I recommend that we re-insert Linde meta-analysis on enviromental toxicology. The difference between THIS meta-analysis and the Shang (2005) comparison of studies is that the Shang meta-analysis does not include any of the research on Arsenicum (the subject of THIS article) nor on environmental toxicology. I recommend removing of those references unless someone can specifically cite that these articles reviewed and condemned this research as invalid or not notable. Dana Ullman 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman  19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article doesn't mention the subject, "Arsenicum album", or indicate that the meta-analysis mentions it. Even if it does, extacting information from a subclass of a meta-analysis is even more meaningless than the orginal meta-analysis, which is pretty meaingless, itself — at least according to the authors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, further up this page, I asked you a very specific question concerning your advocacy of that Linde (1994) paper. I shall, "assume good faith" and infer that you have failed to notice the question. Please could you attend to it.OffTheFence (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant Dana, rather than me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. I also agree that the removal is sensible regardless of one's opinion on homeopathy. If it was included here it could be included in every page that mentions homeopathy (to just as little useful effect). Mind you, that opens the larger problem of mentioning homeopathy on any pages in Misplaced Pages where they are shoe-horned in. See what happened here- http://en.wikipedia.org/Potassium_dichromate. If a perfectly innocent page about chemistry gets invaded by homeopathic fictions then they can legitimately be inserted anywhere. There are homeopathic remedies made from peregrine falcon and the light of Venus! Do we want homeopathy on pages about ornithology and astronomy. I'd have less objection if they were created under their cod-Latinate remedy titles then at least the reader knows what they are getting and can treat the information accordingly. On the other hand, regardless of what our friend Ullman claims there is simply no valid reference to support the clinical use of any homeopathic remedy so an honest NPOV statement can only be to say that they are used and leave it at that. No NPOV statement can be made to assert that their use is validated and I cannot see that Misplaced Pages's editing standards would allow the attempt to develop an argument about the validity of their use. The hurdle they must then get over is the "notability" of any particular remedy. OffTheFence (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for AGF. Back at ya. The Linde/Jonas metaanalysis (1994) was published in a WP:RS. Because I sometimes write from home (where I do not have copies of the specific papers in front of me), I sometimes write from memory. I mis-remembered the changed name of the journal in which this article was published (no big deal). The high calibre work of both Linde and Jonas is highly recognized. Reference to this meta-analysis is important in THIS article because it verifies that the animal trials with Arsenicum album mentioned here are recognized as "high quality" trials. Because some editors here insist upon evidence in reliable sources and notability, reference to the Arsenicum trials AND the meta-analysis are important. I'm not clear with any logic to delete either. Dana Ullman 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, you have not established that Jonas and Linde's work is high quality. The Linde meta-analysis is trivial and peripheral to the topic of this page unless you can cite an exact quotation from it that directly supports its relevance.OffTheFence (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:OffTheFence. And, further, even if Jonas/Linde is high quality, it cannot be used in this article unless it states a conclusion with respect to Arsenicum album. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence, I am a tad confused by your reference to Potassium dichromate above. I do not know a single wiki-editor who has suggested that reference to homeopathy be placed in articles on astronomy or on falcon. Unless a substance is quite notable in homeopathy and/or from controlled research, it should not be mentioned. Let's avoid making the straw man argument. However, there IS high quality research testing homeopathic doses of Potassium dichromate published in one of the most respected medical journals in the world ("Chest") in the treatment of COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die!) and which was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. This study was so notable that two (!) other universities are presently working to repeat it. I believe that the only reason that this information is not included in the Potassium dichromate article is for POV reasons...the wiki-spirit was lost here. Can I ask you to show good faith and for you to re-insert the information about this study? Dana Ullman 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, good journals sometimes let through weak papers. Your tendency to hyperbole does not help gain support for that Chest paper. It was at best a very indirect and poor test of a homeopathic remedy in COPD. Is that specific study really the model system you would have chosen? COPD was a co-factor amongst too many other variables. You need to get a better sense of proportion. Overall, the homeopathic research record is exactly what you would expect from a placebo therapy. Weak effects in poorly designed studies will inevitably turn up. These effects are not notable in any sense of the word.OffTheFence (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The results of the CHEST study showed "substantially significant" results, and every patient who were received the homeopathic medicine, except one, got significant improvement, as measured by three different measures. I'm not clear why you do not consider these results notable, especially since there were no statistically significant differences in the treatment and control groups prior to treatment. Further, the published critique of this study by David Collquon (spelling?) didn't question or criticize its statistically analysis. Our conversation here is off-topic, and I hope that you will also consider responding to the 1994 Linde/Jonas environmental toxicology meta-analysis. I assume that we are on the same page with this paper. Dana Ullman 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, the phrase "substantially significant" does not appear in my copy of the Frass paper. Where exactly are you quoting from? Agreed this is off-topic, but serving to illustrate the point that not every published paper is notable and especially when it is not a proper test of the hypothesis you wish to prove. The scientific literature is full of odd and incorrect results. The paper that first showed something important that was subsequently robustly replicated may then achieve notability, but not before. The page I am on with Linde (1994) is the page that says it should not be included unless it contains something germane to the topic of the page. You have not given us an adequate quotation from it to make your case and you are the one that presumably is in possession of the full text. OffTheFence (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the Frass study on COPD, here are its results: The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 ). Correct me if I'm wrong: when p < 0.05, this suggests statistical significance, but when p < 0.001, it is substantially significant. These results were beyond this result. These results were impressive. As for the Linde comment, I will get the specific quote from the Linde/Jonas (1994) meta-analysis about the arsenic studies shortly. DanaUllman 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I ask again, with regard to the words in quotation marks, which are implied by that punctuation to be a quote from the proximately cited reference do you now confirm that the phrase "substantially significant" does not, in fact, appear in the paper but is your interpretation?OffTheFence (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, meta-analyses are tricky. Only if Linde specifically states the results are significant with respect to Aresenicum album, can we list it in this article. Including it here because a study included in the meta-analysis would be significant if considered alone is clearly WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Frass et al study was severely criticised because of the clinical difference between the placebo and treated groups before treatment. These problems do not make this study notable or its results remarkable Acleron (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Acleron...you made me laugh with that one. You are quoting a blog. Because I do not think that you are now proposing that wikipedia changes its RS rules, I encourage other editors to ignore that one.

As for the Linde (1994) meta-analysis on environmental toxicology, page 485-6, it says {note: the words in these funny parenthesis are mine, for clarification purposed only}: "Twenty-six SAD (serially agitated dilutions) tests (11%) met the critera for meta-analysis (same toxin, dose, route, SAD, outcome measures and QE over 50%) and had at least 3 experiments with these characteristics {the Cazin trial was one trial referenced here}. These experiments warrant detailed description. 12 independent tests used the C7 SAD preparation of arsenic. These tests were conducted at the laboatory of Professor J.C. Cazin, University of Lille, France {Cazin trials cited again}.... Protective Indexes calculated independently from the combined raw data revealed increased arsenic elimination in the SAD groups over controls by 19.6% (95CI 6.9-32.4%) in urine, and 25.5% (95CI 8.9-42.1%) in faeces. Blood levels of arsenic were reduced by an average of 6.1% (95CI 3.2-9.2%) over controls in the SAD groups. The C7 SAD preparation used in these experiments had a calcultaed arsenic concentration of 5 times 10 (-18){to the negative 18th power), a 'medium' dilution by our criteria, but well below the concentration of any previously reported effects from this toxin." DanaUllman 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is proposed that the blog Acleron mentioned be quoted in the article - it is just being cited here as a critique of a paper you have repeatedly cited. Do you have any response to the criticisms of the study expressed in the blog post in question, or in the comments to it for that matter? Merely saying that they are not good criticisms isn't really good enough (nor is claiming that the authors of the original paper "blew his weak critique out of the water" if you can't provide a reference to this). Brunton (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(to Dana) that doesn't state signficance. It would be clearly OR to state such in the absence of such a statement in the paper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Brunton...Actually, it is YOUR responsibility to make the case that the critique given at that blog is notable and is a reliable source. If not, move on to a critique that has that.

Arthur...my point in referencing the Linde meta-analysis is that they recognize the Cazin study as a "high quality" and the fact that they (and others) make reference to the Cazin study verify its notability. The fact that several other studies have verified the efficacy of homeopathic Arsenicum album in helping to excrete crude doses of arsenic showed that this research has been repeated by independent parties. At this point, it would seem that resistance for inclusion is stonewalling. A strong case has been made. DanaUllman 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So reference Cazin. Linde should not be included in this article except to support comments on Arsenicum album. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand why you had to admit the Cazin trial, though I'm confused by your words about Linde. Meta-analyses are even more notable than single studies, and the Linde article makes specific reference to Arsenicum album studies and even gives specific % benefits. What is missing here? DanaUllman 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the Linde meta-analysis, how is the reader to know that the Cazin trial was of high quality? —Whig (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically if Cazin is a high-quality study, and Lynde specifically says it is, then Lynde should still not be named in the text. It should read something like: In a high quality study, Cazin found ... . The general conclusions of Lynde are irrelevant, and there are no claims that Lynde specifically found AA effective. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not proposed that the critique from the blog be used as an authority in an article: it is being put forward here to question whether the Frass study is as notable as you seem to think it is. The notability or reliability of the blog do not affect the validity of the criticisms (which you appear to be unable to rebut). Brunton (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we debate what people write on their blogs here? This is not a chat room, this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the Arsenicum album article. I realize you addressed this to Dana but I simply don't think it's appropriate. —Whig (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because criticisms of the Frass paper are relevant to whether it is notable, whatever their source. We are discussing the notability of the Frass paper, not of the blog. If an editor had posted the criticisms themselves without referencing them, rather than for convenience linking to somewhere else where they can be read, would we have to ignore the criticisms because they weren't from a RS? That would rather stifle debate, wouldn't it? Brunton (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur_Rubin, sometimes each of us does so many things that we do not read accurately. My quote above from the Linde paper gives a specific statistic about the efficacy from using Arsenicum album. As for Brunton's obsession with a blog, please note that CHEST published a critique of the CHEST study on COPD, and the authors of the study responded to this critique adequately and effectively. I do not consider the blog notable or a reliable source, nor is there evidence that it is. DanaUllman 15:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it in Linde, at least not as quoted here in any of the incarnations that I've checked. But even if it is there, we shouldn't use it unless Linde makes a conclusion about AA. Selective quoting from meta-analyses is one of the best examples of WP:OR by selection that we have. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will simply quote the statistics that the Linde article has found. This is not wp:or. Based on what you've written, it sounds like you do not even have the Linde (1994) article. Please be careful of stonewalling. DanaUllman 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"WP:OR by selection" doesn't even seem to make sense. —Whig (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Excerpts from a meta-analysis, except a stated conclusion, and possibly statements on the quality of the underlying analyses, will almost always be incorrect. We need to take note of that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that your non-answer to my question means that you do not have the article. Any quote could be accused of "selective quoting," especially if you don't have the article. Please be careful here. DanaUllman 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Research Studies improvements

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states: "however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community." Because none of these 3 references make specific reference to the Arsenicum album studies, this part of the sentence has no place here. As my friends might say, this is .

Under "Research Studies," the New Scientist article starts by referring to this study as having the researchers describing their study as having "highly promising results." It is strange that our article here only quotes the skeptic rather than the researcher. Further, the article at present says: "However, Andreas Gescher, a biochemical toxicologist interviewed by New Scientist, said "This kind of study uses a dilution so high there is hardly anything there... Is it really possible?" and went on to say that he was "extremely skeptical"." The New Scientist article noted that although Gescher was "extremely skeptical," he also referred to this study as interesting. DanaUllman 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important we make clear that criticism exists of homeopathy generally, but mainly this can be summarized in a short sentence and directed to the main Homeopathy article for studies that are not specific to Arsenicum album. —Whig (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cazin (1987)

Friend Dana, I think it would be helpful to consolidate discussion of the Cazin paper and bring it to a final conclusion as to whether it should be referenced in the Article. 1. Was the study randomised and blinded? 2. On the basis that a series of 'potencies' was used, did the study show that there is a monotonic increase in effect with increased 'potency' (i.e. increased dilution/repeated replacement with solvent)? The importance of the second question is that, if the study was well-performed, as will be resolved by reference to the first question, then its results may be consistent with an effect of supra-Avogadrean dilution of white arsenic but it would also give strong evidence against one of homeopathy's core doctrines. A secondary issue arises, that if the study was not well-performed then the credibility of your Linde (1994) meta-analysis is undermined despite your having said, "It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial."... Dana Ullman Talk 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)". I would be grateful for the page, paragraph and line in the Linde (1994) paper where the phrase included in your quotation marks was used in relation to the Cazin paper. In passing I note that Linde reported that "1.3" percent of the papers they examined (Table 3b) reported randomization of their samples. I am intrigued to know how that figure of 1.3% was achieved given that the denominator of the fraction was either 105 studies (Abstract, point 3) or 116 studies (Pg 484, Para 1, Line 8). Linde and his colleagues seem to have invented a non-integer way of counting research papers.OffTheFence (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottomline is that the Linde (1994) described the Cazin trial as "high quality." Blinding is a necessary (!) component of high quality. I could re-review the paper to find out if it was randomized, but before I do so, can you clarify how randomization of mice would help or hurt an experiment of this type? (You got me laughing at that one.) I reported above and gave the exact reference to the Cazin paper, along with the page number for the quote. This paper doesn't deserved to be 88ed, I mean, 86ed. DanaUllman 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! OK then. Experimental Methods 101. I'm sorry, I can't believe I have to explain this. You do understand that experimental statistical methods came out of agriculture where exactly the same thing could have been said except that smart people realised that if you don't randomise experimental 'plots' some subjects get different growing conditions to others. In this example we are talking about hundreds of live animals who have to have been husbanded in a laboratory. We don't know if the rats all weighed similar amounts. We are not told that their ages were comparable. All sorts of things may affect the elimination of a toxin from a system. Hydration, food supply, temperature. We don't know the time period over which the experiments were run. Were the rats all bought in one batch then used sequentially, so their ages would be significantly different between the beginning and end of the experiment? The assays have to be be run by real people who can systematically introduce errors during the running of sequential batches of test samples. The list is endless. But, you don't need to worry about every item on the list of possible confounders if you apply sensible randomisations. If it was not randomised then it was not of high quality. If it was not of high quality, and only "1.3" percent of Linde's reviewed papers were randomised then what were they counting as "high" quality? They do not seem to specify how many "high" quality studies they had, but if it was more than 1.3% then their definition of "high" quality does not match that of anyone versed in good experimental practice. In which case, the bottomline is that although "Linde (1994) described the Cazin trial as "high quality."" Linde was not a competent judge. OffTheFence (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that in relation to their weights, the rats are described as "approximately 70g" (Pg 316, Para 4, Line 2- do you see how quotation marks work?) and they are "young, male Wistar rats". If they were only 70g then they were very young and and time delay in running different batches would result in biologically significant changes in their physiology, which emphasises the point I was making above about randomisation.OffTheFence (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is all original research, and this kind of debate should be sourced to a verifiable, reliable source. —Whig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages's jargon, that is correct and I have no desire to put in in the article. Friend Dana requires Cazin to be of high quality. It is not. All I have done on this TALK page is to show why it is not. He requires Cazin to be notable. Cazin might be notable if it was cited in a notable meta-analysis. Linde's meta-analysis is not notable because it is hopelessly badly done. So, neither Cazin nor Linde can appear in this article. That's all I have been trying to achieve. Well, and try top call our friend to account on his unverifiable quotations.OffTheFence (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered whether Cazin showed a montonic increase in effect with potency. Please address this issue.OffTheFence (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also keep asking you to say where you get the contents of your quotation marks from and you keep failing to answer. We had this same problem with your use of the phrase "substantially significant" which you placed in quotation marks, but turned out to be your gloss of the results not an actual quote. Quotation marks are for quotations. Please try to follow this simple rule. Persistent failure to do so may imply that you are attempting to pass off your own interpretations as quotations from your verifiable sources. Where exactly does Linde use the precise phrase "high quality" in relation to the Cazin paper?OffTheFence (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We do need to know that Linde calls the Cazin paper high quality. We do not need to evaluate its quality for ourselves, and should not do so inasmuch as our evaluations are unqualified and original research. If Dana can supply the direct quote from Linde regarding Cazin then perhaps that may be the thing to use. —Whig (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Whig, Dana does need to supply the direct quote. One problem is that Linde does not define the actual term "high quality" and nor does he use it in relation to Cazin. We may infer from Linde that they reagrded "high quality" as a quality evaluation (QE) score >50%, but this is not said explicitly. It is not specified exactly what is required to achieve this score. The score of the Cazin paper is not given, though it must be in the >50% class from Pg 485, Para 4. Be that as it may, I have demonstrated above that Linde's implied definition of "high" quality is objectively wrong. Would it help a Misplaced Pages article if a verifiable source could be found to say it rained potatoes on the Moon? Wiki articles must have verifiable sources, but it cannot be reasonable to included verifably sourced falsehoods or misrepresentation without qualification. That must be part of the purpose of these Talk pages: to eliminate the "verifiable" but untrue.OffTheFence (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy, we do not concern ourselves with truth, only verifiability. —Whig (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to believe me when I tell you that I predicted that would be your response and had just come back to the computer to pre-empt it. I will now answer you directly. I am well aware that Misplaced Pages's rules will admit "verifiable" untruths. If Dana will admit that he wishes to engineer the inclusion of untruths by exploiting this vulnerability then so be it. I will however "assume good faith" and trust that no editor would deliberately wish to include untruths no matter how "verifiable" they were. We have seen so far, that even his alleged quotations are not verifiable, so the point is currently moot.OffTheFence (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new at this game, I see this is all covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Neither Cazin nor Linde are reliable sources because they are demonstrably of poor quality. They were in "peer-reviewed" journals, but not good ones and they have not been "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community" by virtue of appearing in such low-quality journals. The fact these two papers specifically are of low quality is illustrated by the many failings I have revealed them to have.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take your arguments to WP:RSN, and get some other opinions on whether Cazin and/or Linde are reliable sources for the purposes to which they are being used here. —Whig (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong to claim that your interpretation is the only possible one. I think Dana's interpretation is perfectly valid and by your own analysis above Linde considered Cazin to be in the >50% class, therefore by a verifiable, reliable source this study was high quality and I have no reason to believe it is untrue. I do not regard your meta-analysis as reliable at all and do not consider it appropriate or persuasive. —Whig (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, we are getting somewhere at last. "Dana's interpretation is perfectly valid" But he keeps putting things in quotation marks. I keep asking for the exact place where these quotations are drawn from and I have been unable to elicit an answer. I was similarly unable to elicit an answer about where the phrase "substantially significant" came from and that was because it was also Dana's interpretation and not an actual quotation from his source.OffTheFence (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say, that nowhere in Linde's paper do the authors explicitly state that QE>50% defines "high quality".OffTheFence (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Does OffTheFence still want to know if randomization took place in the Cazin experiment so that we can know with certainty if blue-eyed mice just happened to be in the treatment group in greater numbers than the brown-eyed mice (because we "know" that blue-eyed mice live longer). On a more serious note, the Linde paper required that the studies included in their final meta-analysis had to have a QE of 50 or greater AND had to have "no major methodological deficiencies." Let's move along. And please, OffTheFence, stop your personal attacks. If my edits have untruths, please provide verifiable of them. Show us your evidence...and please do not allege that my quotes above are not "verifiable" just because you personally do not seem to have a copy of the article. DanaUllman 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do want to know. Thank you.OffTheFence (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to confirm that I do have the paper in front of me, how the heck else do you think I have been giving the precise citations that I have been using? I am telling you that nowhere in that paper does Linde call Cazin's paper "high quality". You keep putting that phrase in quotation marks, please tell me from where you are quoting it in relation to Cazin's paper specifically. Remember, to be in quotation marks it must be an actual quote not your inference of the author's meaning.OffTheFence (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. The potential untruths are whether the things in your quotation marks are actually quotes from the contexts you are citing and also the larger issue of whether the papers' conclusions are true or untrue. The former can be easily resolved by you giving the correct citation from where you are deriving the quotation. The later is the subject of reasonable debate. I cannot prove that the author's findings are untrue, but I have shown enough that you should not reasonably cite their findings as true. I am meaning true as in logicaltrue/logicalfalse, not true as in truth/lie.OffTheFence (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence seems to be stonewalling. He claims to have the paper in front of him, but he seems to have not noticed or admitted to have read the Abstract. Point #6 here says "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects." You can say "whooops" now so that we can move on. In the article (page 485), these numbers are described in more detail, and the studies described have aQE of 50 or greater. Further, on page 483, in the discussion on "Quality Evaluation," the authors noted that their QE system "consisted of between 24 and 31 criteria (depending on the model studied) and evaluated. Are we finally ready to move along? DanaUllman 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if that was your problem. The quotation from the abstract asserts the phrase "high quality" but does not define it. What it does say is that "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects." That "50%" term is not being defined in that line as the criterion of "high quality" it is saying something about the character of high quality studies in relation to effects reported within them. On page 485 it says "Only 43% had a QE score over 50%". It does not define a class of studies called "high quality" if their QE exceeds 50%. On the same page it says, "Twenty six SAD tests (11%) met the criteria for meta-analysis (same toxin, dose, route, SAD, outcome measures, and QE over 50%)". It does not include the phrase "high quality" that you placed in quotation marks. QED. By the way, you have now accused me of lying about whether I have the paper. I hope this has effectively demonstrated that I do have it. I will accept your apology graciously.OffTheFence (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if OffTheFence still has any objection it should be taken to WP:RSN. —Whig (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have drifted away from my first question. Was the Cazin study blinded and randomised?OffTheFence (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we say that it was blinded and randomised? —Whig (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We need Dana to tell us if it was blinded and randomised. If it is neither then it is not a "reliable source", so we need Dana because he has the paper.OffTheFence (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not need Dana to perform a meta-analysis. If we wish to say it was blinded and randomised, then we must have a reliable source which says so. Otherwise, we can only say what the sources say. —Whig (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. Dana has the Cazin paper so he can tell us whether it says it was blinded and randomised. I don't know where else that information could come from. This is not asking him to do a meta-analyses or original research, it's just asking him to quote accurately from a paper of which he already has a copy. All we're asking him to do is read it and quote from its Materials and Methods section.OffTheFence (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pending Dana providing verification of the reliability of the Cazin study I have altered the article text to a more modest form. If Dana cannot demonstrate that the Cazin study was blinded and randomised then it is confirmed as not reliable and I shall remove reference to both it and the Linde study. Linde would have to be eliminated because it would have proven to be non-reliable.OffTheFence (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed as not reliable. You may be unfamiliar with our verifiability policies, which do not require sources to be double blind randomized control trials. However, if this is a valid criticism of the study then surely you can find a third party reliable source that makes a similar case which can then be included -- assuming it's even an accurate criticism. —Whig (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent Meta-Analysis

Should we even be calling the Linde study an "independent meta-analysis"? Being that Linde is a member of the Centre for Complementary Medicine Research at Technische Universität München (conflict 1), he has been quoted elsewhere supporting other alternative treatments (acupuncture (conflict 2)), and a sizable number of his publications are of the support for alternative treatment variety (3). Does anyone else see an issue with calling this independent? It also doesn't help that it was published in a journal with a low impact factor and a fairly dismal rating. As mentioned by OffTheFence, this does not help it's overall quality. Not everything in a "peer-reviewed" journal is necessarily an RS. Baegis (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I had been meaning to remind others of this, but with poor quality papers in "peer-reviewed" journals, the peers are by definition peers of the authors. Peer-reviewed has come to mean "high quality" but that is a false equation. It simply means reviewed by peers! Always ask, "Who are the peers?".OffTheFence (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is sheer namecalling at this point. Take it to WP:RSN if you think it is not a reliable source, and make your arguments there. —Whig (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN won't answer the problem of calling it independent. And this is a perfectly legitimate place to argue the merits of this study, because it will greatly help the article once it gets resolved. Continually referencing a study that only one party has a full copy of is not how things should function. Baegis (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence says that he has a copy. As for Linde, if you review his publication history, you will find that he has been published in many WP:RS journals with a high-impact and that he reports his findings objectively. The word "independent" is accurate in the context used in this article because they were not analyzing their own research but that of others...and they used a significant and impressive body of criteria for this analysis. DanaUllman 23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think his objectivity is highly suspect considering his other published support for alternative medicines. Just because he published some things in a quality journal by no means everything he publishes is gold. Same thing applies with Martin Chaplin, as I have told you previously. This particular study, in a low impact and low rated journal, regardless of it being peer-reviewed, is hardly independent, considering its lead author. I don't take issue with it being present, if and only if the questions brought up by OfftheFence are answered. If this was such an important meta-analysis, why is it 14 years old and no subsequent ones are discussed? Also, I have seen it constantly cited in nearly every homeopathic article on the web. One can only guess as to why it is held up as glorious proof. Baegis (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis...in due respect, it seems that you haven't read the article here, but are just trying to argue. The fact of the matter is that there have been numerous follow-up studies to Cazin's set of studies...and they are referenced here. Further, there was a follow-up human trial...with clinical results and objective finding on liver enzymes. Please avoid stonewalling. And Linde seems to be an "advocate" for good science and for differentiating high quality vs. low quality research. He is an expert physician/epidemiologist who reports with sophistication on trials. Please cite RS that claims that his objectivity is in question, and stop your OR. Stop the silliness...your credibility is going. DanaUllman 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987