Talk:Atropa belladonna/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposals, question

An edit removed attribution to National Institutes of Health. According to the Natural Standard Research Collaboration they prepared the evidence based monograph for the NIH. I think the material should be attributed so the reader knows the authority of the opinion per WP:ASF.

The sentence, "A double-blind study of the effects of homeopathic preparations of belladonna indicate no difference in effect than placebo" was added, sourced by the 2001, 87 subject, Walach study. The wording could be tweaked a bit because this one study does not represent all homeopathic preparations. It only represents one preparation that has statistically no belladonna remaining. A more NPOV wording would be, "A double-blind study of the effects of an ultramolecular homeopathic preparation of belladonna indicates no differences in effect than placebo controls." Another suggested change is to use the much larger and more recent 2003, 253 subject, Brien study that is available to the reader for free. I don't consider the next question a huge issue. Should this sentence be in the article at all? It seems the article already makes it clear to the reader there has been no established efficacy of any of the belladonna homeopathic preparations. Is a primary sourced study of a preparation, that statically contains no belladonna, needed in the article to drive home a subgroup of a point covered by a secondary source that was stated in the previous sentence? Comments? Ward20 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "statistically contains no belladonna" is relevant, as this is true of most homeopathic dilutions (those beyond 12c; 30c is standard) and "ultramolecular" is unneeded - this is standard for homeopathy, and not unusual. It would be nice if there was a reference for the typical dilution. The ones I can find are 30c, 30x, and 200c - certainly beyond ultra-molecular. Irrelevant but interesting: the 200c solution is 170$ - that makes statistically no belladonna very expensive! --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that statistical fact may be relevant. Homeopathic knowledge is fairly obscure in the general public; this is particularly true regarding the public's chemical knowledge of homeopathic dilutions. Mentioning it here certainly takes up no more than a sentence, and fairly summarizes the scientific view of such remedies. Antelan^talk 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill and a bit tangential. If the reader wants to learn more about homeopathy in general, let them click the Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been down this path before. Essentially, there is no belladonna in solution. If you don't like that fact, then remove the whole reference to it's use in homeopathy. If an editor wants to discuss it's use in homeopathy, let's make it clear that it's really not there. If we don't make that clear, then the inference is that it does something useful. Since there are no molecules of belladonna in solution, it can't do anything. I guess it can rehydrate, which is a good thing. And I'm in the wrong business. I could bottle 200cc of water and sell it for $170. If I had only known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that essentially there is no belladonna there. We also all agree that Belladonna was used in the preparation of the "solution". The thing is, this is true for all homeopathic remedies, right? (I am not sure - despite popular misconception around here - I am not a homeopath and to the best of my knowledge I have never taken a homeopathic remedy; come to think of it, I am not sure that I've ever seen a homeopathic remedy up-close). If so, then why repeat it every time homeopathy is mentioned throughout Wikipedia? It is wiser to Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For me as a writer, I want to write to inform the reader. The statistical fact is verifiable, noteworthy, and relevant. It is also interesting to learn. Indeed, explaining this to readers may be what ultimately entices them to click through and learn about homeopathy itself. Antelan^talk 01:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Understand I am coming off of a months-long dispute just trying to get a one sentence mention included (and I am truly glad that there seems to be a consensus supporting this mention now!) and one of the most common arguments against inclusion was that "we don't want to have mini-homeopathic articles floating around Wikipedia". I still don't know what that argument means, but I am timid about giving too much space in this article to homeopathy because of that argument. That said, I think the more knowledge we add, the better article we will have. So just keep it on point and don't make it a tangent into a general discussion into the merits of homeopathy and we should be okay. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if homeopathic uses of this plant merit mention here, then it naturally follows that a brief description of relevant features of those remedies (such as the fact that they likely do not contain any of the plant substance in question) are also relevant. That said, sure, it's completely possible that homeopathic uses of this plant are so insignificant as not to merit mention in this article. That's also fine by me, as I have no predilection either way at this point. Antelan^talk 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Ward20s wording seemed to imply that there may be other homeopathic preparations of belladonna that do contain an active amount of belladonna and thus may have an effect. I dispute this implication, as there is no evidence for homeopathic belladonna (and no, 1x is not a homeopathic preparation). I generally agree with OM and Antelan above. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I spent quite a lot of time combing through PubMed finding articles from PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS (and you don't get anymore "scientific" than that) showing evidence of physical effects of homepathic uses of belladonna, and these were removed from that section and some mealy-mouthed sentences about how it does not have any "proven" effects were substituted. I cited articles that proved it had effects from peer-reviewed journals. Why were these citations removed?Harry53 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Harry Roth

There are hundreds if not thousands of substances used for homeopathy, and having a homeopathy section on each of them would give undue weight to proven nonsense. It would be like adding a reference to Klingon in English language just because someone wrote English using the Klingon alphabet. We can see the reason for the inclusion of homeopathy here in the comment "explaining this to readers may be what ultimately entices them to click through and learn about homeopathy itself". As with a lot of pseudoscience, advocates try inserting refs to their cause in as many places as they can, as a form of advertisement. This is undue weight, just as a Trekkie adding Klingon to English so that people could learn about Star Trek would be undue weight. Belladonna is not particularly important in homeopathy, so there's no need to have the mention here. Also, as it was placed, the info confused the presentation of other alternative medicinal uses by breaking up the paragraph, so it is inappropriate purely from the view of copy editing. kwami (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus above that the sentence should be included. Rather than continue the wikidrama and edit-warring which ScienceApologist tries to stir at every turn, the sentence should remain. Given that a source states that the preparation has been tested and proven ineffective, that could also go in. II | (t - c) 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kwamikagami and ScienceApologist, I have not yet seen arguments and references why Atropa belladonna would be of exceptional importance for homeopathy. We simply cannot have a link to homeopathy on every plant, mineral, or any other natural thing that has been used in homeopathy (without any evidence of efficacy!). Wikipedia has pretty clear policies and guidelines on this as mentioned above (e.g. WP:UNDUE). Cacycle (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

look, what is the problem here? this is not an argument about whether homeopathy works; this is a discussion of how Atropa Belladona was and is used. no one seems to be questioning that there actually are preparations that use (even if in miniscule quantities - 'essentially none' does not equal 'none') AB, so there's really no substance to the argument for removing this reference. go fight your battles on the homeopathy page; don't spread them here for no good reason. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a gander at all the sources we have that are explicitly about this plant. I've looked at close to 250 myself. See how many mention homeopathy by name? I count three and of those three only one mentions homeopathy more than a single line. I estimate that approximately 0.085% of the words I've read in all the sources are devoted to homeopathy. That's a grand total of 0.748 words that we should devote to this subject in our article. Undue weight is clear: excise it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your own original research doesn't mean much around here; and it certainly doesn't overrule the consensus and the input at WP:RSN and WP:NPOV/N. Weight and source requirements are completely satisfied, so why aren't you? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know how you measure WP:WEIGHT in any other way and get back at us. Oh, and stop making false claims of consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have answered this time and again for you. And still you edit war. If you disagree with the decision at WP:NPOV/N (Weight) so much, then please take it up over there. But the consensus are NPOV/N was a version not too dissimilar to what is in place now. Creating a separate "Alt Med" section, I think was a great idea and everyone else here seems to agree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine, you ended that section with "So where do we stand. Can we add the phrase (or some amalgamation suggested above) to the article without violating WP:NPOV?" You never got an answer, as the discussion moved off-topic. I don't see that that's consensus, when you yourself didn't see it as such at the time. kwami (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the discussion picked up here and based off the "votes" at NPOV/N, we formed a version which seemed to satisfy the most editors. Please check the archives. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't true. Look, I've read more than 100 articles on this plant. I know more about it than probably most botanists. I have looked for evidence that it is cultivated for homeopathy, that it is used more than other plants in homeopathy, that it is a favorite homeopathic remedy over other plants. I have read children's books, camping guides, wildlife references, video game manuals, and even an account of ancient burial rights. I found three (count them: three) references that were explicitly about this plant that mentioned homeopathy. Two of them were so off-handed as to be almost not worth including. The third was about the fact that it didn't work. I'm saying that the VAST MAJORITY of sources act as if homeopathy's connection to this plant is NONEXISTENT.

Compare that, if you will, to Domesticated sheep. In this article, there are numerous sources which discuss sheep herder's experiences with homeopathic remedies on their sheep. Bizarre and weird, but apparently reliable sources on sheep are more attuned to homeopathy than those reliable sources on deadly nightshade. I made my estimation of how many words should be included in this article on homeopathy. It's less than one. If someone else would like to make a similar estimation, I'll gladly compare methods. But so far, all I have is a lot of feet-dragging and false claims of consensus. Not to mention an insulting accusation of original research which but for the person it comes from would be downright absurd. Thing is, I think that Levine2112 actually thinks it is "original research" to try to figure out if some subject deserves mention when he has hand "cherry-picked" sources himself that "mention" the subject he so passionately wants to see included.

Am I in a pickle? I guess so. I don't give one ounce of interest about this subject, I only want to make sure it doesn't misrepresent the best of sources. Do I want to write this article? Not really. I just want to see that WP:WEIGHT is satisfied. I don't think I'm qualified to write the article, but I do think I'm qualified to edit it down for WP:WEIGHT concerns since I'm the closest thing Wikipedia has to a WP:WEIGHT expert.

This is the last of a list of about 50 articles which off-handedly mentioned homeopathy. I have no idea why Levine2112 chose this one to make a stink over. But he's got his friends User:Ludwigs2, User:Dlabtot, and User:ImperfectlyInformed to take up the slack. It's a nightmare. One that should have been solved long ago, but the administrators I have asked for help over this matter have seemed to be too scared to make any enforcement decrees against the homeopathy insertions despite the TOMES of text I have documented on this.

It's Wikipedia at it's worst.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a measurement for how much weight homeopathy should be given or not? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... look, this is all some strange pedantic quibble over the particular use of the word 'homeopathy' that SA is trying to parlay into excluding any mention of altmed usage at all. I've recommended changing the word to Naturopathy instead, which removes the entire objection; I don't know why that hasn't been adopted. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the problem is that there isn't a source which uses the term "Naturopathy". Secondly, I haven't removed "any mention of altmed usage (sic) at all". Only homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

there may not be any sources that use the term naturopathy, but there are certainly numerous sources noting the use of AB (currently and historically) in various kinds of preparations that would fall under the purview of naturopathy. or if you prefer 'natural' or 'home' remedies, or some other term, that would be fine. the practice has a long and notable history; if you want to quibble about what to call it, that's fine, but stop trying to exclude it through silly word games. --Ludwigs2 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name to naturopathy is no solution, since there is a major difference between naturopathy and homeopathy. I personally would rather not mention homeopathy -- especially if SA is right that atropa belladona is not a major homeopathic material -- but I don't see why it is worth raising such a huge fuss about. However, if three reliable sources can be found that state that belladona is a homeopathic material, then I don't see why we need to edit-war over giving it a sentence. Plus, there have been a couple clinical trials on the homeopathic preparation. These certainly are not minor. SA is not the ultimate "weigher" on Wikipedia. People offer their opinions on weight, and those opinions should be respected. SA's is that homeopathy deserves no weight. Other people respectfully disagree. The best way to solve this at this point is to do a RfC, not edit-war. Edit-warring rather than trying to gauge consensus opinion through things like RfCs is a recurrent theme for SA -- he should consider rethinking his approach. II | (t - c) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

you're preaching to the choir, II...  :-) --Ludwigs2 03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As someone not involved here, I'd like to point out that the WP:WEIGHT argument that seems to be surrounding this article in completely daft. Atropa belladonna is sold as a homeopathic remedy on its own or as an ingredient in other rememdies. This can be easily verified through a simple web search. A brief line mentioning this fact would not be undue weight. To argue otherwise defies common sense. Unfortunately, this is one of many article on Wikipedia where the pissing match between opposing agenda-pushers has taken a back seat to writing good, factual, balanced articles that incorporate a bit of good sense about what to include.--Tafew (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the drawbacks of this encyclopedia is we get comments like the above which fail to address even the most simple arguments laid out above. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Someday, if I have time, I will be happy to go through the reams of discussion above and point out where it appears there are people hewing an idealogical line rather than trying to actually write a NPOV article that is useful to the public at large. I happen to think a brief one line mention of the fact that there are people in the world who buy/sell this stuff as a homeopathic remedy (balanced of course with the fact there are no real credible studies showing value as a medicine) would be appropriate. In a way, it is kind of sad to see that the opinion expressed that critcism of the process that is happening here is a "drawback". Sorry SA, but I'm just calling it like I see it, and I point out that it takes two sides to having a pissing contest; otherwise you are just writing your name in the snow.--Tafew (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think that was a fairly cogent comment, and pretty much on point. are you just trying to poison the well, to exclude reasonably neutral opinions? --Ludwigs2 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start this again. Ludwigs, DNFT. Comments like that should not be dignified with a reply. II | (t - c) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And therein lies yet another problem that seems to be hard baked into Wikipedia culture these days. Don't like the point being made? Call the person a troll. I will merely point out that there is a difference between strongly worded criticism and trolling, and what I'm doing is more tough love for a project I once loved, but more and more seems to have been hijacked along the way.--Tafew (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"...  ;-) --Ludwigs2 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that when I said don't feed the trolls, I was referring to ScienceApologist and his vague comment that Tafew's comment or my comment "fail to address even the most simple concepts". I'd love to hear an explanation for his comment, but I'm not holding my breath. Since people don't seem inclined to comment on the RfC, I suppose the edit-warring will continue once this page is unprotected. II | (t - c) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies then, I misconstrued your comments to be referring to my criticism as trolling. As an aside, given the state of Wikipedia these days, I'm not sure I would hold my breath for edit warring to stop on any contentious article. Hopefully, I'm wrong though and content can still win out over ideology.--Tafew (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching this article, if the edit warring continues people start getting blocked. BJ^Talk 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal RfC: Who thinks we exclude the homeopathy sentence?

Include a sentence noting trials and lack of effectiveness -- ScienceApologist has raised some good points about weight. I have no way of knowing whether he does really know more about belladona than your average botanist, and given my history with him, I'm guessing that's an exaggeration. However, clinical trials are not cheap, and so the fact that 2 have been done[1][2] on this particular homeopathic preparation is evidence that it is one of the major preparations. II | (t - c) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - Given that there are at least two clinical trials devoted to the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna and the prominent discussion in the Oxford University Press book and on Medline Plus, mentioning the homeopathic usage on this article is completely acceptable. Collectively, these sources satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Individually, they all satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. And the text currently in place (which notes the trials and lack of effectiveness) satisfies WP:NPOV. I think that ScienceApologist is setting the bar way too high by expecting us to consider the sum total of all literature written about Atropa belladonna and then weigh the mention of homeopathic usage here on how many times its homeopathic usage is discussed in all of that literature. I also think ScienceApologist is exaggerating for effect here to push some ideology of his. I wonder how many sources out there mention that Atropa belladonna "reverses the effects of poisoning by organophosphate nerve agents used for chemical warfare" or that Donnatal is used to "provide peripheral anticholinergic/antispasmodic action and mild sedation." Yet, ScienceApologist has not held these up to his all-to-high WEIGHT standard which he is trying to set (or any of the other dozens of bits of information in this article which are probably only mentioned in a handful of sources discussing the topic). Imagine the impact such an unrealistic standard would have on all of Wikipedia - if we were only able to mention information which is described in some indiscriminate, notable percentage of sources. We would hardly have an encyclopedia left to edit. It would just be a collection of the most obvious information out there which everyone pretty much already knows. Forget about the interesting tidbits or the different points of view or even exposing the reader to some trivial or controversial issue. Sounds like we'd have a weak resource here containing stale, whitewashed information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - The article is about atropa, not about homeopathy. By the way, Google Scholar gets 610 hits for "atropine homeopathy", most of them fringy, and 4250 for "atropine organophosphate", mainly from solid medical journals (they refer more to insecticide poisoning than chemical warfare, though).Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on responses

These clinical trials did not contain any belladonna and so per WP:REDFLAG they are not ways to establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this subject. Nice try, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same clinical trials? [3][4] Both of these are studying homeopathic remedies made from Belladonna. I am not sure why you feel RED FLAG applies here. We are dealing with mainstream sources, nothing out of character, and these views aren't contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community (that being the medical mainstream). I am confused by your post here, ScienceApologist. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Do the math. How many atoms from the plant are in a solution that is diluted to one part in 10⁶⁰? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. How much of the plant was used in preparing the remedy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is none in the remedy then zero. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. A certain amount of Atropa belladonna is used in the preparation of the remedy before it is diluted essentially out of existence. The plant is used in the preparation and hypothetically even if it wasn't, it is still associated with the topic at hand and your argument here remains Ignoratio elenchi. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No... that's wrong. We cannot verify that any atropa belladonna was ever used because the people who use it in the clinical trials do not prepare it themselves and no tests can determine it. WP:REDFLAG means that we must think about whether the extraordinary claim (that atropa belladonna is actually used in the creation of this remedy) is established by extraordinary evidence and an impeccible source. Since this is not addressed, we do not satisfy the requirement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if hypothetically no Atropa belladonna was used in the preparation of the homeopathic remedy, the remedy is still associated with the topic at hand (Atropa belladonna) and your argument here remains Ignoratio elenchi. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Glass is also "associated" with the remedy in a more verifiable way. Should we include this in the article on glass? Your argument is indicative of ignoratio totali ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The remedy is touted to be made using Belladonna (hence the name Belladonna 30x or Belladonna 60x). It is not touted to be made using glass (Glass 30x?). The belladonic homeopathic remedy directly correlates to the topic Atropa belladonna. It only tangentially correlates to glass (and even water for that matter). Your argumentation here is clearly a red herring (aka Ignoratio elenchi) as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You can try and distract us with your own conjecture and opinions on your ideological crusade to route Wikipedia of all mentions of homeopathy, but nothing will change the fact that this homeopathic remedy is made from a dilution of Atropa belladonna, that there are at least two clinical studies researching the efficacy of the remedy, and that the remedy is described prominently in several reliable sources including MedlinePlus and in a book published by the Oxford University Press. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What homeopaths do or do not tout is irrelevant to this page since they are not experts in this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The preparation of Atropa belladonna

For whatever it is worth, ScienceApologist has claimed that there is no reliable evidence that the plant Belladonna is ever used in the preparation of the homeopathic remedy. Regardless of whether his claim is true (which it isn't and I will show you why), this argumentation is merely a Red Herring here. Now then, from the European Medicines Agency (a body of the European Union responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for European marketing authorization for medicinal products in the EU): "The mother tincture of Atropa belladonna is prepared by ethanolic extraction of the whole fresh plant at the end of the blooming period without the ligneous parts of the stalks..." So, yes, the homeopathic remedy is in fact made from the plant belladonna. Whether or not any molecules of the plant remain in the final product is not terribly relevant to this discussion here. Thus, we have a remedy made using the plant - a remedy which is studied in at least two pieces of notable research - and a remedy which is mentioned prominently in reliable sources concerned with the plant Atropa belladonna (including MedlinePlus and one published by the Oxford University Press). Can there be any reasonable doubt now that a brief mention of the homeopathic usage of Belladonna is appropriate in this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to lay off engaging ScienceApologist when he makes silly comments. The two studies clearly say they are studying a homeopathic mixture of belladona. Their word trumps SA. End of story. Stop wasting your time and cluttering up this page. ScienceApologist has not defended his assertions with sources or reasonable arguments, so we should not feel compelled to engage his assertions. II | (t - c) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In actuality the only place any mention of any homeopathic remedy would be appropriate is in an article on distilled water since that is the only thing verifiably in any such "cure." Wikipedia definitely should not be encourageing belief in sympathetic magic no matter what new term is applied to it.Kbs666 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be appropriate on the water article. This is a remedy associated with Belladonna, not water and not glass. Therefore it is most relevant on this article. I certainly don't think we are encouraging a belief in magic as this article makes it clear that "there is currently insufficient scientific evidence to recommend the use of traditional or homeopathic preparations of belladonna for any condition". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source associates the 30C remedy with this plant? Anyone who is not a homeopath? If not, then we have no reliable sources which associate the remedy and only one source that even obliquely mentions homeopathy as an anecdote (and perhaps unintentionally.... It's hard to say when you're trying to write a passage in an article that is so ridiculously unduly weighted). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument is old and tired. There are three non-homeopathic sources given in the passage, each of which are WP:RS (and well-supported by consensus at WP:RSN). This matter was taken to WP:NPOV/N and they found no Weight issues whatsoever. Do you have any new objections which you would like to present? Anything which hasn't been refuted? Or can we finally move on? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since homeopathy is as fringe as you can get, the issue is really one of determining whether the "reliable sources" are reliable enough to get past WP:WEIGHT. The NPOVN note was flawed and virtually every uninvolved editor who has come here has supported me. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to set up another NPOVN or RSN, feel free. But I am abiding by the majority rule at the ones past. This is not about supporting "you". This is about supporting positions. And currently, the majority of editors don't support your position. But as I said, please feel free to shop around to other or the same noticeboards. (I see you have already done that here in a manner which is less than civil. Please consider refactoring.) Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing derived from the belladonna plant in the homeopathic preparation. The dilution makes that clear. So if nothing of the supposed treatment is actually in the water what is being relied upon? That water once exposed to belladonna will somehow have some effect like belladonna. That's sympathetic magic. Homeopaths may call it the "Law of Similars" but sympathetic magic it remains. Kbs666 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that this is nothing derived from the belladonna plant in the homeopathic preparation. However, this has no bearing on whether or not we include this information in this article. The plain facts are that the plant is used in the preparation of the remedy (regardless if anything of it remains in an ultramolecular homeopathic dosage). The remedy was made using the plant and regardless if the substance remains in the remedy, the remedy is still associated with the plant. We are not here to debunk or prove anything. We are merely presenting relevant information per WP:NPOV. If you are looking for more reliable sources associating the plant with the remedy, consider the peer-reviewed studies such as this one or many of these. We may also wish to consider using this source from the Natural History Museum, though I (and the large majority others at NPOVN and RSN) feel that the sources we are currently using suffice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that glass is used in the preparation of every homeopathic remedy as is distilled water. Your argument is just as specious for inclusion of homeopathy in those articles as it is to inclusion in this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither "glass" nor "water" is commonly associated with the remedy. The remedy is called Belladonna 30x (60x or 200x). This line of argumentation of yours is extremely weak. It we were to list all of the products which are bottled in glass on the glass article, it would be ridiculous. Just as if we were to include all of the products which are mostly water on the water article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Glass and water are both commonly associated with homeopathic remedies. It doesn't matter what the remedy is called. If a homeopath decided to call the remedy Theory of relativity it wouldn't belong there. We need someone who is not a homeopath saying that this remedy is somehow relevant to homeopathy or atropa belladonna. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please show me a non-homeopathic reliable source which associated this particular remedy with glass in any meaningful way. In the meantime, we have a plethora of non-homeopathic source describing the relevance of this remedy to the plant. Do you really now want a non-homeopathic source describing how this remedy is relevant to homeopathy or was that a typo? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"we have a plethora of non-homeopathic source describing the relevance of this remedy to the plant." No we don't. We have sources that say that the a homeopathic remedy which uses the name of this plant exists. That's all we have. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Presentation in these reliable sources (reputably published books, peer-reviewed research, gov't medical agencies, etc.) establish relevance. This has been discussed many times over in the past each time you have brought this argumentation and it has been refuted time and time again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We have ONE secondary source that mentions homeopathy in an anecdotal fashion, and has been disparaged. Everything else we have is a primary source and does not establish the WP:WEIGHT neeeded. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please list out and describe your grievance with each source currently being used. I believe there are four right now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Health Foods mentions homeopathy only in passing, and as you can see in the archives, I have made a case that the authors did not think it that important, or really even care to address whether homeopathy was a subject worthy of careful consideration at all. Medline sources mentions homeopathy in almost every article on every possible homeopathic remedy. That doesn't establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this subject. The primary source is about homeopathy, not about this plant. The authors are not writing about this plant, they are writing about the inefficacy of homeopathy. They could have chosen any remedy. That does not establish the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory guideline

Quoting from WP:FRINGE: Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects.

Since the presence of any atoms of this plant in homeopathic solutions has not received critical review from the scientific community, the presence of homeopathy in this article should be excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no conjecture being made in this article regarding homeopathic usage. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. There is a conjecture implicit that homeopathy is a prominent use of this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)'

That is not conjecture which is included in the article, but rather your conjecture of whether something should be included in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply by mentioning homeopathy, we make that conjecture. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. And the type of conjecture you may be creating, is not the kind the passage from WP:FRINGE above deals with. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. I WROTE that passage in the guideline. This is exactly the situation that it is meant to address. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please refactor your uncivil language above. Second, I think that passage refers to fringe conjecture presented in an article rather than conjecture about whether or not fringe should be presented in an article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a guideline on my talk page for refactoring uncivil comments. You can follow the procedure there. I don't see anything uncivil. You seem to miss the fact that fringe theories, like homeopathy, are THEMSELVES conjectures. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have banned me from your talk page, so I am afraid asking you to refactor here is my only recourse. I have asked and you don't see anything uncivil, so I guess that's that. We are not describing the fringe theory of homeopathy here in this article, so there is no fringe conjecture. Rather, we are aptly describing the scientific mainstream position of the remedy's efficacy (or lack thereof). I am all in favor of this. However, I don't support the push to include editorializing such as: "it doesn't contain the plant but nevertheless...". None of our sources state that it doesn't contain the plant and it fails to address that the remedy - despite contain only ultramolecular remnants - was in fact made using the plant. You seem to have an ideological agenda here to either mention homeopathy in the worst possible light by going beyond even what the reliable sources say or to not mention homeopathy at all. Whereas I have no problem with describing the scientific mainstream's lack of support for the homeopathic remedies and just leave it at that. Remember, I am not pro-homeopathy nor am I pushing a pro-homeopathic agenda here. I am merely trying to include relevant information in the most NPOV fashion which the reliable sources can provide. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can do it here. Just tell me what in the comment was uncivil and why you perceive it to be uncivil. You can also suggest alternative wording, but that's not necessary. By virtue of the fact that you want to MENTION homeopathy in this article, we are necessarily including the idea of homeopathy in this article. You cannot have it both ways. Either we're dealing with the homeopathy conjecture and including mention of homeopathy or we aren't. The position of the scientific mainstream (as you put it) is that homeopathy is bunk. That's it. There's not much more to it than that. The fact that homeopathy is bunk really has no place on this page, but neither does homeopathy itself because it is so fringe and so unrelated to this plant as to be not worthy of inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the only thing I object to is your language ("Bullshit".) That seems aggressive. Consider the hundreds of less offensive alternatives. I have no problem with the mention we currently have in the article other than the "it doesn't contain the plant but nevertheless..." editorializing. None of the sources say this and the "nevertheless" seems to be making an argument which isn't sourced. If we can resolve that issue, I think we can finally put this bad boy to sleep. What do you say? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow. Okay, so redacted. Was it that hard? Now, I have a big problem mentioning homeopathy as I think we are mentioning it arbitrarily. Go to your local pharmacy and see how many Boiron homeopathic remedies they have in that blue box at the back of the store. I bet there are close to 100 remedies in there. Each and every one is associated with an actual plant, chemical, or animal product that we have an article on in this very encyclopedia. If you look at the list of homeopathic remedies, there are quite a number listed. Almost NONE of the articles on the actual substance has a single mention of homeopathy. The reason for this is simple: homeopathy is simply not all that important in the grand scheme of what is prominent about a topic. What we have right now is something that is a red-herring: a wild-goose-chase through the wiles of alternative medicine. The fact that this plant is used in homeopathic preparations is not at all notable. For flip's sake, poison ivy, hemlock, arsenic, strychnine, and plenty of other poisons are all used in homeopathic remedies simply because they produce such dramatic symptoms and homeopaths like dramatic symptoms. The peculiar desires of homeopaths to attach themselves to poisonous plants might be of interest on a page devoted to homeopathy, but on pages devoted to poisonous plants it defies common sense to consider discussing the peculiar beliefs of such a small group of anachronists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

As to this statement "None of our sources state that it doesn't contain the plant," such a reference can be easily found. Quackwatch.org for instance has an article that explains homeopathic dilution and explains that dilutions above a certain scale likely contain nothing of the substance in question. Is that acceptable if the article absolutely must mention homeopathy? Kbs666 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Two objections: Quackwatch is not a reliable source for anything but its opinions. And the source (I am guessing) is not about the belladonnic homeopathic remedies specifically but perhaps about homeopathy in general. What would be nice here would be a reliable mainstream source which says that there is no molecules left whatsoever after all dilutions (whether they be 200x or 30x). Then we could use that reference to support such a statement in the article. Currently we have no such source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Levine2112, this could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It doesn't mention belladonna specifically. But what it does say is that "Many homeopathic remedies would be expected to contain zero molecules of the original substance". "Many" not a "all". We don't have a source which supports this phrase: "Homeopathic preparations that do not contain the plant but nevertheless use its name..." This seems to be making an original argument, in that it is not sourced and merely reflects the opinions of an editor here. Hence, the phrase would violate WP:NPOV if left unsourced. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just disruption at this point. I'm going to make a motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

Motion

Remove all mention of homeopathy from this article as a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

Support

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Looie496 (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Kbs666 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
4. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It is not a fringe theory that "belladonna is used to prepare a homeopathic preparation", it is a common verifiable fact (currently not mentioned). Agreed that a theory explaining homeopathic has no place here (but current wording tries to suggest that an explanation is universally agreed). Peer-reviewed papers on the homeopathic efficacy of belladonna are available.[5] Does it work? Who knows. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Maybe I misinterpret WP:WEIGHT, but wouldn't it be a violation not to include it? I also agree with Shot Info below, we've placed too much weight by giving it it's own discussion. I would suggest changing the section title from "Alternative medicine" to "Over the counter preparations" and treat it similar to the Oxford source. Mention homeopathy only once in a string of other products and make sure and mention that all parts of the plant are deadly. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
3. It certainly would not be violating WP:WEIGHT to mention that Atropa belladonna is used in homeopathic preparations. However, we do not need a lengthy discussion of the fact. - DigitalC (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Per DigitalC. It is not our purpose to stamp out all mention of homeopathy from situations where it is notable. This is not a vote either. There are reliable sources with info connecting this plant to homeopathy. Just relate the info and let the reader decide for themselves what they want to believe. Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. O what drives a man to be neutral: Seriously though, as the information is restricted to no more than a small single sentence to a good source (and most sources are rather unsatisfactory at the moment) then I have no problems with inclusion. I do have a problem with the info moving beyond a single sentence into a paragraph, a section and using more than a single reference. Shot info (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm neutral because I don't understand why this isn't an RfC, which would draw in uninvolved editors. Actually, hasn't this question been RfC'd before? and brought to RS/N, and the plant project? If another RfC is neccesary, post an RfC. What is a 'motion'? and how does it fit into the scheme of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process? Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

FT/N

Recent conversation and opinions about this debate can also be found at here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

As a compromise, I put the information in a referenced footnote. Can everybody be happy with that? This was a similar solution that took place at Redshift with respect to certain "alternative" formulations that received no notice in the mainstream publications. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really like the footnote formulation as it contained information not yet sourced. Please provide a source for the "may not contain any molecules" information. Then let's discuss any footnote formulation first on this talk page and see if we can reach a consensus before implementing. I essentially have restored a prior version authored by User:Sceptre. I feel that this is an extremely neutral and well-sourced version. In fact, if you are happy with it, I think it should just stay as is rather than encumbering it with footnotes and what-not. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you aren't objecting to the footnote in principle, you just want a source for the lack of molecules, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to it. I just don't want it used to as a means of hiding information, links, or Wikipedia or for perpetrating information not specifically sourced. As this would be a totally new approach to resolve this dispute, I would appreciate us hashing it out here on the talk page first before deciding whether or not to implement it. In the meantime, do you have any specific objection to the current version? It was written mostly by Sceptre. I think it tells the whole story per the sources. I'm not sure what we would want with footnotes here. But you tell me your rationale. I am open to the idea.

I take it that you are now no longer objecting to the inclusion of the homeopathic usage in this article, right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, but in order to extend good faith I made a new compromise version with the points completely sourced. The problem with Sceptre's version is that it missed some important points and actually was a bit misleading. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your version has a typo which needs to be fixed. I don't like that the link to the main homeopathy article is in the footnotes. It should be in the main article. I can't access the Milgrom source in full from this computer, but perhaps you can provide exact quotes from the research which supports this statement: ...but in its most common form contains zero molecules of the plant as admitted to by homeopaths.... I want to see that this source is discussing Atropa belladonna specifically; that it is discussing the "most common form" of a homeopathic remedy derived from belladonna; and that this most common form contains zero molecules. Finally, is this really a good source. Is the Homeopathy journal considered a reliable source now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Why did you choose to ignore my request above? As this would be a totally new approach to resolve this dispute, I would appreciate us hashing it out here on the talk page first before deciding whether or not to implement it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a great show of good faith if you just fixed typos rather than sticking to your revert traditions. I prefer to show what I have in mind rather than "hash it out", especially because I have a very hard time with your communication style. Why do you have a problem with putting the homeopathy link in the footnote? Note that this seems to me a better place to mention homeopathy than in the main text as a compromise. Also, the source discusses all homeopathic preparations and mentions the fact that the most common preparation is 30C which you can also read about at homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that some of the information in the footnotes should be hidden in the footnotes. It is relevant and thus I moved it out of the footnotes. I am requesting verification from the Milgrom source in the footnote. If someone with access to the full-article can let us know (perhaps provide quotes) if the study discusses Atropa belladonna specifically and if it discusses the "most common" form. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's "hidden"? Everything is in plain sight that I can see. What information is "relevant"? What is your rationale that it be "moved out of the footnotes"? What policy, style, or guideline are you following with this rationale? Can't you go to a library and look up the Milgrom source? Why do you have a requirement that the "study" has to "discuss Atropa belladonna specifically"? Do you not think that a review of all homeopathic preparations is sufficient? Do you not believe my sourcing? Why are you questioning it? Can you establish a reason for incredulity? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want a source that mentions atropa belladonna specifically. Homeopathic remedies use a consistent methodology, and the absence of the active ingredient is common to all. That's why homeopaths rely on strange concepts like water memory. If the source makes a statement about homeopathic preparations, it's quite permissible to apply it to atropa belladonna. Assuming, of course, that it's reasonable to mention homeopathy at all, and assertion which I still consider to be false.
Kww (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed a template referring to discussion that we can keep on the article until we get consensus (which we clearly do not yet have despite my best efforts at compromise). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just who is it that is compromising with whom? There seems to be a clear consensus stretching back many months, with the exception of a few self-declared POV-warriors who are unwilling to accept consensus. Why is this tempest in a teapot still on boil? Dlabtot (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think that clear consensus is? I don't see that Levine2112 has accepted that there is no need to include homeopathic remedies in articles, which would mean that there is no consensus. SA attempted to provide a version which mentioned it while keeping it in an appropriate context, and had his edits gutted.
Kww (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion

A Request for Comment has been launched on my administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing editing conditions and managing articles in a state of dispute. Since I was recently involved in managing a dispute at this article, I invite anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, to do so: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased sources

The section on "Alternative medicine" includes the statement: "there is no scientific evidence that these high dilutions still contain material from the plant, or that they cure disease", together with three "opposing" sources.

I provided a pub-med sourced reference the flatly contradicts the statement that there "is no scientific evidence". It's removal is described by Hardyplants as "Lets try to stay with more neutral sources and avoid pro or rabid anti homeopaythic sources."

What is neutral about a statement that is contradicted by the single removed source, while leaving only opposing sources? --88.84.137.165 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for words like "rabid", but a cite from the journal Homeopathy isn't going to convince anybody, even if it is listed in Pubmed. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about convincing anyone, it's about demonstrating that there has been scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal by a reputable publisher. Other editors may consider it rubbish, but since they are neither verifiable, nor a reliable source, I'll prefer to refer to the source myself, and make up my own mind. Personally I consider homeopathy to be rubbish, but I want to read the source, not the judgements of editors. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This violates WP:PSTS and WP:REDFLAG. Conceivably, so does the other study, but at least it isn't done by a "faculty of homeopaths" who have an obvious axe to grind. See water memory for how bad it is when homeopaths try to prove themselves right. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:PSTS refers to "interpretive claims". In this case, the statement was that there were no scientific evidence. The primary source contradicts this. Homeopaths and water memory have no bearing to this paper, any more than scientists and Piltdown man affect the papers published by other scientists. I also have no evidence that the authors of the paper are homeopaths. Perhaps you would share your evidence concerning Pedalino CM etc.? --88.84.137.165 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently we have a couple of secondary reliable sources stating that there is no scientific evidence. One primary source from a homeopathic journal may not necessarily trump what the secondary sources have to say. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 source says nothing about scientific evidence (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and the other two sources pre-date the 2004 peer-reviewed scientific study, which subsequently contradicts them. However you interpret it, there has been a peer reviewed paper presenting scientific evidence, published by a reputable publisher. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

i THINK that we can reach a comrpromise here. The non-reggie user wants to use this source while the real users don't want it incorporated. As a compromise, we can use the source ONLY as a source for the claims of homeopaths, with a counter-statement from the opposing secondary sources. Greater weight should be given tot he scientific point of view since it has more sources and more plausible and with regards to science Smith Jones (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and other sources state, we should not be using sources from extreme minority opinions at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

believe my I agree with you SA, but in the interests of peace I recommend acuqiscing to the non-reggie's request temporarily and find some way to quietly remove the source when he's moved on. Smith Jones (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be humoring editors (registered or not). However, I agree with you and SA that this source isn't necessarily up to snuff. What's odd though is that SA is supporting the use of this same journal elsewhere in this article. Take a look. So where do you stand SA? Do you support the use of this journal as a source or not? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

soemtimes we have to make untoward comrpmomises with obstinate persons in order to achieve a higher objective. By incorpirating this source, we head off a potential edit war, we placate a recalucitrant editor (thus freeing him up to do more productive work in Wikiepdia since he wont have to argue with us here) and the best aprt is that since articles on Wikipedia are by their nature non-staagnant the article will continue to change and grow; this unsuitable journal might just vanish mysteriously one day.

believe me, i fthis were any other subject I wouldnt consider playiong a trick like this, but one thing you learnm while working on Homopathy related article is that ou sometimes have to be flexilbe in your approach to editing. Rigid dogmatism,. only leads to bad feeling and unnecessary edit wars that in themselve slead to ArbCom deciisons and permanent bans. I would reall yrather everyone here be able to continue editing and I feel that is it the best interest of the project if we comprumise rather than fight tooth and nail over one inconsequential sourc.e Smith Jones (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about including or excluding a minority source. It's about the text reading that "there is no scientific evidence", in contradiction to the source (minority or otherwise).

NPOV also requires that we do not give the impression that there is ONLY evidence against belladonna efficacy, when evidence exists otherwise. It's not too difficult to phrase it accurately.

Fact: Atropa belladonna is used in a homeopathy preparation. I think its efficacy is irrelevant, and is whether it the final preparation contains any of the stuff. Both should be kept to the article on homeopathy. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage cleanup

After noting, and contributing to, outside discussion about the contention in the Uses section, I realized that section needed some good copyediting. I have been doing just that, and I hope it reads better. I may join in on the more contentious discussion, but honestly think it's mostly a tempest in a teapot. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diligent clean up work. Re: "tempest in a teapot" - considering the subject matter of the discussion you refer to, I believe that you have chosen the most perfect idiom. Kudos! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Update I removed a sentence from the alternative section, simply because I could not for the life of me understand what it was trying to say. If I had to guess, I would say it tried to say that alternative medicine administration is done in the same way that traditional medicine administration is done, except it could be administered over a wider range of conditions. But if so, as it appears there is no way that traditional medicine uses the plant (sourced earlier in article), then both "in the same way" and "wider range" (my quotes to define concepts) are degenerate comparisons, and thus the sentence serves no purpose. Clearly I may have misinterpreted this. If so, please feel free to revert but also please clarify that statement so it makes sense. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Added to the sentence, "Unlike other preparations, these homeopathic preparations lack any toxic or therapeutic effect because, in its most common form, the remedies contain zero molecules of the plant."

The referenced text only states, "The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence." It does not talk about Atropa belladonna or plant remedies specifically. If a reference states X is mostly zero, it is not certain every subset of X is mostly zero. It is stated, Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research. The reference also does not state homeopathic preparations lack any toxic or therapeutic effect, rather opposite the article proposes homeopathy does have effects in its conclusion, "In conclusion, what this all seems to be pointing to is that, far from being competing, contradictory explanations, ‘local’ MoW and ‘non-local’ contextually ‘entangled’ effects (like wave-particle duality in orthodox quantum theory) could be complementary and both are necessary in order to make sense of homeopathy’s effects."

I personally do not believe homeopathy has an effect past placebo, however my opinions are not proof of anything in the article. There are two major problems with the tagged material.

1. The citation does not support any of the material as is discussed above.

2. At this juncture, there is no citation in the article that state Atropa belladonna remedies contain zero molecules of the plant or the effects of Atropa belladonna remedies, so per WP:WEIGHT the article should not contain an argument trying to prove or disprove the effects. Ward20 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Better, [6] but the cited reference PMID 17678819 does not say zero molecules present in homeopathic preparations lacks any toxic or therapeutic effect (rather it actually suggests it does have effects see above), nor does the reference discuss Atropa belladonna or plants. Suggest removing, "Most homeopathic preparations lack any toxic or therapeutic effect because, in its most common form, the remedies contain zero molecules of the active ingredient." and use the rest of the text that is verifiable. Since Homeopathic preparations is linked, anyone can go to that article and see how dubious it is. Ward20 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The added information - aside from being unreferenced - is also tangential. If someone wants to go on that tangent, they can click the Homeopathic preparations wikilink. Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you reexamine the edit. Nothing is unsourced. It would be best to completely remove all mention of homeopathy from the article, but it is here basically at Levine2112's insistence. Since the inclusion can't seem to be eliminated, it needs to be discussed. The source that is used for No experimental evidence exists to support the use of atropa belladonna in homeopathic preparations. reads there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine. The only real change is from "medicine" to "preparations", and I made that because it is immoral to refer to homeopathy as medicine. —Kww(talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kww, please look closer at our post above. We are not referring to the sentence which you are referring to. I am fine with the sentence you are referring to, though I don't see how morality should be factored in when rephrasing sourced information.

Anyhow, the sentence which we are referring to is: Most homeopathic preparations lack any toxic or therapeutic effect because, in its most common form, the remedies contain zero molecules of the active ingredient. This is the sentence which to me seems extraneous and tangential. It says nothing about the topic of the article (Atropa belladonna) and relies on original research to be applied to this topic. To boot, some of the information isn't even supported by the source given, according to Ward20. Do you disagree? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is supported by the source given, and refuse to play the game of having to find a specific source that says "homeopathy is worthless when it uses herb x" for all 99 million possible values of "herb x". That particular problem was created by your insistence on including mention of homeopathy in articles where there is no reason to include mention of it. The best and cleanest solution is to remove all discussion of homeopathy from all articles except homeopathy, and then we won't have to worry about balancing the undue weight provided by chronically mentioning it.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be getting upset, so let's take a moment to cool off. I leave it with this for you to think about: Why are you so opposed to including notable and reliably sourced information about the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna in this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not upset, just forceful. Homeopathy is worthless nonsense. Worse than that, it is harmful nonsense, because people that should be taking effective steps to deal with their illnesses are being deceived into taking homeopathic preparations instead. Various editors on Wikipedia are attempting to make it seem important by including references to in every article about every plant that has ever had a homeopathic usage. I have no problem with having an article on homeopathy, and would have no objection to an article that lists every herb and plant that has ever been misrepresented as being useful in homeopathic preparations. I do object to there being thousands and thousands of references to homeopathy scattered throughout Wikipedia, and people insisting that every counterbalancing reference be specifically tailored to an individual plant. Nobody has bothered to study every possible homeopathic remedy and write down individually that each one doesn't work because there's no need to. All homeopathic remedies don't work, because homeopathy is completely unsound. A reference that says that homeopathic remedies don't contain any of the ingredient that is supposed to be in them is sufficient to use in each and every article about each and every herb that has a reference to homeopathy in it.—Kww(talk) 04:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you believe that homeopathy is worthless and nonsensical in terms of it's "curative" properities, doesn't mean that reliably sourced statements about homeopathic usage of various ingredients is worthless and nonsensical information. I believe that you are allowing your personal feelings about the efficacy of homeopathy to dictate your criteria for content inclusion. In essence, you seem to be equating scientific validity with some criteria for content inclusion. Please recognize that I agree with you in terms of homeopathy's efficacy. I too think it is absolute and utter quackery, with no scientific foundation whatsoever. However, regardless of my feelings, I don't see any issue with including the homeopathic usage of a plant in said plant's article if that homeopathic "remedy" is a notable one. With Atropa belladonna, I believe that the Oxford book well establishes the notability of its homeopathic usage. You will note that the Oxford book is large, includes many specimen's of plants, but only mentions the homeopathic usage of just a handful of plants. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As Levine says, the Oxford source is a good source to show which plants have a notable homeopathy usage and which haven't --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary detection limits

I'm not sure I've ever seen a claim of "zero molecules" for a possible detection limit. It's a rather extraordinary claim, and I would like it sourced a lot better than Homeopathy and in quotation marks to make sure that that is what is said. I will request a copy of the article, from the authors, but, in the meantime, could the sentence be quoted here, on the talk page, in its entirety?

Also, because of the extraordinary nature of this claim, the method of detection should be included in the sentence about "zero molecule." It simply does not ring true without an explanation. --KP Botany (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I got the article, someone who has actually read it, and is using it for the comment about zero molecules, please tell me where it says this in the article. I really cannot read this article. I can't believe it's being used as a source for anything. Are you sure it wasn't written by Alan Sokal? --KP Botany (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is standard homeopathic serial dilution, where the usual 30C dose is unlikely to contain anything except dilutant. Verbal chat 08:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unlikely to contain anything" isn't "zero molecules," so please don't say "zero molecules," and elevate the technology of homeopathy, unless you have a source that says "zero molecules." Zero implies a detection limit of zero, and that's rather extraordinary, and should be well-supported, and should include the particular detection method used to detect down to zero molecules, with its error. Still, if you point me to the "unlikely to contain anything" quote, that could at least help me find what instrument they used. --KP Botany (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't need an instrument, just math. If you take a dose that consists of say, 30,000 molecules, and use that to make 100,000 bottles of medicine, then at least 70,000 bottles contain none of the active ingredient. No magic detectors required, just knowledge of the molecular weight of the chemical being diluted.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, by unlikely to contain anything I mean contains none. At 30C the ratio of "active" ingredient is 10^60: "this would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient." (from our homeopathy page). That is so close to none that no one would dispute it. Verbal chat 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine, if that's how they calculate it, then just show me the part in the article where it gives that information, because I still can't find it anywhere. --KP Botany (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Serial dilution is the method by which the homeopathic medications are diluted (plus banging, which they say energises them in some way) - so with actual homeopathic remedies you only make one dose - supposedly. Look on the homeopathy page and search for 30C or the quote I put above. Thanks. Verbal chat 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at that, a roll-over at least indicates the article opens without another desperate attack on homeopathy clouding all facts out of it. Serial dilution is a scientific technique for diluting chemicals used in a number of different disciplines. That homeopathic medications are created using serial dilution (and probably not very scientifically), doesn't mean that's all that serial dilution is. --KP Botany (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm looking at a specific line in this article, that is attributed to a source that I obtained that says nothing even remotely similar. So, please, god, don't tell me to read about homeopathy--this one article is already killing me. Just tell me where the quote is or the line is that says this. --KP Botany (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what you're asking for. Verbal chat 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand how you don't understand what I'm asking for? If you reference a sentence to an article, that means the information in the sentence came from that article. --KP Botany (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a second reference from the homeopathy article that addresses this point. There are at least three more RS over there for this fact. I hope this helps. Verbal chat 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice how very carefully this author never says "zero molecules" are present. There is a reason for the very careful way the author, in this credible article at a university web site, hedges his/her words about there being no molecules present. The reason is the very thing I brought up above: the improbability of being able to confirm that there are zero molecules present. It says things like "expected to contain zero molecules," "A the 12C (or 24X) dilution, there is a 50/50 chance of one molecule being present," and even when diluting with all the atoms in the universe, "we end up with a 50% chance to have one molecule left at 40C (or 80X)," (less than the homeopathic dilution), yet still, the author concludes only with, "The dilutions advocated by Hahnemann and those used today often reduce the concentration of the initial substance to infinitesimal levels."

The author's not saying with certainty and precision that there are no or zero molecules present for a very good reason, the same reason we should not be saying it: because the author of the Creighton web page you've referenced is a scientist. --KP Botany (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PS The web page you added also disagrees with you in this part, "There is no scientific evidence that homeopathic atropa belladonna has any therapeutic effect, and no evidence exists to support the use of atropa belladonna in homeopathic preparations."

"It is likely that much of the response to homeopathic medicines is attributable to the placebo effect." [7]

I'll check the references to this statement from the article also. But, please, provide the first article reference information as requested. This article on the "memory of water" says nothing, as far as I can tell. Sokal would be proud. --KP Botany (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You do know what the "placebo effect" is, don't you? If something provides the same results as a placebo, that proves it has no therapeutic effect.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Placebo effects apparently can have therapeutic effects, see origin of the term "placebo effect"[8]., "the placebo effects of drugs" being manifested in those cases where "a real psychotherapeutic effect appears to have been produced". This review concludes, "the placebo response rate in controlled clinical trials is not due to methodological artifacts, to disease history alone or to circumstantial characteristics of studies, but seems to reflect a genuine improvement, unless one invokes publication bias for all negative studies."

Better terminology may be clinical effects, which seems to to be used to describe the differences attributed to placebo or active substance. This study which had response rates of about 14% in the placebo group and the group which received Belladonna homeopathic remedy is relevant to the Atropa belladonna article, which concludes, "there is no support for any clinical effect of ultramolecular homeopathy". (Note the study only addresses 30C dilutions.) The terms therapeutic effect or clinical effect is probably confusing or misleading to the casual reader and wording similar to, no effects different from placebo should be used. Ward20 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes a change to "no effect above placebo" or similar would be ok I think. KP, can you drop the Sokal jibes - there is no similarity. Look up homeopathy, placebo effect and serial dilution - it's far to much to go into in this article and the summary provided is correct. I don't understand "provide the first article reference information as requested", sorry! This has also been discussed briefly here. Verbal chat 15:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this should fix the problem --Enric Naval (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence still seems like an aside - a tangent not about the subject of this article as the source says nothing specifically about the subject of this article and only through synthesis can we make it apply to this article. That said, the information about homeopathy in general probably holds true for homeopathic preparations made with Atropa belladonna. The problem is that in that "probably" lies the policy of WP:V. No one has verified that the statement about homeopathic preparations in general holds true for homeopathic preparations made with Atropa belladonna specifically. I'm not planning on making an edit or even futher discussing this (unless someone else would like to do either). I'm just pointing out the technical policy infraction here. But if everyone else is willing to let it slide, then I am too. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's an aside. It's clearly full of a user's personal angst about homeopathy, because it's not based in the articles quoted, it's not even in the articles quoted, yet this user is vehemently supporting it, to the extent of forum shopping on user talk pages for positive support. The sentence simply gives undue weight to homeopathy in the article, with the only explanation for the weight, the seeming argument against homeopathy as a real science--an argument unsupported or even related to the literature referenced. This just looks like a random line, and I suspect, when reading something of this nature, that its owners have applied the same line all over in other equally unrelated articles--it's just a protest, "homeopathy bad," being hammered into the reader's head for no reason. This article is not about homeopathy. The huge presence of pseudoscience on the web and in Wikipedia is absurdly aided by poorly chosen words that turn real science into quackery in a thinly veiled attempt to attack pseudoscience. It's tiresome. Don't use pseudoscience ("the memory of water") to attempt to knock down pseudoscience--it's not valid. It's absurd to the highest degree. And, then, don't quote entire articles that are only attempts to hack at pseudosciences to me to support this asburdity. Serial dilution is used in immunocytochemistry, by the way, the quacks don't own serial dilution any where except on Wikipedia--and they own it outright, here in our community, because of this desperate attempt to abuse Wikipedia and its readers by using en.Wikipedia as a spot on the web to attack homeopathy.

You have not shown anything that says you even know what is in the "memory of water" article--your Sokal comment clearly indicates you haven't read the article you are using to support your ideas. What you claim is there, isn't. You've just originally interpreted some pseudoquackery to.... Well, I have no idea what you are trying to do other than express personal opinions about homeopathy in a Wikipedia article on belladonna. It's too hard to follow or understand.

Homeopathy does not deserve the attention you've given it. And, since the attention is unsupported by the article you supplied, the information should be removed. --KP Botany (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't make personal attacks. Verbal chat 08:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical personal motivations of other editors aside, I agree with KP Botany that the general homeopathy information is tangential, gives undue weight and shall thus be removed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree as it is relevant, informative, and not a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as we are discussing a homeopathic preparation. "Extraordinary detection" is not involved either. Verbal chat 09:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Added reliable source and changed wording about therapeutic effect. Note that there were effects in both groups during the study, one person required hospitalization, "severe abdominal pain in the upper right quadrant (which could be a Belladonna-related symptom)".Ward20 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a perfect edit to make, Ward20. Now, everything we have written is on topic (Atropa belladonna specificallly), reliably sourced, and gives proper weight to the subject of the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks pretty straight-forward. There is plenty of useful, understandable, clear, and accurate information in traditional sources so that resorting to referencing something to an incomprehensible article about the "memory of water" in a homeopathy journal should never have been considered. And, finally, the sources and information are about the topic, the plant, not the homeopathic preparation. This is a service to readers of the encyclopedia and the article. --KP Botany (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also see that as a very good edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Atropine

I just consolidated the medicinal uses sections a bit, mostly removing off topic stuff about atropine, and trimming some off topic subtle weaseling of homopathy. The reorg now reads better from top to bottom.

I saved an orphaned ref here:

<ref name="atropine">{{cite journal |author=Robenshtok E, Luria S, Tashma Z, Hourvitz A |title=Adverse reactions to atropine and the treatment of organophosphate intoxication |journal=Isr. Med. Assoc. J. |volume=4 |issue=7 |pages=535–9 |year=2002 |month=July |pmid=12120467 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2008-07-08}}</ref> .

Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is much better written then before, good work. However, I'm not sure I consider homeopathy to be medicine, or that it's really considered medicine. Can we title this sections something else, such as, heck, I don't know. It is a good rewrite, though. --KP Botany (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the separation that Verbal restored was agreed as good way to handle that issue last July. Ward20 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. I would point out the two sections are now both very short -- what are thoughts on removing the new heading and renaming "Medicine" to "Medicinal uses"? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer medicinal uses over medicine, as the former term is also used to describe what I call non-medicine at times. --KP Botany (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much atropine?

Can something contain hyoscyamine and atropine? If something contains atropine it definitely contains both stereoisomers of hyoscyamine (per definitionem), so? Given the highly stereoselective chemistry of biological organisms it is very probable that a plant does not contain any atropine but only (S)-hyoscyamine, so? The fact that this can hardly be isolated avoiding recemisation is something else -- and does that belong to each and every plant synthesising (S)-hyoscyamine or to the entry Hyoscyamine? This should be considered not only for Atropa species.

The effect(s) of plant ingestion should be described only in so far as it is distinct (or thought to be) from the ingestion of (S)-hyoscyamine (the (R)-isomer is quite boring to the highly stereoselective chemistry of organisms), avoiding redundancy (also in discussion).

By the way: homeopathy, when well done, is psychotherapy, like astrology, a talk with friends etc. (each also well done).--Empro2 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to homeopathy

The reference (Brien 2003) states clearly that a homeopathic potion of A belladonna contains no molecules, has no effect, and is useless. I don't see why editors are reverting back to another versions such as was done here. If we're just talking about the plant, and everyone seems to insist that we include some mention of homeopathy with this plant (which I don't think is necessary or useful), then to not give ANY weight to homeopathic potions, we must make it clear that it can't do anything. If there's some other way to write the sentence, I think it should be discussed here. The current reversion tactics are going to head down a predictable path: multiple reversions, snarky edit summaries, warnings from an involved admin, and overall pissiness. I'd rather we hammer it out here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

link to the relevant ref [9]. It clearly talks about "ultramolecular", belladonna 30C, Avogadro number, etc. The source both supports the no molecules statement and discusses homeopathic belladonna, so I see no reason at all to say "unsupported statement" or "no source discussing Atropa Belladonna has been presented to support this statement". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit is a reasonable compromise in my opinion. Thanks, Enric! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not back to Atropa belladonna the topic of this article, rather than this obsession with giving homeopathy so much page color in Wikipedia? People need to take their belief systems about homeopathy to a blog or something, rather than continuing to try to prove their personal belief system in a Wikipedia article.

I read the Brien article and I cannot find the quote about "no molecules," please copy and paste it here. As if. -KP Botany (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

a version of the argument is in the Brien, Lewith, and Bryant article; read again. it's a statistical argument: in a nutshell, 30c means that the plant is diluted by a factor of 100, 30 times. that drops the probability of a single molecule being present down very close to zero for any reasonable amount of the material (Avogadro's number, at 10 to the 24th, is the number of molecules in one mole - not the animal - but even 12c gives you a dilution roughly akin to 10 to the -24th; at 12c you'd have maybe a 50/50 change of having a single molecule present). all of which, of course, belies the fact that (a) traditional preparations probably didn't dilute it anywhere near that much (a little less concern back in those days for people tripping out and dying), and (b) that's not the way homeopathy supposedly works, anyway. Homeopathy is more akin to something like Chinese traditional medicine or acupuncture, where the aim is to stimulate the system, not provide "medicine" in the western sense of the word.

and I'm not sure what you're previous comment is referring to. Atropa belladonna has a long history of traditional use, in several forms. that's not a belief system, but a fairly well-documented fact. no one's trying to say it works well (or at all, for that matter). or am I missing something? --Ludwigs2 08:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Brien et al say nothing of the sort, but the "pseudoscience freak out and make it worse brigade" can't live without that comment about zero molecules in the article and will do any kind of original research and extrapolation and drawing of conclusions not from the sources that is necessary to add that line to this article.

No, you don't get to put your own original interpretation of Brien et al's statistical argument that they don't make and then claim to reference your statistical interpretation of their research into a Wikipedia article. Go to grad school for that. Hell, even Behe got into Cal.

I'm talking about Wikipedia's pseudoscience freak-out brigade which has gotten so out of hand that they're trashing real articles in Wikipedia to try to "fight" pseudoscience with pseudoscience by doing things like taking what a straight-forward scientific journal article has to say and re-interpreting and twisting and analyzing it in any way possible to make it the lamest original research seen this side of pseudoscience. And which side is that? The obsessed side.

Oh, wait, science isn't obsessed with pseudoscience. Science is not an obsessive practice, it's just an exploration of the universe. In fact, obsession tends to make bad science, just like it makes bad Wikipedia articles and makes Wikipedia editors look idiotic. Science doesn't need alternative, ridiculous interpretations to show that pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience does that on its own. So leave it to them.

Use what the real researchers say, or don't use their article as a reference. --KP Botany (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

KPB - I find myself torn between agreeing with your substantive points and really objecting to your tone. yes, there are editors on wikipedia who go way overboard when it comes to fringe topics (I've had my own share of bitter encounters with them), but it doesn't do a darned bit of good to vent like this. the editors who are trying to do what they think is right just get offended, and the few who are pure science trolls get off on having tweaked you. the thing that you have to recognize is that the problem is resolvable; the editors who go overboard do it by over-generalizing, and you just have to keep drawing the proper distinctions to bring things back into balance.

on this little passage, for instance, I don't have a problem saying that over-the-counter remedies have almost no AB in them. for one, AB is hallucinogenic and a deadly poison in very small quantities; any preparation with noticeable amounts would quickly turn into a public health hazard, and both the selling companies and the FDA know it. neither would allow a real extract on the market. that doesn't reflect on traditional preparations (which clearly had effective quantities in them) and it doesn't really reflect on homeopathy (which follows its own principles that are tangential to medical science); it just reflects badly on the modern companies that are willing to say they're using it to turn a buck. so now we just need to phrase that distinction into the article in a way that satisfies the reasonable people on both sides.

and I've been to grad school, by the way. thanks for the suggestion, though.

so, please... calm and cool. do you have any specific suggestions for changing the wording of the section? --Ludwigs2 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ludwigs' comments on tone. My reply on molecular thingies is below (in separate sections to avoid mixing topics). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing my tone is worthless, nothing will convince the anti-pseudoscience crowd on Wikipedia that all they're doing is trashing articles by making up their own anti-scientific crap and inserting it. However, I will try not to use article space to vent in the future. Actually, it is useful in one respect in that it gets noticed. Still.

It had a nice neutral tone that last time I looked at the article, then someone again found an article they thought they could twist into saying "zero molecules," the apparent current mantra of the anti-pseudoscience freak out crowd. Too bad they can't come up with a mantra anywhere in the realm of science while they're supposedly battling pseudoscience but actually becoming practitioners of quackoscience.

I will look for the last usable version that was actually based upon what the articles said rather than a reinterpretation of it. --KP Botany (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

not worthless at all. changing your tone will make me feel better immediately, and make you feel better in the long run. too much vinegar is bound to spoil your digestion. find the diff and post it; we'll discuss it. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected, there is one good reason to change my tone. I apologize. --KP Botany (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←All Enric's changes below look great to me. All well sourced and relevant to the article. Verbal chat 08:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

most common dilution used

Brien et al says "Clinically and in research trials, the most commonly used homeopathic potency is an ultramolecular potency of 30C (the solute undergoes 30 serial centesimal dilutions with succussion)", so it's correct to use the 30C as an example of modern use of Belladonna, as it is the most common dilution. (If you think that there is significant usage of other dilutions then provide a source, please) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Atropa belladonna article, and you are debating ultramolecular potencies and how to use that in this article. Why? --KP Botany (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any source that anything with less dilution than Belladona 30C is used, yes or not? Found a sort of source myself. While the study says that 30C is the most used one, there are in sale remedies starting from 3C (6X) up to 200C and 50M [10] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

are there molecules left or not, and how many

Brien et al says that Belladona 30C is an ultramolecular dilution "Any dilution greater than 10−24 (12C) is below the Avogadro number and is ultramolecular.". The article currently sums this up as "[the remedy] is diluted to the point of containing effectively none of the plant", which I find factually correct. If you think that it's original research, then can you give an alternative wording that fits better the study? (and, yes, if there is a remedy based on Belladona, and the final remedy has nothing left from the original plant, then the article should really mention that, independently of whether it's homeopathic or not.) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still not the ultarmolecular dilution article, but the Atropa belladonna article. This appears to be a very forceful argument, among many, for including the details of this information about ultramolecular dilutions, but no arguments for why, other than to get in the anti-homeopathy stance, this level of detail is necessary. Please elaborate as to why this level of detail is necessary in the Atropa belladonna article, this one. This is undue weight to homeopathy in an article about an extensively researched plant. --KP Botany (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is easily solved: link to Atropa belladonna in Homeopathy, but not the other way around. Any mention at all of homeopathy in any article outside of homeopathy is placing undue weight on homeopathy in general, but once it is done, the placement must be done in such a way as to make it perfectly clear that the reference to homeopathy doesn't mean that homeopathy has any validity. By deleting the reference in its entirety, that problem is neatly avoided, and obligation people feel to mention the homeopathic uses of atropa belladonna is satisfied by placing that information in the homeopathy article.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

@Kww, man what a extreme solution, removing all references to homeopathy outside the main article? :)

@KP Botany, a remedy based on a plant, that happens to have nothing left of the plant on it. Yes, that should be mentioned. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

mechanism of how it works

Our article says nothing of how or why it works. Brien et al only mentions it tangentially: "No definitive mechanism has been identified to explain how these ultramolecular dilutions may act, although several theories have been proposed" --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire statement is about ultramolecular dilutions, once more, not about Atropa belladonna article. --KP Botany (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This statement is about a certain type of dilutions, and Belladona 30C is one of that type, so it's relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-homeopathic non-modern usages

On a separate topic, we have so much discussion on homeopathy that we are neglecting other usages from end of XIX century and start of XX, I added a eclectic medicine usage[11], from an old discussion at Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_37#Lead_image. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of edit [12]

The wording:

In 2003, the largest double-blind randomized controlled trial (RTC) conducted for homeopathic proving concluded that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo.[13]

was reverted to:

There is no evidence that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has any medical effect that would distinguish it from a placebo.[14]

With the edit summary, "Reverted 1 edit by Ward20; Plenty of sources to support this concise summary". There are no sources cited in the article that support "There is no evidence" and the cited source conradicts the wording (below).

"A meta-analysis[8] and three systematic reviews[9–11] suggest that in ‘good’ quality trials, homeopathy has a significantly greater effect than placebo[8–10], although the strength of the effect is disputable[11] and engenders much debate."[15]

Would someone provide some of the "Plenty of sources"? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the conclusion of the article you site? In full: "Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects". Have a look at the Edzard Ernst meta-analysis for an overview of good quality studies and what can be taken from them. There is also Ben Goldacre's new book, Bad Science. Also, see the discussions above. Verbal chat 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but the cited article still contradicts "There is no evidence", and also states:

"No group differences in proving rates were identified (and this was additionally borne out using alternative definitions of proving) which confirms that there is no support for any clinical effect of ultramolecular homeopathy within this model." The authors specifically state there is no support for any clinical effect within the parameters of their study. The authors also state: "It is also possible that the methodology employed to investigate these concepts is inadequate. The essence of homeopathy lies in its individualized treatment and it could be that this quantitative approach is not the most appropriate tool." Again, they caution their conclusions are based upon their study methodology which may not be universally correct. The other sources I was directed to do not seem to state, "There is no evidence that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has any medical effect that would distinguish it from a placebo". Would someone specifically quote a passage from a source that supports this wording? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward: I guess I'm not seeing the issue here. both statements seem to me to say pretty much the same thing (except that the version you oppose might be making an induction that's not present in the version you support - is that the problem?). could you clarify for me what the objection is? --Ludwigs2 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a little bit of a synthesis problem in both versions:

• There is no evidence that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has any medical effect that would distinguish it from a placebo cannot be accurately supported by one study. However, it is an accurate reflection of the fact that there has never been a properly-run study that did find such evidence.
• In 2003, the largest double-blind randomized controlled trial (RTC) conducted for homeopathic proving concluded that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo implies that other properly run studies that reached contradictory conclusions exist, even though none do. It is, however, strictly supported by the reference.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

<Out Yes, my objection is that the present wording cites a source that states there are studies (with their own limitations) suggesting homeopathic atropa belladonna may have clinical effects, but the present article concludes, "there is no support for any clinical effect of ultramolecular homeopathy within this model." I believe it is more scientifically accurate and also significantly compelling to state that a recent large well controlled study concluded, "30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo." To globally state "There is no evidence" contradicts what the citation actually states. It was not my intention to infer the previous studies were right and the cited one was wrong. simply to eliminate the over reaching of the wording to the cite. There should be a middle ground as Ludwigs2 and Kww indicate the statements are not far apart in intent. Ward20 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

damn, you're making me use my science brain. as I read the article, the 'positive' studies they refer to are a stalking horse. basically they're saying: 'yes there were these studies that showed positive results, but they lacked statistical power because of (among other things) relatively small samples, so now we're going to do a larger sample study'. their generalization that 30C AB is not significantly different from placebo is probably a sound induction, though its extension to homeopathy in general is highly questionable (for at least two reasons I can think of off-hand), and there are issues with this particular study (their sample size was 4/5 what it needed to be for the level of power they were trying to achieve, and their subjects were the standard convenience sample of college students that are about as typical of the general population as I am). all things considered, then, you're probably correct. I'm for the second wording. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording might say something like,

"A recent large scientific study concluded 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo."

That wording is accurate to the source and there is no implication other properly run studies reached contradictory conclusions. Ward20 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I'm OK with that. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what they concluded in that particular study, the authors appear to be scientists, from their writing, and from the clinical protocols, and the careful conclusion they drew. The conclusion they drew was that in their study "Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects." And is 250 subjects a large study, especially when the authors themselves admit the number was too small?

These authors were very careful to not only not conclude that their study was meant to apply to all applications of A. belladonna in homeopathy, but they elaborated on why that conclusion should not be drawn from their study, and gave suggestions as to further research that might give insight into the broader question that is currently trying to be settled via original research on the A. belladonna article on Wikipedia.

I suggest:

The British authors of a 2003 study in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that ultramolecular dilutions of A. belladonna as used in the practice of homeopathy offered "no observable clinical effects." See, I can even bend it towards the anti-homeopathy without being precisely inaccurate.

Better yet, A 2003 double-blind, placebo-controlled study of healthy subjects concluded that ultramolecular dilutions of A. belladonna as used in the practice of homeopathy gave "no observable clinical effects" to support homeopathic theories. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"These authors were very careful to not only not conclude that their study was meant to apply to all applications of A. belladonna in homeopathy" They are talking about applications of Belladona 30C. If homeopathy uses other dilutions apart from 30C, then please provide a source at Talk:Atropa_belladonna#most_common_dilution_used Already found a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that there are no homeopathic potions that do anything but give one a good solid drink of water. As of today, there hasn't been a single clinical study (meeting standards of a real clinical trial, not the junk science published in various low quality journals) of any homeopathic potion that has shown a clinical benefit. In Bausell, R. Barker (2007). Snake oil science: the truth about complementary and alternative medicine. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-531368-2., Bausell states that there are several conditions for a good clinical trial of quack medicine: (1) Random assignment and a credible placebo control group. (2) At least 50 subjects in each group. (3) Less than 25% dropout rate. (4) Published in a high-quality, prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. I think the study passes all of these points, and their conclusion was quite clear: "Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects." Why should we weasel word that in any way? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, "Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects." is fine as it pertains to their model. The authors of the study cautioned their conclusions were based on the methodology of their study. The scope of their study needs to be faithfully described along with their conclusions. Ward20 (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions, OrangeMarlin.

This is not an article about "homeopathic potions," nor about your opinion about ultramolecular dilutions. It's not an article about clinical trials of "homeopathic potions," it's not an article about "junk science," it's not an article about "good clinical trials of quack medicine," and, yes, the authors' conclusion was very clear, and look just how carefully they worded their conclusion.

It's an article about a plant.

"Ultramolecular homeopathy in this trial had no observable clinical effects." This does not generalize into "30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from placebo," and the authors, who are scientists, have no issues with giving the more carefully worded conclusion. The latter would be original research on the part of Wikipedia editors, unless this generalized result is part of the literature. As the authors themselves point out in discussing their results, their study is not generalized at this level, because it is, after all, a single study, looking at one question.

It's not weaseling to be precise, it's science. Scientists, by their nature are careful about what they say, because they are not the quacks. They don't require their words from a limited and very carefully constructed clinical study be turned into a general trumpet charge against homeopathy simply because they can allow the facts to speak for themselves. Facts speak loudly, and well, and simply. Precision and accuracy are tools of science and scientists. Overly broad generalizations are not tools of scientists. This is why scientists are careful to couch their results in very specific words, and why, when reporting the findings of a scientific study, rather than of a pseudoscientific study, care should be taken to represent accurately what is being said. Most working scientists don't need to be or want to be the kooks.

Precision does not equal wealing in the sciences. It equals careful scrutiny, a desire for accuracy, and, it's part of science.

--KP Botany (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescending verbiage. I really appreciate it. And science isn't about facts, but then again, you know more than I. BTW, how many science degrees do you have? Apparently dozens. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm always happy to provide condescending verbiage when another editor suggests it is the most appropriate form of communication. I have a sufficient number of science degrees to read my own post well enough to know I did not say "science is about facts," but I can't stop you from saying it isn't. I also have a sufficient number of science degrees to know that when I am communicating about science, I bother to read what other scientists have said, and I quote them accurately. Generally you see before calling. --KP Botany (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe those two are more faithful to the source than my last suggestion above. Ward20 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean my two, I agree with you. Please clarify. --KP Botany (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany, I do indeed mean your two, I especially like the latter one. Ward20 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we just state that it is used in homeopathy, cite the reviews, and move on? There really are other aspects to this plant. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I really think that is all which is warranted here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think both KP's suggestion and Eldereft's are excellent, and I'd be happy with either. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in heaven's name do we need to describe a nonsense medical use on here? And if we do, we need to refute it with all reasonable citations so that it is well understood that this plant, diluted to essentially water, is useless? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1. We need to describe it because it's a prominent aspect of AB, both historically and currently. People have and do use the plant this way.
2. We don't need to take any special measures to refute it, since this is not a page about the medical use of the plant. We obviously need to add appropriate cautions (since the plant is hallucinogenic and poisonous), but otherwise refutation can effectively be left to the homeopathy article, which is about the supposed medical uses of plants like this. --Ludwigs2 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If we mention homeopathic use (I think we should as it is notable in this case) then it is relevant and interesting to note both that homeopathic preparations made with this plant often actually contain none, and that there is no evidence for any effect beyond placebo. If there is evidence that real, notable, drugs using this plant work or don't work, or have notable side effects, then likewise they should be noted. Anything notable should be noted! Verbal chat 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

well, again, I'm personally not against any needed warnings, but I don't think it's necessary to use this page to 'debunk' homeopathic use of AB. I mean, if we really feel it's necessary to point out that 30C preps contain effectively none of the plant, then we'd be obliged (by NPOV) to point out that classic homeopathy isn't concerned with the 'material' elements of the plant, but rather with some strange notion of the plant's 'essence' (pardon the overuse of scare-quotes) which doesn't fit at all with molecular biology. at that point we'd be committing ourselves to a fairly long discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the philosophy of homeopathy, which is just not important for this article. In for a dime, in for a dollar, but I don't think we want to be spending that dollar here. --Ludwigs2 07:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't debunking and it is to do with the amount of the plant in the preparation - none. That is relevant to the article on the plant. Verbal chat

using that logic, the homeopathic belief that the plant has a spiritual essence which can be extracted in this way is also 'relevant to the article on the plant'. coatrack logic: both of these points are tangentially relevant to Atropa Belladonna, but neither is really on point; if one is included where's the rationale for excluding the other? the problems of 30C dilutions are not specific to AB, are already discussed on the homeopathy page (where the discussion belongs), and don't really add anything to the understanding of AB, so... --Ludwigs2 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow from "my" logic at all. Homeopathy shouldn't be discussed generally in this article, but only how it pertains to preparations made with this plant. That is (in summary): amount of plant (none, after succussion and dilution), claimed effect (see article), evidence for effect (none). The philosophy and underpinnings of homeopathy do not need to be discussed. I haven't said it is a "problem" it is just a fact that 30C AB contains no AB. That is relevant and informative. Verbal chat 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

except that that fact is only relevant to the article because modern medical knowledge assumes that molecules of the plant need to be present for the preparation to have any effect. This is not an assumption of homeopathy, and this is a homeopathic preparation we are discussing, so why is modern medical knowledge important in this context at all? I don't have a problem with your last two points - claimed effect, evidence lacking (see article) - but the whole 30C thing is an argument against homeopathy from a medical standpoint, which is (a) biased and (b) off topic. it would be equivalent to someone going to an article about (say) a Buddhist saint, and adding a criticism that some of this saint's documented acts weren't particularly Christian. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Except this isn't an article about a Buddhist saint, it's an article about a plant. It's also not an article about a homeopathic preparation, it's an article about a plant. Why is homeopathy even mentioned? It's like mentioning the possibility that Ray Lewis (American football) might be a reincarnation of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on an article about the Baltimore Ravens. Plant articles are scientific articles, framed in the language of science. If we're going to pigeonhole Homeopathic claptrap into this article, it needs to be pigeonholed scientifically. Hipocrite (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And homeopathy isn't science, other than the science of an expensive container of pure water. Science is verifiable with reliable sources in Wikipedia, and homeopathy should either be deleted from this article (I dare say we're giving way to much weight to nothing), or it should state clearly that it's just water, so it has no effect. Every time there's a medical claim in a plant article (and I don't have time to edit them all, but I go after the key ones), I remove everything that cannot be verified with reliable sources. So, if we're going to say that belladonna is used in homeopathy, then it must be made clear that homeopathy is bogus. Why are we spending so much time discussing this? Oh I know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite: again (for the seventh time, I think) homeopathic use is mentioned on this article because homeopathic preparations of AB are common. I don't know if anyone has ever suggested that Ray Lewis is a reincarnation of Ghandi: if that idea has been bandied about sufficiently to make it public knowledge, and it's somehow significant to the Ravens (e.g. it's an urban legend that supposedly explains Lewis' playing style for that team) then maybe it should be in the Ravens article. I do know, though, that I can go to my local health food store and find something that claims to be made with AB without too much searching. not that I'd buy that crap, mind you, but I can certainly find it. that makes it noteworthy.

look, I don't quite understand why the choice here is between omitting an obvious and common use of the plant (as you suggest) and getting involved in a tangential discussion of the merits of homeopathic preparations (as Verbal suggests). let's note the use of the plant in homeopathic preparations, note (if needed) that the largest study of these uses of AB found no significant results, and let the issue go.

OM: what has science got to do with this at all? this isn't an article about science, it isn't an article about homeopathy, and even if it were I doubt that wikipedia policy give us the leeway to determine what is and is not 'bogus'. your time would be better spent on the homeopathy article where you could make this argument (which I don't entirely disagree with) effectively and within topic bounds. it just doesn't belong here. --Ludwigs2 07:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is tiresome. The article is about the plant, the plant is used to make homeopathic sugar pills, none of the plant remains in the pills/solution/whatever. This is all relevant if we mention the homeopathic use, which we probably should. Verbal chat 07:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

you know, I think it's tiresome too. I'm ok with the current wording (which I think satisfies you verbal, no?). it could be better if we could work together, but the effort of wading through these endless arguments isn't worth the minor improvement that we could get. does anyone have any real objection to what it says now? if not, let's call this resolved. --Ludwigs2 08:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

75% of the words around here are from you Ludwigs. Give us a break. Homeopathy is anti-science. This is a science article (plants are in biology, which is a science, something you ALWAYS insist you know). Time to move along Ludwigs. Tiresome. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is tiresome. This insistance about "zero molecules," a non-measurable amount, that the anti-homeopathy crowd is promoting, is every bit as tiresome. There is no need to bend any facts or misquote or make anything up to pound the dumb reader over the head that homeopathy is pseudoscience. And the more this article is used for that purpose rather than to discuss the plant, the actual topic of the article, the more the anti-homeopathy agenda reeks through. The average reader is not, I suspect, so limited as to fail to be able to see the difference between the obvious: the desperate cry against homeopathy is not about the plant, but about the desperate cry against homeopathy. I offered suggestions about accurately quoting a single respectable study. The anti-homeopathists desperately want it to say something it doesn't. That's original research and fake. More than kinda like quackery in other words, it is quackery at its finest. --KP Botany (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm not sure what to do about it. no matter what kind of reasoning I use, I get the exact same points back, as though I'd never said anything at all. in the absence of reasoned discussion, I'm at a loss; all I can do is continue trying different approaches to the issue in the hopes that one of them will (eventually) spark something other than the same-old-same-old, and some progress can get made. do you have a better suggestion? --Ludwigs2 20:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh... I edited the homeopathy part without realizing there was "discussion" going on. My apologies. If I erred (against the arbitration case or whatever), it was against my knowledge... feel free to revert. --Ali'i 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. no big issue; I'm just tired of arguing this out, and don't want to see it turn into an edit war situation. I'd like to see things remain stable until we get some resolution here. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit discussion break

Are there any objections to me changing the current sentence:

Homeopathic preparations with the name belladonna have been sold as treatments for various conditions, although there is no scientific evidence to support this use.

by adding the words "the efficacy of" after "support"? New sentence would read:

Homeopathic preparations with the name belladonna have been sold as treatments for various conditions, although there is no scientific evidence to support the efficacy of this use.

Just want to bring some edit proposals up here rather than just making them. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

that's actually more consistent with proper scientific reasoning (science doesn't support (in the sense of 'condone') usage). it might be more accurate to say "there is no scientific evidence that suggests such treatments are efficacious", but that's a little wordier. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense --Enric Naval (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It should say "claims of efficacy are unsupported by scientific and medical evidence." Simple and to the point. And yes science evidence support medical uses. Hence evidence based medicine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why do we say "Homeopathic preparations with the name belladonna..."? Sounds weird. I believe there are homeopathic remedies on the market which are prepared with belladonna but are not necessarily named "belladonna". Does this sentence not apply to these products? Shouldn't we therefore just say "Homeopathic remedies prepared with belladonna..."'? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  yeah, that does sounds dumb, but I think it's part of the whole 'there's no actual plant in the remedy' silliness. at any rate, I tried changing it previously to read "Homeopathic remedies that ostensibly contain belladonna..."' but even that got reverted. I'd support your change, I just don't know how far it's going to get.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 March 2009

  Hehe, to be frank, that wording also sounded dumb :) That "ostensibily" sounds as if you could see the belladona leaves floating around in the bottle :D Maybe "Homeopathic remedies prepared from the belladonna plant"? The article has now an explanation of which remedies actually have molecules and which don't. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  actually, it means the opposite; but other than that I can't argue with your point. what can I say, I'm not perfect. --Ludwigs2 22:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  I like Enric's suggestions. So here's the wording which also incorporated Ali'i's suggestion above:

Homeopathic remedies prepared from the belladonna plant have been sold as treatments for various conditions, although there is no scientific evidence to support the efficacy of this use.

• Does that work for everyone? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  works for me. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  Looks reasonable. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Change the subordinate clause to "claims of efficacy are unsupported by scientific and medical evidence." Then we can end this 12 month old debate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  I changed it to Levine's suggestion for now. What is the difference between "scientific evidence" and "scientific and medical evidence"? I thought that current medicine used only scientific methods :P

• This "claims of efficacy" thing is a standard phrasing for these situations? I can see it used a lot in papers[16] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually do the medical + scientific, because there are too many woo-loving types who think medicine isn't science. Hence the belief in magical properties of no molecules in water having a medical effect. But I can live with the change. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

This article is about the plant, not about the homeopathic preparation known as "Belladonna". Inasmuch as it's a 30C preparation, there's no A. belladonna in it. Discussion of something that doesn't actually contain A. belladonna doesn't really belong here, especially when it leads to all this ill will and fighting. So why not add a hatnote saying:

For the homeopathic preparation of the same name, see, see list of homeopathic preparations.

{{For|the homeopathic preparation of the same name, see|list of homeopathic preparations}}

That way we can write an article about the plant, we could write about traditional herbal remedies which actually use the plant, we could even talk about witchcraft...but we wouldn't have to worry about "preparations" which are based on the plant, but which only have a "water memory" of it.

Anyone interested in the homeopathic preparation can read about it, and we can have peace to write an article about the plant, it's biology, and its uses. Useful compromise, or naïve stupidity? Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Great proposal! This could be applied in a more general way to all other articles on items used in homeopathic preparations as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating a short straightforward discussion of the use of the plant in homeopathic preparations in this article would seem to be A point of view (POV) fork. As was mentioned, the article has a short frank discussion about flying ointments for witches without obsessively debunking it into oblivion. I don't see why Atropa belladonna homeopathic preparations should be treated differently. Ward20 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no A. belladonna in the homeopathic preparation. Since the plant isn't actually present in the preparation, it doesn't belong here. Flying ointment for witches actually included A. belladonna. So that's relevant. Homeopathic preparations do not. So it's not relevant. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Eiteher full removal or it a ll stays. It is used in the making of the homeopathic preparation, and the preparation is sold under the name. To remove it would be removing relevant, interesting, and important information about this plant and its use - if the homeopathic use is mentioned at all. If the homeopathic use isn't mentioned, then it all becomes moot. So if the homeopathic use is mentioned, then the whole discussion should stay. I support the removal homeopathy from the article, or the retention of the whole discussion. Verbal chat 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The 30C dose is stated as the most common use by the study. The The Oxford Book of Health Foods does not state A. belladonna is used only in ultramolecular preparations. There is also a note in the article that indicates other preparations are sold with small or trace amounts of the plant present. So there does seem to be a source that indicates there is A. belladonna in some homeopathic preparations. Ward20 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It would violate NPOV to remove all mention of homeopathic uses of A. belladonna from this article. There is probably enough notability to establish a subarticle on homeopathic usage of A. belladonna, but as Ward20 said, eliminating discussion of it here would be a POV fork. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

let me point out once more that the 'there's no molecules of the plant' argument is using a scientific critique to evaluate a non-scientific concept. The people who originated these preparations (if I can believe the Homeopathy article) were quite aware that they were reducing away the physical portions of the plant; they actually thought that made the preparations stronger, since they were interested in the non-physical 'essence' of the plant.

I aint sayin it makes sense, I'm just sayin that this is what they thought: 30C, 60C, 120C - those were the strong versions from the homeopath's perspective. --Ludwigs2 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that just because they think magic is the way it works, we should then buy into the creationist/CAM cruft without any criticism? So just because the flat earthers believe the earth is flat, then in the article on Magellan, we should include the flat-earth POV? Well, I'm not going to support that idea. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that idea either. frankly, if this were an article on a biochemistry topic I'd be right beside you pitching in to exclude a perspective that's completely non-noteworthy with respect to medical or scientific opinion. I mean, yes - from a medical/scientific perspective this stuff is unintelligible. but this is an article on Atropa Belladonna, the plant. It has some noteworthy medical application, it has some noteworthy historical uses, and it has some noteworthy uses in homeopathic preparations for which the Sci/Med perspective is pretty much beside the point. I mean, the article on chicken soup says "The 12th century rabbi and physician Maimonides touted the benefits of chicken soup to one's health" without introducing a scientific analysis of the weaknesses of that assertion; why should the case here be different?

As I said before, scientific criticisms of homeopathy belong on the homeopathy page where they are meaningful to the topic, and shouldn't really be exported to other articles. homeopathic uses of AB need to be mentioned in this article because they're so common. a disclaimer that there's scientific evidence against this claim is (IMO) a good thing, with the reference and maybe a link to the criticisms section of the homeopathy article. the bit about there being 'no molecules', however, is an implicit reductio ad absurdem argument against homeopathy; a perfectly fine argument, if you ask me, but one that doesn't belong on this page, but over on the Homeopathy page (where it already exists in greater detail). link to that argument if you want, but I don't see a reason to coatrack it into this article explicitly. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: chicken soup. That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :) Also, that article has a curative properties section where it explains the scientific basis for the recommendations, no need to repeat it for each country.

I think that, since the article already explains the scientific, it should explain why homeopaths thought that Belladonna could cure X. That would mean the details specific to this plant, without entering on an explanation of the general field:

"Homeopaths believed that Belladonna could cure X and Y because the symptoms of those illness were similar to the effects caused by the ingestion of Belladonna" (can't look up the details now) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

well... unh, I hate this nickel and dime stuff. if we note that 30C preps have virtually no AB, then you're right, we'd probably have to balance that with a quick explanation of why homeopaths don't think that matters. but I think that adding both of those would really overemphasize the homeopathic section in this article (as well as both being a bit off topic), so I kind of lean towards having neither. which way do you all think we should go? --Ludwigs2 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

that's not having neither, that's removing the scientific research for its effects :P --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

nah... I don't mind referencing the scientific research; I just don't want to import a debate that ought to be on a different article. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

to be clear, I'm happy with the section as it is, except that I think the last line should be deleted. the footnote that talks about homeopathic preps can remain, if people think that's necessary, but I'd personally prefer that that gets replaced by a 'see xxx for more information' type link. does anyone object to that? --Ludwigs2 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There should be no removal of relevant information from MEDRS to suit your fringe POV. Verbal chat 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility, people. Please. There's a simple question: Does the reference given verify the text? I don't have access to the full journal article, so if someone who does would please quote from it where it verifies this following sentence, that would be helpful - The most common preparation is diluted to the 30C level in homeopathic notation; it contains few or no molecules of the original plant. If the source can verify the text, then we can and should include it. If not, then we should remove it. If we simply stick to WP:V, then there can be no POV pushing or claims of POV pushing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you disputing? That 30C and above is common, or that at 30C and above there is none of the original plant?. It must be something else, because many references have been provided for both of these facts, and trying to remove either would be a fringe bias by omission - is that what you are advocating? Verbal chat 09:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, please chill and re-read what I wrote here (and on your user page). I am not disputing anything. I am merely asking a question. I don't have access to read the full-text of the only reference given to support this statement: The most common preparation is diluted to the 30C level in homeopathic notation; it contains few or no molecules of the original plant. Can someone who does have access to the full-text please quote from the source where is supports the following statements:

• "The most common preparation is diluted to the 30C level in homeopathic notation"
• "...it contains few or no molecules of the original plant."

I am "advocating" including the sentence if this source (or some other ungiven source) verifies the sentence. I am "advocating" excluding the sentence if it cannot be verified. There is no POV pushing. The litmus test is WP:V. That is all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are not disputing anything, then there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss as, I'm sure you are aware, this is not a forum. There are plenty of references for the two facts in the statement, as you know. Verbal chat 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

<out If you click on the Full Text: HTML, PDF links the full article should be available to view. Ward20 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally missed that. Thank you, Ward! I have an appt. right now, but I will read it when I return. Thanks again! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Verbal. re: "There should be no removal of relevant information from MEDRS to suit your fringe POV" - you could easily have ended that sentence 5 words sooner, and saved adding a whole lot of useless cr@p to this talk page. please be more tactful in the future, because I don't think your (incorrect and argumentative) opinions of my motivations are relevant to this topic.

to your substantive point. in what (non-coatracking) way does MEDRS apply to this article? as I noted above (several times) this is not a medical article, and the mention of homeopathic remedies is here because it is a common preparation. this is not advocacy, and my suggested wording includes a proper scientific refutation; all that's being removed is material irrelevant to the discussion of AB. if you think this is an incorrect assessment, please explain to me why so that we can have some sort of proper discussion of the matter. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I read the full-text and I have concluded that it "pretty much" supports the text it is supposed to verify and we only need to make some very minor changes. Here's a key quote from the full-text:

"Clinically and in research trials, the most commonly used homeopathic potency is an ultramolecular potency of 30C..." (source)

So that somehwat supports the first clause of our text:

"The most common preparation is diluted to the 30C level in homeopathic notation..." (our text)

I would only suggest that we account for the source stating that "most common" applies to "clinically and in research trials". Thus, we should reword our text to read something to the effect of:

"Clinically and in research trials, the most common preparation is diluted to the 30C level in homeopathic notation..." (suggested change to our text)

With that, I think WP:V is met entirely.

The second clause of our text:

"...it contains few or no molecules of the original plant." (our text)

...is not precisely verified to the source. The source discusses the definition of ultramolecular however:

"Any dilution greater than 10⁻²⁴ (12C) is below the Avogadro number and is ultramolecular."

I am not a chemist, but I certainly know that an amout below Avogadro's is infinitessimal and thus it would seem to support "few or no molecules". I did some research to find out just what is meant by "ultramolecular" and here is what I found:

ultramolecular, adj - in homeopathy, a characteristic of the highest dilution of remedies. Attenuated until no molecules of the original substance are present in the solution (to the 24th decimal or 12th centesimal).(source)

To me, this would seem to suggest that our assumption about the liklihood of the presence of molecules in a ultramolecular dillution being "few to none" is spot on. So even though our source doesn't outright state "few to none", the use of the word "ultramolecular" is basically synonymous with the phrase. As such, I wouldn't suggest any change and support inclusion as is.

Perhaps we should discuss our footnote text as well:

"Although 30C is the most used preparation, there is a wide range of homeopathic dilutions for sale, starting at 3C dilution up to 200C and 50M. Dilutions from 3C to 12C may contain trace amounts of the plant, but dilutions greater than 12C are unlikely to contain molecules of Belladonna." (our text)

We know that we need to augment the beginning to include "Clinically and in research trials"; however the clause about a wide-range of dillutions being for sale is not supported by the given source. We would need to find a source if we plan to keep this clause. The second sentence is essentially supported by our source. Here's my suggested change:

"Dilutions from 3C to 12C may contain trace amounts of the plant, but dilutions greater than 12C are unlikely to contain molecules of Belladonna." (suggested change to our text)

I've deleted the first sentence because the first clause is repetitive (we already stated that in the body of our article) and without a source to verify the second clause, we shouldn't include it in our article. If someone can provide a source which supports the second clause, then here would be my suggested rewrite:

"There is a wide range of homeopathic dilutions for sale, starting at 3C dilution up to 200C and 50M. Dilutions from 3C to 12C may contain trace amounts of the plant, but dilutions greater than 12C are unlikely to contain molecules of Belladonna." (suggested change to our text)

I'm still leaving out the first clause of the first sentence, because it is repetitive.

Okay, that's my analysis of the source. I only think we need to do some very minor changes to the text already included (add "Clinically and in research trials", and shorten and source the footnote). Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really addresses the 'coatrack' issue. sure, the article says this stuff about different preparation strengths, but how is it related to AB specifically? and if we're going to use it (as noted above) shouldn't we have some explanation of why homeopaths don't care? again, I don't see how the tawdry chemical details about whether there is or is not a molecule present pertains to the topic of this article at all. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been explained several times. If you're not going to respond to the reasoning but just ignore it then you are being disruptive, adding a link to coatrack doesn't bolster your case at all. Verbal chat 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

if I've missed where this was explained, please point me to the right place. you know that I'm never shy about responding to reasoning, so if I haven't addressed it or accepted it, that means I haven't seen it. can you cut and paste it, or give me a diff? --Ludwigs2 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the "most common" bit and added a source for the range of dilutions (sorry, I couldn't find any source dealing specifically with what dilutions Belladonna uses, just recommendations of one or other dilution) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine a few different dilutions are in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States like the $15 million dollar duck. Of course the most cost efficient to produce and thus most commonly flogged is the 'most potent' distilled water type, so the context around it should stay in the article. Nevard (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs - not sure that WP:COATRACK applies as that would suggest that Atropa belladonna is just a nominal subject being used as a coatrack being covered up by tangentially related subjects ("coats").

@ Enric - good edit. Thanks.

@ John - not sure that I understand your rationale for including the context. However, I think that I've shown through WP:V why the material is acceptible.

I believe that with the certain editor who started the fiasco at this article banned for the time being and all of us pretty much in agreement (Ludwig, I recognize your reservations), I think perhaps we can move on - not necessarily from this article, but at least from this specific topic. Yes? Please? :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed: my reservations are nominal, and not worth prolonging the debate over. let's call it done. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

30C

This is 36 orders of magnitude higher than Avorgado's number, and 1 mole is almost certainly an overestimate of the amount in the mother tincture for most plant components (e.g. a mole of a protein might be measured in kilograms, which is more than can fit in the mother tincture equivalent of the few drops of diluted material that goes into the final product). I've tweaked the wording accordingly. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 05:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully support this edit. Verbal chat 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked it for flow, but good. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)