Talk:Homeopathy

Previous discussions

Archive 1

== Current discussions ==com

RK: You clearly feel very strongly about homeopathy, but that is no reason to discount the fact that it works just fine for millions of people, including many MDs. Several of the statements you made in the article are factually incorrect, and the rest are subjective and shouldn't be presented as fact, but as opinions of critics. Plese think twice before committing changes to wikipedia articles on subjects about which you feel strongly. Mkweise 20:24 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Homeopathy does not work fine for millions of people. In fact, it has never been shown to work at all for anyone. Homeopathy advocates may not present wishful thinking about their supposed successes in medical treatments, and present such unsubstantiated claims as if they were verified. I could just as easily claim that eating Rhinocerous horn powder "works just fine for millions of people, including many MDs"; yet this claim has the same amount of evidence to back it up. I am thus restoring the recent addtions and changes. This article must be science based and NPOV. Pushing pseudo-science and deleting mainstream scientific criticism is not acceptable here. Further, you had no right to delete the primary criticism against homeopathy (the fact that it totally contradicts itself.) RK

RK, you wrote Restoring the recent addtions and changes. This article must be science based and NPOV. Pushing pseudo-science and deleting mainstream scientific criticism is not acceptable here. I'm not sure I agree with all of that, although I sure liked the part about NPOV.

Homeopathy is a theory which is believed by its advocates. In addition, these advocates make claims about homeopathic cures, such as how effective they are. I don't think it's the role of the Wikipedia to evaluate these claims.

I agree with you, Ed. It is the role of the scientific community to evalulate these claims. And for 150 years scientists and doctors have reserached these claims. All they have found are lies, frauds, hoaxes, bias, the placebo effect, and errors. And this article needs to present the results of the last 150 years of scientific research. RK

Rather, a neutral article would balance the claims of Homeopathy supporters against reports from Homeopathy opponents and others who disagree with the supporters' claims. The essence of neutrality, as I'm sure you recall, is not to take sides.

Actually I suggest that this would not be neutral. Should our article on Unicorns and on Leprechauns also present their real existence as equally valid concepts, one in which both points of view (pro their existence, and against their existence) are equally scientifically valid? If someone claims that something huge and imporant exists, they need to show reason that it exists. This has been done for Special Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has not been done for Unicorns or homeopathy. RK

(Personally, I think homeopathy is utter foolishness: at best, homeopathic remedies are mere placebos. But my p.o.v. is not important to this article.)

Let the article report the claims of homepathy supporters as well as the claims of "mainstream" scientific investigators, and trust that the reader is competent to make up their own mind, eh? --Uncle Ed 20:42 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

RK: Just because a theory is not scientifically proven to your satisfaction should not prevent you from reporting it.

Alright, I am sorry. Maybe I have been too caustic with you, and that was not my intent. I am just a real purist about science. However, I hope we can agree that anyone can easily prove that homeopathy (or any claim) is real. Just perform an experiment in a double-blind controlled study. This prevents the placebo effect from fooling anyone, and it also prevents scientists and doctors from being biased. If homepathy is fallacious, then the results of the control group will be about the same as the experiment group. If homeopathy works, then the experiment group will experience a measurable and repeatable difference. However, such experiments have been done, and they have failed every time, even when they are done by those who are advocates of homeopathy. At this point, I believe we are bound by NPOV policy to present the topic in this light, until and unless other evidence comes forward. RK

My understanding of NPOV policy is to report beliefs and theories as such, to report or summarize the results of specific studies as such, perhaps to cite the conclusions of specific experts, but never slip in our own conclusions. I also believe that, in the interest of clarity, controversial subjects are best covered by first describing the controversial thesis, then presenting the antithesis. Not by going into soapbox mode halfway through the opening paragraph. Mkweise 00:30 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

The existance of Heaven and Hell is not scientifically proven, nor is the feficacy of prayer -- yet I don't see you going over to the Christianity article and lacing every single paragraph with your caustic POV remarks. The article has an extensive Criticism section, as it should. If you have anything rational to add, put it there and don't interfere with the objective desription of the practice and how it is believed to work by a great number of people. Mkweise 21:17 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I have gone over the Christianity, Judaism and theism articles, and laced them with NPOV remarks!. And I say this as a monotheist; I don't hold myself to standards that differ from anyone else. All of our articles on Judaism, Christianity and Islam present a great many claims. However none of these articles present any of these claims as factually true; they only present them as the religious beliefs of those faith's adherents. And believe me, this has pissed off members of my own faith... RK

I really don't see how you can honestly refer to such changes as "some consider" to "is" or the removal of qualifiers such as "possibly" as NPOVifying. Also, your statement that all MDs reject homeopathy is factually incorrect, as the majority of serious practitioners of homeopathy are MDs (including Hahnemann, Kent and Boericke.)

I've written a summary of how homeopathy is supposed to work, and I'm incorporating the new paragraph you added under criticism, but reverting the changes you made that don't add anything but a point of view to the article. Mkweise 01:52 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

The thing about the opening paragraph is that the chemical composition of the final remedy varies - it's never pure water AFAIK; most remedies are sold in the form of lactose pellets, and liquid remedies contain ethanol. Mkweise

Eloquence: Your commend about eastern Europe and threshold nations is news to me, but I can tell you with certainty that homeopathy is taken very seriously in Germany (the only country I know of where remedies are regulated as drugs.) There as well as in the UK, it's taken seriously enough for insurance companies to offer health plans that cover homeopathic treatment. I'm not quite sure about France, but it's definitely more widely accepted there than in the US. Mkweise

As for how wide-spread homeopathy is, unless you can provide some statistics, I am not willing to accept the claim that it is "widely accepted as valid in parts of Europe". What does that mean? That there is a large market? No doubt about it. That the academic/scientific establishment accepts it? Hardly. This may be the case in threshold nations where science is often corrupted by snake oil salesmen. As a German, I can say that the opposition to homeopathy as a pseudoscience is hardly unique to the US. --Eloquence 02:16 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I have no statistics, only anecdotal evidence from living there for a decade. I'd say that maybe 1 in 50 Americans has ever taken a homeopathic remedy, whereas among my European acquantances it's more like 1 in 2. Doctors in Germany can and do prescribe homeopathic remedies, allbeit (with the exception of actual homeopathic doctors) mostly in cases where conventional medicine can't offer much help, such as migrane, tinnitus and what they collectively refer to as psychosomatic conditions. Hell, in Germany you can pick up homeopathic remedies at any corner Apotheke, whereas most US pharmacists wouldn't even understand what you're asking for.

Unless you know something about eastern Europe and those "other threshold nations" you mentioned that I don't, you should remove those statements. Homeopathy definitely is more prevalent in Germany/Switzerland/Austria than in the rest of Europe. Mkweise

Once again, I am well aware that there is a large market for homeopathy in Europe, and that it enjoys some political support, especially in Germany (political interest in pseudoscientific remedies in Germany dates back to the Third Reich). There are many reasons for this, one key reason is that the pharma industry has succesfully lobbied against the introduction of a whitelist for medicine that is refunded through public health insurance, which benefits both large corporations like Bayer and small manufacturers of homeopathic "medicine" Such a whitelist was already prepared under the CDU government. The list was given to the president of the association of the pharma industry (BPI), Prof. Vogel, on his 60th birthday -- in shreddered form. [1]

In spite of this successful lobbying, reputable scientists have long attacked the status quo. This speech by Prof. Johannes Köbberling gives a good summary:

"Noch eindeutiger ist die Situation bei der Homöopathie. Für die gläubigen Anhänger dieser Therapieform existiert eine Art Bibel der reinen Lehre, nämlich Hahnemanns Organon. Hahnemann hat vor 200 Jahren ein in sich geschlossenes und von ihm selbst als definitiv erachtetes Lehrgebäude errichtet. Solche geschlossenen Systeme, so unsinnig sie auch sind, üben eine gewisse Faszination auf manche Menschen aus. So haben es die Vertreter dieser Lehre geschafft, daß in der Öffentlichkeit der Eindruck entstanden ist, hier sei eine ernsthafte Alternative zur Medizin zu finden, eine Auffassung die nicht selten auch von sonst kritischen und in anderen Bereichen vernünftigen Menschen geteilt wird. Weder der bekannte Ähnlichkeitssatz noch die Potenzierung durch extremes Verdünnen sind in irgendeiner Weise wissenschaftlich belegt. Erfolgsberichte über homöopathische Heilungen betreffen nie größere Patientengruppen mit bestimmten Krankheiten, sondern bestehen aus einzelnen Fallbeschreibungen. Fallbeschreibungen entziehen sich aber der Falsifikationsmöglichkeit, sie sind prinzipiell wahr."

Short version in English: It's a dogmatic belief system and there's no evidence that it works, but these people have managed to create the public impression that homeopathy should be taken seriously. The crucial question for this article is: Is the situation in academia, with regard to homeopathy, in Europe different from the US? --Eloquence 04:29 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Exactly: The public impression that homeopathy should be taken seriously exists in India and parts of Europe (especially Germany/Austria/Switzerland). This is not the case in north America, and certainly not in China, nor (AFAIK) in the rest of the world. I think the phrase widely accepted is accurate, but if you want to put something like enjoys widespread public acceptance instad, that's OK with me.

Also, your 3rd Reich comment is interesting - if you have any information relating specifically to homeopathy under Nazi rule, that certainly belongs in the article.

I'm not sure it's relevant to distinguish between the views of non-medical academia and those of the general population. I hold a Dipl.-Ing. degree in IT, but I don't see how that qualifies me as a medical expert.

FWIW, I was sceptical of homeopathy until I personally witnessed my wife's cat go from completely unresponsive to being able to stand up and walk around within minutes of receiving a single pellet of Belladonna C30. Conclusive evidence? No. But certainly sufficient to warrant keeping an open mind. Mkweise

Certainly, homeopathy enjoys more acceptance from the general public in WE than in the US. Similarly, in the US, creationism enjoys a lot of acceptance from the general public. This is interesting, but it has nothing to do with the views of scientists. Nor does the fact that German doctors are willing to prescribe homeopathic remedies: They are, first and foremost, businessmen, often with an education based almost exclusively on memorization. It is the views of medical researchers and biologists that give us the most insight into the scientific view on homeopathy, and the cited speech above gives a good impression where these people stand. (The views of physicists and other "hard" scientists are also interesting as these people usually have a sound scientific mindset.) My reference to threshold nations was to researchers in those countries; there's quite a lot of room for parapsychology and all sorts of charlatanerie masked as professional science in such nations.

As for the Third Reich, yes, they explicitly supported homeopathy, see [2] for a summary; I might add a few facts from there to the article. As for your personal experience, there are a lot of similar experiences regarding prayer, touch healing, acupuncture, hypnosis etc. The critical question is that of reproducibility. If people continue to believe in something that, according to the laws of physics, cannot work, and that has never been demonstrated to work, one has to wonder why they do that. --Eloquence 05:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Are you aware that many drugs claiming to be "homeopathic" are 'not actually homepathic, and in fact contain measurable and significant amounts of medically effective pharmaceuticals? (This is one of the complaints against the homeopathy industry that has yet to make it into the article. The title "homeopathy" is used, but actual medicine is in them dilutions...) RK

Yes, I've been intending to add a section on pseudohomeopathy, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Chemical effects can be ruled out at C30, though, as that equates to a dilution factor of 1:10⁶⁰. Few remedies retain any measurable chemical effects beyond C3 or D6, and AFAIK none beyond C6 or D12. Pseudohomeopathic remedies usually contain multiple ingredients (a big no-no in classical homeopathy) at D3 and lower potencies. Mkweise

The top-level (double =) headings are now:

Theory
History
Current status
Criticism
Arguments by supporters
External links

I am a bit undecided as to whether "Theory" belongs before or after "History". What do you all think?

The new "Current status" section consists of the former 2nd paragraph and various other paragraphs that had been under headings they had nothing to do with. It flows logically into "Criticism", so that's probably the best place for it. The opening paragraph is a bit short for my taste, but has the virtue of containing only undisputed fact. Mkweise

My main problem is that status/criticism should be summarized in the first paragraph. I don't want to read several paragraphs to first notice that the majority of scientists considers it bunk. --Eloquence 05:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

IMO the status is very well summarized in the word controversial. Putting any opinions in the opening paragraph is bad, because then everyone and their uncle will want to squeeze their own opinion in too.

Also, keep in mind that ideally, encyclopedic writing aims to inform while allowing the reader to form his own opinion. Check out how Encyclopedia Britannica manages to avoid taking sides, or the short but informative article at http://encyclopedia.com/html/h1/homeopat.asp. Mkweise 19:34 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

That's Columbia, not Britannica, and the article is obviously worthless. NPOV dictates that opinions need to be represented according to the number and status of their adherents, so "everyone and their uncle will want to squeeze their own opinion in" is not a valid argument. --Eloquence 19:40 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I said check out EB or (meaning in case you don't have an EB handy) encyclopedia.com. Mkweise 20:40 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Would you mind pasting the EB article on my talk page? --Eloquence 20:46 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I really don't want to retype the entire article, but find it noteworthy that - as is usually case in encyclopedic writing - value judgments and criticism are strictly confined to the last paragraph, which starts out:

"In the medical profession homeopathy at time of writing remained under the stigma of being a dissenting sect. In the United States [...] there were comparatively few practitioners and no medical schools emphasizing this approach to therapeutics."

It goes on to cite the US FDA's position of official recognition without endorsement. Mkweise

Ah, I thought you had an electronic version. I still have a CD around here somewhere, but it doesn't work under Linux. I'd have to see the whole article to judge whether it puts the practice in its proper context. However, my experience with classical encyclopedias is that they have a tendency towards apologism when lobbies are involved, that's why I love Wikipedia. I should be able to come up with an intro summary that will make you happy, though. --Eloquence 22:06 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Nope, just the 1982 dead tree edition. I can open it on *any* desktop, and it's a lot more stable than any Windows application will ever be. Mkweise 23:17 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Your statement is very much akin to saying "I don't want to have to read all the way to the bottom of the article on Iraq to find out that the US Government considers it evil." Mkweise 19:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not interested in putting any claim like "Dr. Xy said homeopathy is evil nonsense" in the intro. But like an article about Iraq should mention the impending doom, an article about homeopathy (or in fact any remedy) should prominently mention the opinion of the scientific mainstream. --Eloquence 20:07 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Pasting without comment: NPOV - Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a very popular view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present various competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though the content of a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Exactly. That homeopathy is a pseudoscience is hardly a minority view, esp. in the scientific community. --Eloquence 20:07 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Re pasted text: I'd have put it quite differently myself, but if that's the official policy I can accept it.

What you seem to be forgetting, is that the subject of this article is homeopathy. Among experts in the field of homeopathy, the majority view is that homeopathy is an empirical science, the inner workings of which are as of yet unexplained by chemistry. The number of critics who have studied homeopathy closely enough to be considered experts is certainly minute, albeit vocal.

Let's just present both sides and let the reader make up his own mind, shall we? POV words like "pseudoscience", "quackery" or "bunk" (or "wonderful" or "excellent") have no place in encyclopedic writing, other than in specifically attributed quotations. Mkweise 23:17 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

By this reasoning, should Holocaust denial be written by experts in the field of holocaust denial, who hold as a majority view that the holocaust did not happen?

Not sure whether misquoted me intentionally or not, but generally as long as the author manages to write from a NPOV, it doesn't matter what his personal POV is. And yes, of course the bulk of an article titled Holocaust denial should be devoted to describing the Who/Where/When/Why/How of Holocaust denial - if I looked up an article by that title, that's what I'd be looking for.

A brief paragraph citing (or linking to) evidence to the contrary should follow. If that part went on and on for ten pages telling me things I already know, it would be wasting my time. Mkweise 02:10 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

The NPOV writeup guides us in balancing the points of view, but not as to which view should be presented first. Do we write an article that says "Homeopathy is believed by scientists to be quackery, supporters say it works" or do we say "Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine, scientists say it is quackery"?

Deleted some stuff and rephrased the rest. Some key notes:

which exempts most of the remedies used in classical homeopathy from rigorous testing on the grounds that they contain little or no active ingredients

Yes, homeopathic drugs are exempt from testing. Yes they contain no active ingredients. No, they are not exempt BECAUSE they contain no active ingredients.

However, this is from the FDA web page: "The reasoning behind [the difference] is that homeopathic products contain little or no active ingredients," explains Edward Miracco, a consumer safety officer with FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "From a toxicity, poison-control standpoint, [the active ingredient and strength] was deemed to be unnecessary." Stephen C. Carlson

That statement is being read slightly out of context. Mr. Miracco was addressing the reasons for solid oral homeopathic drugs having different imprint standards than other drugs, but he wasn't making a blanket statement about the FDA's general approach to homeopathic drugs. The "imprint" in question are the codes and symbols stamped onto a pill that are used primarily by poison control centers (see 21 CFR 206.10 for the specific requirement and homeopathic exemption).

Here is a little background on this. In 1994 the FDA proposed that all drugs in a solid oral form be imprinted with a code that would allow instant indentification of the drug. This rule was supported by the conventional drug industry because several states had already passed similar laws, and the industry wanted one nationwide regulation instead of 50 different statutes. The homeopathic drug makers resisted this regulation as being overburdensome. Some small companies produce thousands and thousands of unique products and producing unique imprints was going to be expensive. Because there is nothing in solid oral homeopathic drugs that could be considered an "active ingredient", and therefore no overdose (or drug interaction) risks, the FDA and the industry compromised on the current imprint that just identifies the drug as being homeopathic, and thereby lets the poison control workers ignore it.

I'll accept your clarification (see latest change to main article), but if you've got a clarification, just do it rather than delete it. Stephen C. Carlson

It is the homeopathic practitioner who makes health claims, not the manufacturer of the remedy.

Homeopathic drugs sold over the counter are REQUIRED to make specific health claims.

including herbal and pseudohomeopathic medications

What is "pseudohomeopathic" and who uses this phrase? Google gave zero hits on this word.

Stephen, maybe we can work out something here. This is your most recent version Homeopathic drugs do not have to list their active ingredients on the grounds that they have little or no active ingredients.

Please don't take me wrong, I agree completely with the statement that these substances contain little or no active ingredients. I'm just trying to make sure the FDA's position is accurately stated.

So, here we go... There are a whole bunch of substances that the FDA recognizes as "homeopathic drugs", mostly because there is a law that defines them as drugs. For clarity, let's call these (for now) "homeopathic ingredients". The FDA does require that homeopathic drugs sold over the counter have to list on their LABEL all their "homeopathic ingredients". What the FDA doesn't require is that the PILL ITSELF be stamped with symbols or codes that a pharmacist or poison control center could look up to figure out what the pill is.

So why I removed your above statement was that it implied that homeopathic drugs didn't have to list their contents, when in fact they do (even though they get to do it in their own "6X 100C" homeopathic language).

So... Is the point you are trying to insert in this statement simply that these substances contain no active ingredients, or are you trying to create some sort of cause and effect between having no active ingredients and some FDA action?

I'm trying to give a reason why the FDA treats medical and homeopathic drugs differently. Stephen C. Carlson

Hmmm... I think we can give that a go. You would probably have to start by considering that the FDA is a weird position. The Congress has passed laws that declare homeopathic medicines to legally be drugs, and those laws require the FDA to regulate homeopathic medicines. It wasn't the intent of congress to ban homeopathic medicines (considering that the author of the original laws was a homeopathic doctor). This kind of forces the FDA into having to treat homeopathic drugs differently, since if they applied the same rules that they do to conventional drugs, homeopathic drugs couldn't be sold. So pretty much every time the FDA makes a rule that (if applied) would ban homeopathic drugs, they carve out some sort of exemption for these substances. For example, "real drugs" are only allowed to be 10% alcohol (or 0.5% if intended for children). But the FDA doesn't apply this rule to homeopathic drugs (some of which are 90% alcohol) since it would in effect mean banning many of them. Another example, homeopathic drugs are exempt from being tested to insure content since chemically there might not even be one molocule left. For the most part, the FDA is content to ignore homeopathy as long as they don't do anything that could be a health risk and they don't do anything that is fraudulent. Other than that, people are free to believe in (and use) homeopathy, healing crystals, energy fields, magnetic bracelets, or whatever other "alternative medicine" they want. Anyhow, if and when I edit that paragraph again, I will try to hold onto the intent of what you have added.

Thanks for the explanation. The article can benefit from some discussion of the FDA's policy bind concerning homepathy, as you've insightfully done right here. Stephen C. Carlson