Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 6 February 2008

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

	Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Homeopathy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

the homeopath perspective

Some homeopaths, who are a minority in the medical field, contend that many studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect other than placebo, and that placebo-controlled, randomized, and blinded clinical trials are not the best research tool to test homeopathic effects. Please bring the appropriate sources. Thanks, Quack Guru 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is basically fine, and needs citations where the fact tags are placed. —Whig (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i think that the tags should be placed at the end of the relvent pragraph to avoid the ugly mess that is created when tags are slapped every atwhere at random. Smith Jones (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, inline tags are best to keep from having a string of tags at the end. —Whig (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. placing all the tags at the end is not by original opinion. I only said that one tag should be placed at the end since the whole paragraph is unsourced claptrap and a source that addresses one of them shoudl easily address them all. and if it is clear that he sources have not way of being verified in a timely manner, they should be removed until a source can be found. Smith Jones (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When you post something, could you provide a bit of context, so people are not completely lost? I did not understand why you posted that. To me it looked like a sarcastic remark about homeopathic practitioners. Jehochman 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree with user:jehochman about the importance of context in describing an issue. Smith Jones (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The confusion here seems to be in taking what Quack Guru wrote sarcastically. Take it literally, what's wrong with it? It can't be posted to the article space without citations. —Whig (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. The lack of references is so obvious, I thought it was sarcastic. Jehochman 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be basically correct as a matter of fact, however, so it should be possible to find appropriate RS & V citations. —Whig (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I do a lot of reference fixing, and it is astonishing how often a statement needs to be adjusted a little bit (or a lot) to match what the references say. For maximum accuracy, it would be better to find the references first, and then craft the statement. Jehochman 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<<< Here is one reference: A meta-analysis and three systematic reviews suggest that in ‘good’ quality trials, homeopathy has a significantly greater effect than placebo , although the strength of the effect is disputable and engenders much debate. "Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C". doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2003.01900.x. Retrieved 2008-02-03. {{cite web}}: Check |doi= value (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is another: "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. - PubMed". Retrieved 2008-02-03. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Have these sources been incorporated? I cannot find that sentence in the article any longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing of that statement would not be supported by the sources provided as yet, and the phrasing is simply awful, serving only to give WP:Undue weight to a bold assertion. The NCCAM report on homeopathy gives a summary of metaanalyses up to the date of the report, and the only unambiguously positive one is the Linde 1995 study which the authors later disowned the conclusions of. I have no objections to saying that homeopaths point to the few positive studies, or claim that science is unable evaluate homeopathy - the last could easily be sourced to Lionel Milgrom, who does claim that. However, that sentence, as it stands, is pure POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Find the references first and then simply tweak the sentence and wording. Or just explain the homeopaths viewpoints or claims. It must be backed up by reliable references and carefully worded. Quack Guru 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not acrtively editing this article, just providing sources that can be used as requested, so fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"controversial" in the lead

It's quite clear that reliable sources establish that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. It's also clear that there's a fair amount of controversy about homeopathy, particuarly in Britain. However, I don't think that the lead should start "Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of alternative medicine..." It's not necessary to stuff conclusions down the reader's throat at the beginning of the article. We should assume that the reader is able to digest the material in the article and come to his/her own conclusions. For me, this is not a problem of neutrality, it's simply one of encyclopedic style.

I'd prefer that the lead go something like "Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that employs remedies made from substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat." That way, we start off with a concise, non-evaluative definition of the subject, and move on from there. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We could do that, but the word controversial is not biased. It satisfies some users here. It makes it perfectly clear, so that in case the reader doesn't know that alternative medicine is controversial -and some might not- then we tell them. And, it isn't a conclusion, just a statement of controversy. Personally, I think it is very good just where it is. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word "controversial" should not be in the very first sentence. The fact that there is controversy is obvious to the reader as he or she comes to the discussions of clinical trials. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Definite disagreement. We have seen this discussion from some of the same editors far too many times. There is now an article probation that should put a stop to this stonewalling and repetition of endless attempts to whitewash the article. Please stop it. I suggest you read this and understand that the pseudoscience category is approved and continued attempts to hide or push down the controversial nature of this subject are disruptive. There happens to hardly be any subject in alternative medicine that is more controversial, and the whole debacle and controversiality of this whole editing environment happens to be yet one more proof of it. The probation needs to be enforced. -- Fyslee / talk 07:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, I hope you're not accusing me of stonewalling or whitewashing. Because I think it's obvious that homeopathy is pseudoscience, and I've said so on this talk page. I just don't think the article needs to say so in every sentence. In particular, I think the first sentence of the article should be a simple definition of homeopathy. Let's assume that the reader is intelligent and capable of getting through the first four paragraphs of the article--anyone who does so should realize that homeopathy is a non-scientific practice, to say the least.

By the way, this edit changed the beginning of the third paragraph, and I think it was much stronger as "The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge." I think this sentence should be changed back. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, don't worry. I was carefully excluding you in my thinking when I wrote "some of the same editors". Maybe I should have said it, and am doing it now. Sorry about the confusion. You have not been among those commonly considered as the usual suspects. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps you're right. I just removed a clause which, although it could (or its negative) be in a reasonable version of the sentence, was in the reverse context. However, I don't think changing it back (once) would be a violation of the imposed article probation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. There's been quite a bit of reverting that has gone unsanctioned, and in any case if you made the change you're talking about, it would obviously be in good faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the change to the third paragraph, because Martinphi's edit had softened criticism and dislocated some references. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and said this several weeks ago (years ago?? ;-) ). It is already called "alternative"; adding controversial piles on the slant here in a way that I feel is clearly not normal encyclopedic style. Just as in a debate, a topic is put out first and defined, then the debate begins.

But even if it were a topic that I was diametrically opposed to and disgusted by how it had nevertheless made inroads into societal sanction -- for example, creationism or intelligent design -- I would never advocate calling them controversial (or, for example, contentious, or discredited, etc.) in the first clause of the first paragraph of the lead. While appropriate for persuasive writing, it is not appropriate for a piece of expository writing. I doubt you'd ever find a respectable reference work that would put that in the first sentence (or at least the first clause): first define the thing, then comment on social effects of it. I also feel that it negatively affects the regard that WP is held in to allow such language to stand.

I am open to having my mind changed on this... but, for example, in creationism and intelligent design, the first sentence is dedicated to simply setting out a nutshell definition of the topic.

And please, I know h. is controversial -- I don't want to hear "but it IS controversial and that NEEDS to be stated!"... of COURSE it needs to be stated. Not in it's current position though.

I realize that some "pro-homeopathy" people here support it because... well, I'm not really sure why -- I've only been dealing with this article since Wikidudeman was attempting his re-write, and I guess it was important for some reason.

I believe that using "controversial" in the first sentence of the lead ultimately detracts from the respectability of this article, and of WP in general. I don't believe you will find such language in the opening sentence even of respectable scientific references.

Additionally, Fyslee: only speaking for myself, I heartily object to the tenor of your objections above, and feel your language just adds insult to injury for someone who in good faith objects to language and labels which are in the current article and have been for a while. In other words, you're getting your way, how bout toning it down? Friarslantern (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One reason the POV pushing persists is that editors on both sides are warring to push their favorite POV instead of allowing NPOV. The way it is used here, "Controversial" is a weasel word. It represents POV pushing. Misplaced Pages should start by explaining what homeopathy is,the reasoning behind it, and the criticisms with sourcing. Instead of branding a subject "controversial", we need to specifically say who is opposed and why. Jehochman 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, "controversial" is helpful: It clearly indicates that the subject is under dispute, e.g. not mainstream (WP:FRINGE), but without forcing us to go into too much criticism before we define it a bit better. Adam Cuerden 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, placing "controversial" in the first sentence makes the tone of the article a bit shrill. Criticism of homeopathy starts in the third paragraph. I know that people have short attention spans these days, but I think we can trust most readers to make it through the lead. If someone reads the third and fourth paragraphs and doesn't come away with the impression that homeopathy is controversial, adding the word to the first sentence isn't going to help them. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the essence of NPOV is show, don't tell. Jehochman 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Breaking my own rule to contribute here, the vast majority of readers will only read the first sentence. Readers should be able to get a rough idea of what homeopathy is from reading just one sentence. We should not be dictating that readers must read past the first paragraph, or the third and fourth paragraphs, or a given section in the body. We should just blandly describe the material, which is what the word "controversial" does without offending anyone or casting any aspersions. Also, if this subject is not controversial, what is? Sorry if this offends anyone.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, if you think a comment may offend people, you should moderate yourself before posting. I hope our users are reading more than the first sentence. That seems to be an overly pessimistic view. Jehochman 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried a more neutral description but unfortunately that is not allowed. Nomen Nescio 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to characterize it? Fighting against NPOV is not helpful. Jehochman 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What is there against a neutral description? What part of that edit do you consider "Fighting against NPOV?" Nomen Nescio 16:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately that was not allowed." I'll ask again, why do we need to characterize homeopathy in the first sentence? Can we not just say what it is without making any sort of value judgements? Jehochman 17:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If most people agree that Jossi's proposal is an improvement, why not make the edit? You can always come back later and suggest additional improvements. I hope that editors will go out of their way to find common ground, and to end the warring that has hindered this article. Jehochman 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why homeopathy is not controversial

Let me take a different tack: "controversial" is way too accommodating an adjective for homeopathy. There isn't any controversy amongst the homeopaths over it and, frankly, those who are not homeopaths generally dismiss it out-of-hand as nonsense. As Misplaced Pages's own page on the subject states: A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Hmm, there is definitely active dispute here at Misplaced Pages talk pages, but need I remind everyone, Misplaced Pages talk pages are not reliable sources! In point of fact, there is no controversy at all in the same sense that there is no "controversy" over evolution (thus the misnomer teach the controversy). The parties in this case are not actively disagreeing, arguing, or debating. Rather the scientists and medical professionals dismiss homeopathy out-of-hand and the homeopaths try to claim that they are actually backed up by their inane interpretations of science. No, homeopathy isn't controversial; it's just magical thinking like creationism. So let's take a page from creationism and really call a duck a duck.

My quick attempt:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that relies on the belief that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases if they are extremely diluted, sometimes to the point of no molecules being present in the remedy. Homeopathy was created by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific basis.

Hopefully you get the idea.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an improvement--it includes a clear definition and some concrete criticism. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I could certainly live with that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that SA's exposition is reductio ad absurdum. While I agree that the lead needs improving, the proposed wording is not neutral enough, as it defines the practice as a "belief". This slightly tweaked wording would do the trick:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that relies on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases if they are extremely diluted. Homeopathy was invented by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific basis.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good but is it easier to read if diseases is singular, for example, "substances which cause symptoms similar to a certain disease can be administered as remedies for that disease if they are extremely diluted". ? David D. (Talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be "a certain disease" Adam Cuerden 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, changed now. David D. (Talk) 18:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the revised wording by ≈ jossi ≈. The change of "belief" to "premise" is an example of how one word can change the tone of a statement from POV to NPOV. I would, however, have preferred adding the word "present" to have the sentence end: "despite its present lack of scientific basis." Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... that would push it on the other direction, a subtle POV. Let's keep it simple, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree on keeping it simple, and I reiterate that I support your proposed wording. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a premise; it's a belief. A premise is a claim that is presumed true for the sake of arguing to a conclusion. In this case, there is no conclusion the claim is attempting to reach. It's simply a "claim". Therefore, it is not a "premise". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "idea"? That's pretty neutral. Adam Cuerden 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I don't know why belief is so controversial, but at least it's an idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why can't we mention that the dilutions sometimes proceed to the point of no molecules being present in the remedy? It would be nice for that to be up front. Any reason not to include that in the sentence? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One concern that I have with including that is that it wouldn't include the pro-homeopathy "rebuttal" (i.e. water memory). Including the fact that some homeopathic remedies include no molecules of the supposedly active substance is going to make the typical reader go "Well, that's incredibly stupid." If we're going to include that damning fact in the lead, we should at least also include homeopaths' explanation for why it isn't stupid. I think people will still be able to make up their own minds.

Besides that, I'm still not all clear on how widespread the zero molecule thing is. Unless it's pretty common, I don't think it belongs in the lead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Filll has been documenting it with User:Peter morrell in a sandbox. It's surprisingly common. By simply stating a fact, we aren't positing any POV at all. We know that there are homeopathic remedies on the market which have basically none of the substance advertised in the remedy. That's a documented fact. It's an important fact too because it lets people know how far removed from the mainstream homeopathy is. I'm not making a POV-statement about this (maybe you like being far from the mainstream), it's just a way to frame the issue so that readers know what they are dealing with. As for homeopathic "responses", I haven't seen any. They don't tend to worry about the mechanisms of their remedies. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Their response is "water memory". I agree that it's not much of a response, but I think it needs to be included if the zero molecule thing is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the response on these talk pages by certain homeopathic supporters is that it is due to water memory, but in general, the response is: "it works, we don't know how, but it works". There are other explanations for this too. See torsion field for one particularly outlandish one. Water memory is generally not discussed very much by people hawking homeopathic wares. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the fact that pseudoscientists want to explain how two chemically and structurally identical substances can have differing properties is not relevant to the fact that many homeopathic remedies have zero molecules of the supposed "remedy" contained in them. That's something left for analysis later in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just link to the existing article on magic? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy Blackamoor, please be less inflammatory, or I will be forced to remove you from the conversation. Jossi's attempt at an NPOV lead is helpful, and seems to have support from both sides. I recommend follow up on that proposal. Jehochman 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that changing premise to idea helps, but I really don't see any justification for not including the fact that many homeopathic remedies do not contain a single molecule of the substance. The tit-for-tat water memory argument just doesn't work because water memory is a supposed mechanism to get around atomic theory and is therefore one step removed from the fact of most homeopathic remedies not containing molecules of the substance listed on the label. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that covered extensively later in the article? Leads are supposed to be concise. Also remember that perfect is the enemy of good. Given the heavy conflicts over this article, I ask all editors to make an extra effort to be agreeable whenever possible. Jehochman 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see "extensive" coverage as being necessary. What's wrong with having a single clause that states: "sometimes to the point of no molecules being present in the remedy." I like this because it explains what "extreme dilution" means. Otherwise, it's too vague. No one (not even homeopaths) disputes that this is the case, after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My new proposal:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that relies on the idea that substances which cause symptoms similar to a certain disease can be administered as a remedy for that disease. In the process of preparing homeopathic remedies these substances are repeatedly diluted and shook, sometimes to the point where the resulting homeopathic preparation contains no molecules of the substances. Homeopathy was invented by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific basis.

Integrates many different proposals into one.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i like the way that's frased, but is there any reason why the first sentences have to be so long?: i understand the reason why the 'sometimes to the point...' part of the sentecnes needs to be in the article but it could easily bve a sentence by itself, with perhaps a refernces to water memory added on. Smith Jones (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Much prefer jossi's version, without the weaselly "sometimes to the point...". Either "idea" or "premise" seem equally acceptable to me, and naturaaly I will accept consensus there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer the concise version formulated by ≈ jossi ≈. The lead section should summarize the content of the entire article. There is no logical reason (that I can see) to get into a detailed analysis of molecular content, especially in the first sentence. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever version used if dilution is discussed then succussion should be mentioned. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Because no homeopath believes that dilution without succussion works. —Whig (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how's that? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I made another change, see if you like it. —Whig (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeroing in. We need to attribute the neologism to the homeopaths, I'd say. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "dynamization" or "potentization" cover succussion and dilution? That may be an easier way of putting it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Made another change. Since the reader may not know what dynamization is. —Whig (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is important that we define this for the reader: it is defined later on in the article. We don't define "dilution", after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not liking this version, as it seems to be omitting information that the reader might be interested to know in order to make it seem less believable, and putting words in scare quotes makes the point even more strongly that these homeopaths are not to be believed. Which you might think, but that isn't NPOV. —Whig (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stripping out all mention of succussion is not getting closer to NPOV. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we need to avoid neologisms. Succussion is an invented term and therefore cannot simply be placed in a sentence as such. I replaced with a synonym "shook", but we can pipe to the relevant section. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a 200+ year old word can be a neologism, but I agree it is best to avoid confusing readers and your edit is fine. My only concern with your text at this point is that we cannot say for sure whether homeopathy has a scientific basis or if it does not unless we have an authoritative source that speaks for multidisciplinary consensus. —Whig (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is based the hypotheses that illnesses are cured by small doses of substances that cause the same symptoms as the illness and the hypotheses that the smaller the dose, the stronger the cure. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TimesOnline is not a RS for defining homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

jossi's version is better. It isn't really accurate to say it lacks scientific basis. It lacks scientific confirmation as more than a placebo. But if you give someone a sugar pill or a water medicine, and he gets well due to the 30% of a lot of medicine which is placebo, you are scientifically justified in saying that the thing works. So, it does have a scientific basis, but that basis (and a fully confirmed one) is that it works on placebo, but on no other confirmed basis. Anyway, saying that it doesn't have any scientific basis isn't really true. I accept this version, however, if others do.

However, I do not like the criticism paragraph in the lead. I say this in the hope that skepticism will get its due in the article. If it sounds like an attack, then it will be ignored by the reader as merely an attack. So I accept that paragraph as it is with regrets, not for the proponents of Homeopathy, but for the skeptics. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify that my own edits of ScienceApologist's text weren't to endorse that version, only to help the wording of including succussion. —Whig (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I get nothing out of " But if you give someone a sugar pill or a water medicine, and he gets well due to the 30% of a lot of medicine which is placebo, you are scientifically justified in saying that the thing works. So, it does have a scientific basis...". Please clarify. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a very clear question. If it works, it works. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Too profound for me, I guess. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, most people would not say that it was the placebo that "worked". What "works" is the human imagination and the power of suggestion. The placebo itself had nothing to do with it. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with the placebo theory, inasmuch as healing crises are opposite to the placebo effect. The entire theory of homeopathic treatment is different from how most drugs are studied, which makes it problematic presenting criticisms from the pharmaceutical side without also presenting the homeopathic perspective. We should be including both and presenting them neutrally. —Whig (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue about the subject matter. Please focus on improving the article. The question on the table is whether Jossi's proposed edits have consensus support? Reviewing this discussion, I believe that they do. Does anybody disagree? Jehochman 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the following problems are not addressed in Jossi's lead:

1. Use of the word "premise"
2. Use of the plural with respect to diseases.
3. Unexplained removal of the point that homeopathic dosages may contain no molecules.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with the unsupported lack of scientific basis statement. —Whig (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig: we are not discussing our personal viewpoints... rather, we are describing what sources say. Let's focus on the basics, OK? We just need a simple and well written lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

SicneApologist i disagre with your points. the use of the word 'premise' is an irrelevent nitpick; the word 'premise', 'belief', 'idea', or 'concerpt' are equally useful in descibing the views of homeopathic physicians like myself. the use of the plural can easily be repiared once a lead is agreed upon, iether by someone here or a friendly WIkiGnome flitting about the Itnernet fixing typos and other egregrious acgrammatical errors. I agree with your last point that the lack of molecules should be references in the lead but is ee no reason why it has to be in the very first sentence. Each sentence should be about a specific topic. Sentence 1 should describe what homeopathy pruports to be, and sentence 2 should be about the homeopathic dosages containing no molecules and possibly a link tot the water memory scientific theory. onc ethose are corrected, then we will have consensus unless you or anythone else have further objections. Smith Jones (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Simth Jones, are you maybe splitting hairs? 'Premise= a claim, a proposition, an assumption, a postulate, hypothesis. All valid ways to describe the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

not sure what you mean there jossi. I SAID htat the word 'premise', along with 'belief, concept, idea, claim' were all equally valid wayts of describing and ther e was no reason to fuss right now over witch one was used. Smith Jones (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a witty response, but I'll abstain. No point in getting banned for pointing out ... nevermind. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are learning, that is good Jim. It proves that probation works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Muy bien, amigo, muy bien. I've noticed that your English has very distict Spanish elements, just as my Spanish has very distinct English elements. Pero, mi respuesta fue un poco sarcástico. Que es la vida. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

popularity

I support Jossi's edits, though I have some problem with the last statement about scientific basis. First, I don't agree we should link the statement about popularity with the statement about its lack of scientific basis, in the same sentence, with "despite". This is not a huge point, but this construction does have a tendency to evoke something of a social commentary (ie, it's not scientific but they like it anyway), which I'm sure is not the intent here. I would make two sentences: "...and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. However, it lacks scientific basis."

Second, there are some studies that seem to show it is effective (whether or not they are flawed is another question), and that can be considered "scientific basis" in some sense. So to clarify:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that relies on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases if they are extremely diluted. Homeopathy was invented by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. However, it lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond that of the placebo effect.

(remove bolding in final version, of course).(Note of admission: the "clear evidence" part I got from Citizendium's draft article . I also added elucidation to Samuel Hahnemann. Friarslantern (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is good, but the use of "however" is a bit editorializing. Rather that using "however", you can start the sentence without characterization: .. and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. Homeopathy lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond that of the placebo effect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"however" is a very comonly used word. Smith Jones (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a variation on the above. It's an attempt to shorten sentences and make the paragraph a bit more readable.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy) is from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease". Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine based on the premise that a substance which causes symptoms similar to a disease can, when highly diluted, be a remedy for that disease. Homeopathy was invented by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and is one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. Homeopathy lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond that of the placebo effect.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Friarslantern's version as edited by Wanderer57 is the best yet. Very nice, that bit of context "one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine" is very necessary. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I googled for evidence, but could not find any that homeopathy was in the top 5 or so. I did find:

There are more than 100 systems of alternative medicines, still in practice all over the world. Every country, region or area has its own traditional system of health and medical care such as for the Chinese it is acupuncture, for the French, magnetic healing; for the Germans, Heilpraxis;for the Sfitish - Herbatism, for India - Ayurveda; for the Muslim countries - Unani; for the southern part of the country - Siddha; for Japan - shiatsu etc.

The most popular forms of alternative medicine are Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, Siddha, Naturopathy,Yoga therapy, Acupuncture, Acupressure, Magneto therapy, Shiatsu, Medical herbalism, Meditation, Aroma therapy, Bach flower remedies, Gem therapy, Chromolherapy, Hydropathy, Diet Therapy etc. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I really like Wanderer57's version but I am concerned that by simplifying it may let the reader think that simple dilution is all that is required. The method of repeated dilutions and succussions is regarded as essential by homeopaths. —Whig (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahnemann would reject the word 'invented' and claim that he discovered homeopathy. A slight difference. Invented also implies a subtle suspicion that it has just been knocked together and made rather than found. Peter morrell 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, tough luck, that's the reality. We are under no "protecting Samuel Hahnemann's feelings" policy here.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please change "premise" to "idea" at least? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Idea" is better than "premise", I think, as the latter takes the mind in the direction of deductive logic.

The article on Sir James Simpson says: "Simpson discovered the anaesthetic properties of chloroform and— against medical and religious opposition— successfully introduced it for general medical use." Note "discovered" rather than "invented".

Here is my revised version, based on these notes. I also made two other changes, to reduce the wordiness slightly.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy) is from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease". Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine based on the idea that a substance which causes symptoms similar to a disease can, when highly diluted, be a remedy for that disease. Homeopathy was discovered by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and is a popular form of alternative medicine. Homeopathy lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect.

I hope this moves the paragraph in a useful direction. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that this version is very much neutral in tone and any important omitted details are surely to be provided directly in the article, I would endorse this language. —Whig (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the word "discovered". I prefer the term "first described". It also says homeopathy is an alternative medicine twice --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Hippocrates describe it too? —Whig (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Source? If so, that can be worked into the statement, and "discovered" can become "re-discovered". Jehochman 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"First described" or "first defined" (which I prefer now) is a common term in history of science etc. --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First described is fine by me! Peter morrell 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hippocrates, over 2000 years ago wrote that there were two approaches to healing: (i) the use of contraries (Antipathic medicine) or (ii) similars (Homeopathic medicine)." from "An introduction to homeopathy" by Mary Aspinwall

Hmm... Did he really use the word homeopathy (No)? Did he use dilution and shaking with banging (No)? I think that might be worth a mention in the article, but it's a bit tenuous. Also seems odd to use "anti" but then not "iso". Does this meet RS? --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a further revised version, to remove the repetition of "form of alternative medicine" (good catch) and provide another option to "invented" and "discovered".

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy) is from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease". Homeopathy is a method of treating disease based on the idea that a substance which causes symptoms similar to a disease can, when highly diluted, be a remedy for that disease. Homeopathy was established by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and is a popular form of alternative medicine. Homeopathy lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect.

??? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In an almost inconceivably belated and probably fruitless attempt to further my classical education, DrEightyEight, please tell me how you know that Hippocrates did not use the word "homeopathy"? I gather, based on the first sentence of our draft opening, that the word comes from Greek. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't ever been reported that he did (that I'm aware), but I did mean the word homeopathy as we understand it here (dilution and shaking) --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly he didn't speak the same language as we do, and his words are at best translated, but if he did use cure by similar then that is the essence of homeopathy, according to Hahnemann. As for dilution and shaking, that's absolutely a crucial distinction, though so often unmentioned and not mentioned in this paragraph at all. —Whig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't speak ancient Greek? :) --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So much for my classical ed. Back to small appliance repair. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem upset about shaking not being being mentioned, so how about:

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy) is from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease". Homeopathy is a method of treating disease based on the idea that a substance which causes symptoms similar to a disease can, when highly diluted and potentized by succussion, be a remedy for that disease. Homeopathy was first defined by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, and is a popular form of alternative medicine. Homeopathy lacks any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect.

I've put "potentialized" in italics as it isn't yet defined. The same would be true of "succussed". I avoided shaking as I thought some might think it trivialises things --DrEightyEight (talk)

edited —Whig (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The popularity of homeopathy is irrelevant -- it's not quite as popular as astrology, but more popular than phrenology.

BTW, homeopathy may be derived from Greek, but that has no bearing on it's modern roots. Look up "coprotic" -- my neologism based on "copros" but not found in Greek. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow sources

If compared to what it should be, we are writing a rather lousy article. Look at this source, and here are a few quotes:

Homeopathy has been the cause of much debate in the scientific literature with respect to the plausibility and efficacy of homeopathic preparations and practice.

Nonetheless, many consumers, pharmacists, physicians and other health care providers continue to use and practice homeopathic medicine and advocate its safety and efficacy. Regulated under federal Food and Drug Acts in Canada and the United States, homeopathic preparations are recognized as drugs in both countries,

Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.28-30,80-82 A similar situation exists with respect to in vivo studies of homoeopathic products used to treat plants and animals.83,84 Pharmacists should also be aware that there is currently no plausible mechanism of action postulated for homeopathy; even homeopathic doctors do not claim to know how it works.11

That is a good article, but is being used here, I think, merely to debunk, rather than to write a balanced treatment.

We need stuff like that. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to follow sources (and I'm talking mainly about the lead). Just a small sample seem to clear up debates above. For example, is Homeopathy controversial? Yes:

9. Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy?

Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).

Further, we need to sound more like the sources:

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

Is Homeopathy rejected?

The American Medical Association does not accept homeopathy, but it doesn't reject it either. "The AMA encourages doctors to become aware of alternative therapies and use them when and where appropriate," says AMA spokesman Jim Fox.

Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has no specific policy on homeopathy. If an adult asked the academy's Sanders about homeopathy, he would tell that person to "do your own investigation. I don't personally prescribe homeopathic remedies, but I would be open-minded."

Note that source:

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is the Federal Government's lead agency for scientific research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). We are 1 of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Mainstream sources here. The lead of this article doesn't sound like that. I'll look at the rest of it more tomorrow. This is just as I'm seeing it now, but it seems at the moment that the sources would solve our problems. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A government agency is a political creature. Many of these findings are influenced by the politics of those in power. I do not think government agencies are particularly reliable, especially when they go against the weight of academic publications. Jehochman 12:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Generalisations are generally bogus &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Organizations that use the scientific method to evaluate claims all reject homeopathy because it has no rationale that would lead experts in physics and chemistry to believe it is even possible and also all experiments in physics and chemistry that demonstrate scientific results can repeated when followed exactly with the same outcome. On the other hand, organizations that are all about selling health care are willing to sell the customer what he is willing to pay for - especially since a placebo effect is in fact an actual effect that can help a believer - so why not sell whatever placebo they believe in. Convincing them it does not work destroys the placebo effect. Doctors lie to their patients everyday knowing a belief in a positive outcome is very important to getting a good outcome. It is important not to mix up the academic/scientific criteria with the medical/pharmacy/business criteria for what to tell people about homeopathy. Their methods and goals are different. As a NPOV encyclopedia we should tell the reader both, but be clear who is saying what and what reasons are given for what they say. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence of use

The article currently says that "usage varies from only two percent of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year, to 15 percent in India". Yet the article by Ernst (PMID 16165225) says that "across Europe approximately a quarter of the population uses homeopathy". How can this be reconciled? Unfortunately Ernst refers to an article in J. Australian Traditional-Medicine Society that I haven't been able to find. Perhaps the two papers used different definitions of the frequency of use necessary to count as a "user". Or perhaps the UK is very different from the rest of Europe (I've heard that homeopathy is very popular in Germany and France). Does anyone have access to the Australian journal, or know of other studies of use in other European countries? --Itub (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of conflicting data 'out there' about prevalaence of use and when the rewrite was being done in August we found that very little is from RS, so User:Wikidudeman decided to limit the phrases to what could be stated with confidence. It is true that homeopathy is very popular throughout Europe and as you say in France and Germany especially, but it is in India and Pakistan where it is in very common use indeed. It is not very common in the USA. It is also common in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Cuba and with only a limited presence in Russia, Eastern Europe, Greece, Middle East and Africa. Problem is getting data from RS to show all this. The phrase you refer to is a compromise based on RS sources. Hope that explains. Peter morrell 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article improvements and incentives

I will give a barnstar to the editor, or editors, who implement the non-controversial (I hope) improvements listed at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2#Homeopathy. I refer to the style issues reported by the automated script. Jehochman 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While the prospect of incentives doesn't sit well with me, making a non-controversial improvement to the article should be fine. I'll get to work on applying these, time permitting. --Infophile 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a bottle of Scotch? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Twas made by a little old lady in Leningrad. --Infophile 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Chekov. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with the latest version of the opening sentences

I have some concerns with the latest version of suggestions for the opening sentences of the lead, 2 of which have been pointed out by Whig and Peter morrell:

• (1) Simply saying "highly diluted" is incorrect, since it implies that this is all that is done. Wrong! If you just dilute something repeatedly, you will weaken it and eventually have nothing left but the diluent. This misunderstanding is one reason many dismiss homeopathy as ridiculous, and it would be and it would be - if that were all that was done. It is the "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serially diluted and shaken between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) conveys the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent.
• (2) Hahnemann did not believe he "invented" homeopathy. He believed he re-discovered it, having researched healing texts from earlier centuries.
• (3) The "keep it simple" principle that jossi advocated above is helpful in this. To immediately launch into questioning whether homeopathy even works (beyond placebo) is inappropriate. Here is my suggestion:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases. These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent. Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific confirmation.

Quotes from those asserting opinions can be included in the body of this article. Remember, we're simply writing an encyclopedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Simply saying "highly diluted" is incorrect, - explain 30C. Por favor. Bitte. S'il vous plais. Per favore. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above reads like an advertisement. "One of the most popular" is a red flag. Says who? I suggest that the homeopathy promoters and detractors stop trying to spin the article in their preferred direction. I hope that editors who do not have strong feelings can draft a lead with neutral tone, and that everyone else will support this effort. Jehochman 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm warming to the version being worked out in the "popular" section above --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman asked: "One of the most popular" is a red flag. Says who?"

The popularity is discussed at length in: Peter Fisher, "Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe" BMJ 1994;309:107-111 (9 July) We can reference this article in the lead. (I've just added it into the suggestion above.) Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a better version than the one Wanderer57 most recently offered, for the reasons you stated, it does include a more clear description of what homeopathic medicines are and how they are made. If we omit the succussion step in describing homeopathic medicine, we present a straw man that everyone agrees has no effects and should not be characterized as homeopathic medicine. —Whig (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address these issues in Wanderer57s version --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Three quick points, then I'm off to try to earn that bottle of Scotch.

1) We are discussing the same paragraph in about three sections now. Chaos city.

2) The wording "one of the most popular" has appeared in 6 or so versions above. It's not something I threw in. The change I made was simply from "continues to be one of the most popular" TO "is one of the most popular". I think that practically speaking, "continues to be" is just a long-winded way of saying "is".

3) The editors are very concerned, and rightly so, about the wording being accurate, neutral, and so on. However, I don't think enough attention is being paid to trying to make something that is readable. Editors who have been poring over a subject in detail greatly overestimate what level of complexity can be readily understood by an "average" reader. "Keep it short and simple." Wanderer57 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that one has to have the first sentence be short, readable and an accurate summary. I still think that the word "controversial" is needed, or something comparable. To parse things very carefully to claim there is no controversy within homeopathy, and no controversy within allopathy, and that the controversy only exists between the two groups etc is not helpful for the average reader. The average reader should know it is controversial. Why not?

I do not think it should be assumed or demanded that the readers will read several paragraphs down from the top to get more of the mainstream view. If I had to say one word that described homeopathy, I would say "controversial".--Filll (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we can add to "despite its lack of scientific confirmation" to change it to "despite controversy and the lack of scientific confirmation".

Is it agreeable to everyone for me to go ahead and change the beginning of the lead to this suggested wording? Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What happens if we put important things first?

Let's take:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases. These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent. Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific confirmation.

Identify things by importance, one listing which might look like this (to get the above):

1. Homeopathy
2. (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease")
3. is a form of alternative medicine
4. that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases.
5. These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent.
6. Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine,
7. despite its lack of scientific confirmation

Or reordered like the below to get the below:

1. Homeopathy
2. popular
3. alternative medicine
4. controversial, lack of scientific confirmation
5. that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases.
6. These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent.
7. (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease")
8. Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most

According to this importance first listing we get something like (with some added explanation):

Homeopathy is a popular alternative medicine that is controversial because of its lack of scientific plausibility and confirmation. It is based on the hypothesis that remedies for diseases can be created by taking substances which cause symptoms similar to that disease and repeatedly diluting and shaking them between each dilution. According to homeopathic theory therapeutic characteristics of the substance are transfered to the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol) but other qualities are not. The end product is so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but still has an effect on consumers. Standard science labels this a placebo; while standard medicine accepts the therapeutic value of placebos. It is also spelled "homœopathy" or "homoeopathy". The word is from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease". - WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Either the version by WAS 4.250 or my version (with "controversy" added) is acceptable to me. However, I would recommend keepting the 2 reference citations that I added. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this version explains what controversial means, it is not weaselly. I think the information contained in the last sentence should be moved immediately after Homeopathy and placed in parentheses, because that is the normal way encyclopedia articles are written. Otherwise, this formulation appears to comply with NPOV. Which version is chosen doesn't matter to me, as long as it complies with NPOV and other core policies. Jehochman 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not weaselly???!!! "...but still has an effect on consumers. Standard science labels this a placebo; while standard medicine accepts the therapeutic value of placebos." What the hell does that mean? This looks like it was written by a ten year old kid.200.104.207.53 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagreement with the above section

• I don't see a reason to stray from the normal style of word first, etymology second, and then basic definition (and then elucidation of the definition). Doing so makes it hard for the reader, who's used to these conventions, to follow it.

• Again, as I stated above, the social dialogue (controversy, popularity) does not belong in the beginning of the first paragraph -- the basic definition. We are stating science's qualms and thus showing there is a controversy -- WP is neither a specifically scientific nor a specifically sociological encyclopedia, but a general one.

• Responding to the homeopathic concerns about characterization of the process involved in creating the remedies, I propose the following, which retains much Eighty-eight's changes and adds some new details....

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a method of treating disease based on the idea of like treating like -- that a substance which causes the symptoms of a given disease can be used to formulate a remedy for that disease. The chosen substance is dissolved, and the solution is potentized by undergoing a progression of further dilution and shaking, or succussion, in order, it is believed, to imprint qualities of the substance onto the solvent, which is then used as the active ingredient in the remedy. Homeopathy was first defined by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, and has retained a certain popularity as a form of alternative medicine. It lacks, however, any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect.

Note: I defend the use of "however", in the last sentence. The two facts -- of its current use/popularity, and its lack of scientific confirmation, are contrasting facts, and using the word is therefore called for stylistically as an element that makes the writing easier to follow. I personally do not feel that this slants the paragraph's neutrality or takes a liberty (I didn't like linking the two thoughts with "despite", above -- for me that does go too far). Friarslantern (talk)

Another suggestion for a LEAD

How about something like

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of alternative medicine most renowned for prescribing preparations which arguably contain miniscule amounts of the active ingredient, if any. Nevertheless, homeopathy is the preferred treatment of a substantial number of patients in some communities. Homeopathy is based on the principle of treating "like with like", that is, administering as remedies substances which produce similar symptoms to the disease being treated. German physician Samuel Hahnemann is commonly regarded as the father of homeopathy, having done substantial work to establish the concepts in the 18th century.

--Filll (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Filll's version. I agree with Friarslantern that it is best to maintain the Misplaced Pages format of utilizing the word first, etymology second, and then definition. However, the following should be changed:

• "solvent" should be "soluent"
• "dissolved" does not work as a descriptor for those remedies made from minerals - where "trituration" is utilized (a form of dilution, but not initially in liquid)
• "has retained a certain popularity" creates the impression that there is a static number of users, when in fact the popularity is growing (see the reference I provided in my version).
• One of the previous versions used: "According to homeopathic theory therapeutic characteristics . . " - which is not correct. The qualities and characteristics of the substance are believed to be transferred. These are not automatically considered "therapeutic". Unless there is the correct individualized matching of the remedy - and the correct potency level of the remedy - for that particular person, then there can be no "therapeutic" response by the person's physiology (according to the homeopathic theory).
• PLEASE NOTE - I believe this belongs in the "Criticisms" section of this article - not in the lead: "It lacks, however, any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect." This gets into opinionated argumentation against the legitimacy of homeopathy. I believe that a more neutral way of stating that there is a controversy, without arguing that it is merely a "placebo" (which is a particular POV), would be: "Homeopathy was discovered and defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, and it continues to be one of the more popular forms of alternative medicine, despite controversy and the lack of scientific confirmation.

Therefore, taking all this into consideration, this is my latest suggestion:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that is based on the premise that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases. These are prepared through a "dynamization" or "potentization" process - serial dilution and shaking between each dilution - that (according to homeopathic theory) transfers the qualities and characteristics of the substance into the diluent. Homeopathy was discovered and defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, and it continues to be one of the more popular forms of alternative medicine, despite controversy and the lack of scientific confirmation.

I await your comments. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Before any comments were posted, someone went ahead and changed the lead to a version that I had pointed out had inaccuracies and problems. This individual ignored an entire day of discussions working toward a consensus regarding the wording of the lead sentences, and just changed it on his own. Is this the way things are to be done? All the discussion winds up being a waste of everyone's time, and someone just comes along and does what they please? Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss your concerns with them, and work towards further edits to correct any inaccuracies. WAS 4.250 has a solid reputation. Assume good faith. Jehochman 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The person who changed the lead was not WAS 4.250, and was not involved in any discussions here. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

References

1. Mel Borins, MD, FCFP, (M)GPP "Complementary Medicine: What You Should Know" The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2004 117
2. Peter Fisher, "Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe" BMJ 1994;309:107-111 (9 July)
3. Mel Borins, MD, FCFP, (M)GPP "Complementary Medicine: What You Should Know" The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2004 117
4. Peter Fisher, "Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe" BMJ 1994;309:107-111 (9 July)

• Requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages