User talk:DanaUllman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Adoption

My classroom can be found here. I'll basically be guiding you through policies that are relevant to your editing. As far as editing anything relating to Homeopathy, refrain from making any changes in the article space. Take it all to the discussion pages to avoid any problems. Let me know if you need anything or have any questions. I'm here to help. Lara❤Love 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

COI and POV

Please do not add your POV to the article on James Gully. This is a blatant conflict of interest. I'd have thought you should have learned to steer clear of these articles by now. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are also breaking WP:NOR and WP:SYN. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering his additions were sourced by a reference to the University of Cambridge perhaps you'd like to re-read WP:NOR. I see no problems with his additions. He has not skewed the information to put it into his own point of view. In fact, in you preventing these additions, you are swaying the POV of the article to your own. Lara❤Love 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very strange way of looking at it. Dana changes the tone of the article to match the slander against Charles Darwin that he has in his book, and you say that it is not him changing the article to suit his POV? Also, the edits he made are not supported by the sources he provided. Yes, the fact Darwin disliked homeopathy is true, but that it worked on him has not been established and the edit is in violation of WP:SYN as well as WP:UNDUE. Since the POV s being skewed to support Dana's thesis, it also breaks (or comes close to breaking) WP:COI and possibly WP:NOR too. Perhaps Dana should engage in discussion on the talk page before changing the conclusions or adding new conclusions to a section, especially where it involves homeopathy and is so closely linked to one of his books. I also noticed that Lara's edit said "*and* typos" whereas it was actually you (Lara) that had reverted the typos. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On rereading, I'm sorry if the above sounds confrontational, I didn't mean it too. I'm sure you acted as you did in good faith --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there is a typo in each. I'm not going to engage in an edit war, but I'm going to put in an RFC. Incidentally, do you also edit via 147.171.255.159 and 147.171.255.140? Lara❤Love 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm 147.171.255.159 and 147.171.255.140. I have created an account now as I thought my IP was unique and static, but I now see that isn't the case. I happen to agree with 88.172.132.94 on this issue, or rather s/he agrees with me. --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Add this to your preferences and check the box to enable raw signature.
[[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> to create: Dana Ullman ^Talk

The "Talk" link will show as a link on all pages but this one. Lara❤Love 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Hi again Dana. Re your edits on Beethoven about me, please assume good faith in your edits. I registered this account this morning and told you about it above, and the two IP addresses I have used were used sequentially. I had only made one comment there, under this account, so my IP history was irrelevant. I also see nothing wrong with my combined edit history, of supporting NPOV and the scientific point of view, weighting fringe theories appropriately. I'll try to find out how to make it clear on my new account that I previously used those IPs if it bothers you so much. Maybe you should avoid articles with homeopathic content, or adding homeopathic content to articles --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Homeopathy

I figured it might be worth asking your opinion of this. I don't know if you're supposed to participate in Talk:Homeopathy per LaraLove but I thought you might at least be able to suggest some sources that you consider suitable for serious consideration as reliable for our purposes. —Whig (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Participation on the talk page is appropriate, in my opinion. Lara❤Love 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and making unsupported implications

Dana, please read and digest WP:SYN before making any more changes to the James Gully article, and please discuss your edits first if you have reason to believe they may be controversial (which you clearly did from the edit summary). The fact that A follows B does not mean A caused B, and there is not even the slightest support for your inferences in Darwin's letters. Whether he felt better or not after is irrelevant, as Darwin did not attribute it to Gully, and he regularly had periods before and after where his "condition" worsened and improved. Hence, I have reverted. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear 88, I do understand WP:SYN, and my edits were direct references to Darwin's letter, just as the information above it was links to his letters. You do not seem to have antipathy towards those statements, and thus, you are showing strong POV. Please note that Darwin has clearly asserted that this improvement, 6 weeks after arrival at Gully's clinic, was more than twice as long as any improvement that he had had in the past year. Please also note that I did not attribute this improvement to only homeopathic treatment but to the treatment that he received from Gully. Darwin is very appreciative of Gully, and if you want, I can give reference to the numerous times that he went back to receive his care. I suggest that you pull away from editing subjects dealing with homeopathy due to your strong prejudice against it. Consider getting an admin to mentor you because it seems that your strong POV-pushing is over-the-top. It is not enough to just get your fellow anti-homeopathic friends to add their comments and have them explain why Darwin's letters in which he comments on his skepticism of homeopathy are OK, and yet, his letters on his significant improvement at 8 days after treatment and after 6 weeks after treatment are not OK. You cannot have it both ways, despite your pushing to make it so. Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I really don't care about your opinion of me. If you make bad edits to a page I am active on I will remove them. Your arguments are poor and hold no water. I am not trying to turn the Gully page into a discussion of homeopathy, but I am in fact trying to stop your repeated claims and implications that homeopathy helped Darwin at all. Your insistence on "and homeopathy" is clearly not supported, and I am in fact removing POV from the page. The statements above your additions are directly supported by quotes from Darwin, whereas you simply say 8 weeks later he felt better - but there is no evidence that this had anything to do with Gully! I also find you accusations against me both insulting and hilarious --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down 88. I'm simply trying to help you avoid losing your cool. For instance, on the day of your message above, you broke the 3RR rule. Please avoid doing that. Continual and purposeful edit warring can be dangerous for your health...and for wikipedia.Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dana. 88.172.132.94 appears to be calm to me, and just looking at the diffs I saw no evidence that on the 14th that user broke the 3RR. They did make reversions, but also numerous edits that were not reversions. Please comment on the articles and how to improve them, and not on editors. Please assume good faith and do not make accusations, which is what the user was complaining about --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a request for comment to help get this issue resolved. If anyone believes I've misspoken in the request (located on the article's talk page) please make corrections (expressed consent to edit my comment) careful to maintain a neutral point of view. Regards, Lara❤Love 15:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern with 88.172.132.94 is that he broke the 3RR rule on January 11th The evidence is here: [[1]]. I just ask that he avoid being over-zealous in his editing. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At no point have I ever reverted that page, and I have only made additions to the talk page. Why don't you try another page and another date? Is this an example of your research, Dana? ... --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He's confused you with 147 who registered as RDOlivaw. Attempt to maintain some respect. Lara❤Love 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, even more probable, now that I've looked closer, he probably meant to link the article history, which you have edited, and not the talk history, as 3RR on talk doesn't really happen. However, I don't see any 3RR violations. 3RR is actually more than 3 reversions in 24 hours. I don't see where that's happened. Dana, please double check such things before making accusations. Or have me or another admin review it. Lara❤Love 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only erred in mis-stating the date of the 3RR violations. Please note that RDOlivaw edited the James Manby Gully article (not the talk page) seven times on January 14th, and 88.172.132.94 edited it four times. I will admit that I'm wrong IF I'm wrong, but I do not think I am. Please check yourself at: [2]

Those aren't all revisions. 3RR is the "3 Revert Rule". One cannot make more than three reversion on an article in 24 hours, with exceptions. Lara❤Love 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I get it...it is not just 3 edits, it is 3 reversions that are not allowed. Ok...and thanx for the clarity. Can you review your request for comment on the Gully page. Some people are accusing me of "synthesis," asserting that I referencing multiple sources and then making inferences from these various sources, when I am at present only referencing one source: Darwin's letters. Clearly, Darwin got better within 8 days of treatment and during the next couple of months under Dr. Gully's care. I verify each fact with each letter (one at a time). I further show that it is a fact that the treatment that Gully provided was water-cure and homeopathy. What, if anything, am I doing wrong...or should the other editors be educated? Dana Ullman ^Talk 12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Potassium dichromate

Please stop edit warring against consensus on the potassium dichromate article. David D. (Talk) 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, I uncovered new evidence for the notability of this study: its reference in the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA...and I could reference many other medical and scientific journals. Are you now suggesting that these journals are not notable? Please explain your logic. See the Discussion page for potassium dichromate.Dana Ullman ^Talk 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting if you want to achieve your goal you need to persuade people on the talk page, especially if more than one person keeps removing your content. Extended discussion on the talk pages are the only way to achieve any kind of stability with respect to controversial topics. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On reading academic articles

Dana, I think you should read references more carefully. I don't know what your academic background is, so maybe this is just due to unfamiliarity with academic journals, but NEJM and JAMA say that the Potassium Dichromate study cites their articles - their articles do not cite that study. If you would have just looked at the dates, this would have jumped out (2002 articles don't often cite 2005 articles). Anyway, keep that in mind, maybe it will be helpful. Antelan ^talk 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, I certainly did see those date issues, though on the web, the CHEST article is linked to the NEJM and JAMA articles just as I said it was...if the NEJM and JAMA did not think that the CHEST study was notable, they would not have linked it to their articles...and of course, there are many many others that I could have highighted as well. Perhaps I should have simply said that the NEJM and JAMA has "linked" to the CHEST study. Dana Ullman ^Talk 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's an automatic thing. Any article that references any NEJM or JAMA article automatically gets a linkback from them. For a comparison that might make more sense, imagine if you had a personal website and Google linked to it. It's meaningless - nobody at Google put your site into the index. Likewise, nobody at NEJM thoughtfully linked to the Chest article - it's automated. Antelan ^talk 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT an "automatic" thing. Only certain articles from certain sources will be listed. The NEJM and JAMA are selective, and they choose notable listings. Dana Ullman ^Talk 12:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is incorrect. The sources that they will cite from are pre-selected (i.e., Chest made the cut), but the actual citations are automatic. Antelan ^talk 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And why do YOU think that "Chest" made the cut? Please also show me your published letter in this journal as to why it is not "notable." Dana Ullman ^Talk 13:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Chest is a fine journal, but that's off topic. You claimed that NEJM/JAMA intentionally linked to the specific article at hand, which was untrue. Antelan ^talk 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If NEJM and JAMA both link to THIS journal, the journal AND its contents are notable. Are you now suggesting that you should cherry-pick specific articles from high-ranking scientific journal just because they do not fit into your own worldview? I hope not. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To say another way, they noted it. Hence, notable. —Whig (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a gross conceptual error. We can continue this discussion elsewhere if there is still confusion. Antelan ^talk 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, will you next say that only certain articles in JAMA, the Lancet, and NEJM are notable? If so, who makes that determination? If not, why wouldn't CHEST be a part of this high-profile and highly respected medical journal? In fact, it is the leading journal in its specialty...and this study on COPD is so formidable that TWO separate replication trials are in development. If this isn't notable, please explain. And please (!) do not repeat the incorrect statements that others above have made that this was a "pilot" trial (it wasn't) or that it was a "small" trial (not for a COPD trial). Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If this is a notable journal then we don't need to establish notability on a per-article basis. If there are criticisms of this study in other reliable publications they should also be cited. —Whig (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, that is correct, not all studies, even in those journals, are notable. You'd have to look at their citations (easy), their impact on the field (difficult), or their coverage in the mainstream press (easy). A citation is a reference made from within an academic article to another article, just so we are clear on this terminology. Antelan ^talk 22:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Antelan here. To say that some automatic cross-referencing system implies notability is plainly ludicrous. Also, I will accept your apology for the unfounded accusations you have repeatedly made against me. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan...if you are asserting that research is only notable if the popular press writes about it, we would have to ignore 99% of research published in the leading journals, let alone all of the other highly respected medical journals. Because there are TWO universities who are presently planning replications of the CHEST study, this confirms the notability of the original study. If this study was not notable, other major research centers would ignore it. As they say, "replication is a form of flattery" (or something like that!). End of story...this study IS notable. As for 88...if you are referring to the one-time error of mine in which I asserted that you broke the 3RR, I apologize for that one-time error. Do I get to request an apology for every one of your errors? Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of my comment before replying, as it will save some confusion. I offered 3 methods of determining notability; popular press coverage was only 1 of those 3. The list is illustrative, and not meant to be exhaustive. As for planned events, I will refer you to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Antelan ^talk 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate noticeboard where we might take this discussion? —Whig (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that two (!) separate universities are planning replication trials is evidence that this original trial was notable. If it wasn't, it would be ignored. Is that a reasonable assumption? Therefore, it IS notable.Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dana, but Antelan does not and repetition of the facts won't resolve this dispute. We should be seeking some way out of this impasse. —Whig (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree. This study is not yet notable. It may become so later, after these other studies have been published, or if it is used in a meta analysis or such, but until then it is a primary source that has received few citations, especially from high impact journals. The cross-referencing system is not a marker of notability. Why don't you just wait to see what these next two studies say, and then for a secondary source to evaluate them in some acceptable way. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Maybe you should look at WP:NOT, specifically the soapbox clause. Also, I think I have apologised whenever it is necessary.

When you submit a journal for publication, you have to send some meta info called "keywords". These are added to the journals database, and other journals can see this data. If you look at an article on one journal site with the keywords "COPD" and "treatment", for example, they will show you in a "see also" section other articles with a matching keywords (using some other meta data as well). This is automatic, and does not infer any extra status on the articles so cross-referenced --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) So studies used in a meta-analysis are notable? Anthon01 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's been suggested. The meta-analysis may be notable, and it is at least a secondary source. That's one reason why the peer-reviewed and well received Shang meta-analysis can be used. Things generally don't become notable automatically. The Shang meta analysis, for example, cited poor studies. Those are obviously no good as sources. However just because it's a meta analysis doesn't mean it's a good source or notable --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just above 88 wrote "This study is not yet notable. It may become so later, after these other studies have been published, or if it is used in a meta analysis or such, but until then it is a primary source that has received few citations, especially from high impact journals." Anthon01 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that this COPD study wasn't included in any previous meta-analysis is that there haven't been any recently published meta-analyses since its publication in 2005. That said, does reference to this article in FASEB make it more notable? FASEB is a high-impact journal. Although this reference is to one of my writings, the editor still chose to publish my writings, still making it notable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He did say "may become notable", and no I'm afraid it doesn't reach the inclusion standard for an article on Potassium dichromate. If no meta analysis have yet been performed, then we'll have to wait, and then judge notability. If this article were to get thousands of positive citations (not all citations are positive), then it may become worth of inclusion. I followed your link and found one letter, written by you, and not a scientifically reviewed article. Why would this have any effect on whether it should be included?--RDOlivaw (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that FASEB is a high-impact journal. The editor still chose to publish my writings that cites this CHEST article, increasing its notability.Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point is incorrect, I'm sorry --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: FASEB is a high-impact journal. You are still incorrect in your reasoning. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This article can be included even though it is a primary source. Additionally, WP:NOR states

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation ... Examples of primary sources include ... written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; ...

Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that, and that is why this article cannot be used currently in the potassium dichromate article. I fail to see a question. (edit conflict)--RDOlivaw (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You broadly agree? It's the policy. The policy that states it can be used justifies it's exclusion? Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana: It appears that this article can be included via RS and NPOV even though it is a primary source. The are rules for how it can be included. Anthon01 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it can be included or not was not the subject of this conversation. That conversation should be held on the talk page of any article you want it included in. I have never said, and neither have other editors here, that a primary source can't, under any circumstances, be included. This discussion was about automatic cross indexing and reading academic journals. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. The editors (Antelan, 88) above discuss the notability of the article. From my reading of WP:Notable it appears that notability is being misused in this instance.

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

Anthon01 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, the notability guideline doesn't even apply to sources. Have you found a better forum for this discussion? Let me know when you do so. I'll save my explanations for then. Antelan ^talk 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this effects anything I've said. Maybe this should be moved to the appropriate talk page, or you should put in a RfC --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When adding external links in discussions...

don't use ref tags. Just use single brackets [ ], otherwise, it's not clickable without adding a references section somewhere on the page, which is generally inappropriate on discussion pages. Lara❤Love 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

James Gully again and talk pages

Please use the talk page to get consensus before making controversial edits to articles, as you have done twice today to the James Gully article. Thanks --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dilutions

Hi Dana. I'd like to try and understand what the problem in communication we're having about dilutions is (homeopathic or otherwise). Can we talk about it here to try to resolve this, or on your article talk page if you like, but this page might be a better forum. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure...what is your question and/or concern? To clarify, "The Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US" (and other similar documents that are recognized by governments) are very clear in their definitions of how homeopathic medicines are made. "Potentization" is a process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking). However, with mineral medicines, they undergo trituration (grinding with lactose) initially and then in higher potencies, they go through potentization in water with serial dilution and succussion in-between each dilution. Is that clear? Let me know how I can explain any gaps in your knowledge. Would be glad to do so. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, so what is your problem with the level of substance remaining in a 12C homeopathic dilution is equivalent to "one drop in an ocean" (I think it's actually much less, but I'm in a rush right now). If the water remembers and the homeopathic process "potentialises" the water, that still shouldn't make any difference to the level of substance left in the solution. Do you follow this or should we go through an example? I was already aware of what you've said, but I don't think it has any bearing on the point I'm trying to make, which is I'm beginning think a source of much confusion between homeopaths and scientists --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

88, you're asking me whether there is a difference between saying whether a homeopathic medicine represents one drop in an ocean as compared with one drop in 12 testtubes, and you're wondering "what is the problem or difference here?" Are you really serious? I don't know what creative math you're using or what fungus you may have ingested, but I prefer to use more accurate metaphors and analogies. By the way, because the "X" potencies maintain 10% of the previous water and the "C" potencies maintain 1% of the previous water (because X is the Roman numeral for 10 and C = centisimal), the 12C potency actually has less than 12 testtubes worth of water. Any reference to any ocean is simply wrong. That said, what would your response be if someone wrote into every entry for a conventional drug on Wikipedia the number of molecules that a standard drug dose represents. Such information would have a lot of 000,000,000,000s and would be quite silly, at least as silly as the ocean analogy or Park's creative assertions. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana. So 12C means 1 drop in 12 test tubes? That isn't correct, as by that definition each test tube would have 1/12 of a drop in. The drop is added to the first, then diluted in the 2nd, 3rd etc, to produce a very low dilution (plus shaking and banging, which don't effect the concentrations). I think 88 is being very nice to you here and you seem to be very rude back. You then say that each step includes 1% of the previous water, which is more accurate. So you took your fist test tube, filled it to 10% with a substance, then the remaining 90% is water. So your concentration is 10% (I'm simplifying here, using easier numbers). If you then shake and throw away 99% of your liquid, put this in a new test tube and fill the 99% empty space with water, the percentage of the substance you added first is now 0.1% of this new test tube. This is the same concentration as adding the same amount you started with to a test tube 100 times bigger, and then filling with water. If you do the keeping 1% again in a new tube, the amount of the substance you started with goes down to 0.001% of your new liquid. This is the same as adding the amount you started with into a test tube 10,000 times bigger than your first, and then filling with water (obviously you'd get no homeopathic benefits this way, but the concentration is the same). Each time the size of the container which gives an equivalent concentration increases in size by a factor of 100. After 12 times the container would be 100^12 (1000000000000000000000000) times bigger than your test tubes. If your test tube holds a decilitre, then the equivalent test tube size to get the same concentration in, from the same starting amount, is 10^23 litres. That's a lot of water. (disclaimer: I haven't checked my maths fully, I'll look at it again when I have more time tomorrow) Feel free to ask questions --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RDO...I didn't think that I was being rude...my apologies if it seemed such. Once again, I never said that 12C means 1 drop in 12 test tubes; it is MORE than that (and it has no relationship to an ocean of anything, except perhaps a "homeopathic ocean"). 12C uses 1% of sequential test tubes. I think that you and 88 are thinking that we need to increase by a 100-fold the amount of water in each dilution. No, that is not the case, and here is where you, 88, and Oliver Wendell Holmes have misunderstood homeopathy (the good news here is that YOU are getting clear of the facts, while Holmes prided himself on never talking to or consulting a homeopath, proving that ignorance is bliss). After doing the 1:100 dilution, the drug manufacturer dispenses with 99% of the water and adds more water into the test tube (some homeopathic manufacturing practices use the same test tube and other use a new test tube). Do you get it now? What I now want to know is how did you come to believe your statement above: "After 12 times the container would be 100^12 (1000000000000000000000000) times bigger than your test tubes. If your test tube holds a decilitre, then the equivalent test tube size to get the same concentration in, from the same starting amount, is 10^23 litres." In NO homeopathic literature has it ever said or implied that a larger container is needed for each stage of the potentization process. FINALLY...you're realizing how much you (and others) have misconstrued homeopathy. Dana Ullman ^Talk 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, he's explaining how dilution and concentration work. It has nothing to do with homeopathy, and he never said explained how using 12 decilitre test tubes in such a way would produce such a dilution. You're really failing to grasp the basic point here. Try reading what he wrote again. Maybe ask someone who you know who's good with maths to explain it to you, as you seem to just discount anything we say. The rude part is your accusation about "creative maths" and eating fungus (drugs?). He also chose easier numbers so you can do the maths in your head. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this math, though ANY reference to ANY ocean is silly and sloppy creative math when you are using simply 12 test tubes. And what you are still choosing to ignore is what succussion (vigorous shaking) does (ignoring this is akin to thinking that an atomic bomb doesn't need atoms smashing against each other). Some physicists and material scientists now refer to bubbles and nano-bubbles that are creative from shaking fluids, thereby changing the water pressure in the test tube making it similar to the water pressure at 10,000 feet altitude. Further, new evidence published in a physics journal shows that "silicate fragments" or "silica chips" fall off the glass walls from the test tubes and infiltrate the water. The medicinal substance interacts with these chips, each in their idiosyncratic way. Have you read the physicists research by Rey, the thermodynamic research by Elia, and chemistry research by Geckler? This isn't coincidence that they are finding anomalies. There is a pattern. Homeopaths have uncovered a truly fascinating and real effect. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Read my post below, because it looks like you (Dana) are confused about the dilution procedure. Baegis (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, RDO and I both made clear that we aren't arguing about wither the serial dilution etc produces a beneficial effect, just about the concentration of the original substance left after the sequence of dilutions. I noticed that RDO made an error (decilitres when he means 10ml). His argument shows simply how the dilution procedure used by homeopaths leads to dilutions comparable to the same amount you started with being placed in a much larger body of water. Obviously the larger body wouldn't have any homeopathic benefit (supposing there is one), BUT the concentration of the original substance is the same! This isn't creative, it isn't even complicated. We're just trying to get you to understand why the 12 test tubes (of the same size) can lead to such a tiny concentration . I agree that the reference to the Atlantic ocean was poorly worded on your article, but the descriptions on the homeopathy page are correct and the analogy has value in expressing how small (hence how homeopthically potent) these dilutions are. Do you understand? This argument, of itself, isn't an attack on homeopathy. Try it yourself with some water and vinegar or dye --88.172.132.94 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So that I can be as clear as possible: it ain't just the meat, it's the motion. I don't say that just to be funny (though it is important to have a bit of a sense of humor here), but homeopathic medicines are not just about "molecules." There is some good basic science that suggests that the entire water is changed, what Rustum Roy calls the structure of water. Diamond and graphite are both carbon, but their structure is different, and this explains like diamond is the hardest known mineral and graphite is the softest. Whether you understand this or not, I encourage you to maintain some humility about some mysteries of nature. Heck, we only recently (past 20 years or so) finally figured out how aspirin works. Humility is an honorable attitude. That said, the July 2007 issue of HOMEOPATHY is devoted to the issue of the "memory of water" and has some good experimental data and theoretical writings as well. I mentioned some people above, but no one said that they knew about them. How can you say that homeopathy is "implausible" when you don't confirm whether you know the literature or not? (Note: I didn't say that you didn't know the literature, but I do want to know what you know about it. Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Plausible means believable. For many the issue of physics is basically set. So the physics of the water molecule as we currently understand it doesn't not lend itself to the principles of homeopathy. You might remember Semmelwiess trying to explain how dirty hands could lead to the death of over 25% of women giving birth in hospitals in the 1800's. Semmelweiss's explanations were considered heresy. Of course, once the germ theory gained credibility Semmelweiss was proven to be right. Anthon01 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is simply not the case here. Just because Galileo was persecuted, does not mean that you are at all correct. Baegis (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that persecution means that she or I are correct. Only that present knowledge makes homeopathy implausible to most. Anthon01 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, I think you are wrong about physics, though. QED is totally consistent with observations of homeopathic potencies. —Whig (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I? Is this concept mainstream? Id so, could you give me a brief tutorial on my talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Those interested in the July 2007 should look at the criticisms detailed [3], as should those wishing to apply QED and other quantum physics to explain these effects. LinaMishima (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

QED doesn't explain homeopathic effects,is not consistent with them, and quantum entanglement doesn't explain why clinical trials fail either. Rustrum Roy's science is neither basic nor good. His wife is also a homeopath, so he is hardly independent, and there is no good evidence for water memory above 50fs --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, I'm simply talking about dilutions - not homeopathy. I said that if you went straight to the low concentration you'd get no homeopathic benefit (and shaking and banging correctly was mentioned), but the concentration (the amount of the original substance/litre) would be the same. Can you acknowledge whether you understand this point? I agree that homeopaths believe it is more than just the molecules, so you can accept the fact that the amount of molecules of the starting substance goes down exponentially with every dilution and sucussion step? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, homeopaths do NOT use "dilutions" of anything! We use "potencies," and our medicines are "potentized," that is, they undergo sequential dilution, vigorous shaking, dumping out of 99% or 90% of the original liquid in the same glass vial or in a new glass vial, and the repeating of that process. The vast majority of medicines that are sold over-the-counter are in the 3rd to 12th potency (3X/3C to 12X/12C). The more a substance is potentized, the less number of molecules of the original substance remain. While you think about this, I have a question for you: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 10 encyclopedias on it? In other words, if someone were to grind up both CD-ROMs, could you detect a chemical difference? My point here is that there is no chemical difference. The information is stored on the disk, and perhaps like memory in the brain, it is not localized (please think about this one...it is a goodie). Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever homeopaths call it, it is still a dilution. Changing the meaning of words is not useful in an encyclopedia. The major difference between a CD and a homeopathic preparation is precisely that the difference can be seen with an information bearing CD as against a blank one. A low cost instrument called a CD Player easily accomplishes this. Nothing known to technology will distinguish a 12C homeopathic preparation from its diluent. Acleron (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For homeopaths, the process is important and distinguishes their preparations from dilutions by virtue of being incremental and mechanically processed. Of course, one may be right in stating that it is a "well mixed" dilution (certainly, when studying chemistry, I was taught to mechanically process any dilution), however homeopaths consider the process to transfer more than just the base molecules of the 'active' agent. Water structures do exist, and homeopaths look to these to show merit in their actions. However the scientific community generally agrees that these structures are not large or stable enough to work in the manner that homeopaths suggest, but are investigating this area for the sake of rigour, curiousity, and hope. In science, nothing is sacred. We should acknowledge the mainstream scientific analogies regarding the dilution level and freely use these, but we also have a duty to state the belief of homeopaths that their method is vital and that it is not simply a case of "pour water, stir" (even if this makes no actual difference). The fact they use a process is also important in terms of scientific understanding - the more elaborate the placebo, the stronger the effect. LinaMishima (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is a homeopathically potentialised dilution, it is still a dilution and the maths for dilutions still applies. Do you understand Dana? Your say "The more a substance is potentized, the less number of molecules of the original substance remain" - this is exactly what I am saying! Eventually you get to dilutions where none of the original substance remains, ie those above 12C. Your analogy about CDs is also flawed: it is easy to distinguish between CDs with different data on. They are physically distinct, as the data is encoded in pits and bumps on the surface of the CD. You can see these through a microscope, or simply put the CD into your DVD drive to see what is on it. CDs are usually made from similar chemicals, and if you melted them and analysed the chemical composition you might not find much difference, however they no longer carry any information (as you destroyed it by melting them). I think you should avoid coming up with new analogies; it is very hard. We are educated people and can follow your arguments without your having to present a poor analogy. It doesn't help that you contradict yourself twice in your previous comment, and repeat things that have already been explained. Please ask if you still misunderstand --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Science is a verb, not a noun. It is ever changing and evolving. Although Roy's new work using some spectrometry devices was able to differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another AND one potency from another (discussed in the July 2007 issue of HOMEOPATHY), there isn't YET a definitive test for making this differentiation. That doesn't mean that there are no differences. At some point in the future, we may indeed have a simple device, akin to a CD player, that will be able to make this differentiation. In the meantime, there is a wide body of basic science research and clinical research that show the biological effects and clinical efficacy of homeopathic medicines. And my analogy about CDs was a good one. Many skeptics are focusing on the number of molecules in a homeopathic potency, while carefully ignoring the fact that THIS is not the issue: the issue is...is there any evidence that there is a difference in homeopathic water and simple bidistilled water, and the evidence at present suggests that there is (at least to those people who follow the scientific literature rather than speak and write from fundamentalist and uninformed perspectives. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Roy's paper is seriously flawed. The controls seem not to have been made in the same solvent as the test materials, which completely invalidates any conclusions drawn from differences in their UV spectra. Unless you can refute the points made in this letter [4]to Homeopathy you should cease mentioning Roy's paper.OffTheFence (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)OffTheFence

Your awful and thoroughly flawed analogy to CDs does not interest me. What is your response to the "meat" of what I wrote: Even if it is a homeopathically potentialised dilution, it is still a dilution and the maths for dilutions still applies. Do you understand Dana? Your say "The more a substance is potentized, the less number of molecules of the original substance remain" - this is exactly what I am saying! Eventually you get to dilutions where none of the original substance remains, ie those above 12C. Do you accept this point, or do you still fail to understand? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not fail to understand. Do you understand the potential effects of succussion, of bubbles and nano-bubbles, of the use of glass bottles, of the clinical evidence of efficacy of homeopathics, or anything else? No, I didn't think so. Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you concede that what RDO and I have written about dilutions, homeopathic or otherwise, is correct? Thanks for that Dana. Now perhaps you understand the Atlantic ocean analogy for 12C and the universe analogy for 200C --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I concede that you love to create misdirection and misinformation about homeopathy. This wouldn't be so problematic if you showed that you were very knowledgeable about the subject. You don't seem to be, but you do seem to be very against this subject about which you know little. What is worse is that you do so anonymously. Come out of the closet 88? Who are you really? Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that I am ignorant of homeopathy. I have been involved and interested for 14 years in homeopathy. Do you now agree that everything that RDO and I wrote about dilutions is accurate (and not creative maths or poor reasoning), whether homeopathic or not. That was the point of the issue, so your accusing me of misdirection is laughable. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear 88 (Mojo). In due respect, you have not yet shown much knowledge of homeopathy. Your contrib record clearly shows that you follow me around and that your most common contributions are deleting my contributions. Please stop asking me whether your analogy to the Atlantic Ocean (or any ocean) is appropriate or not. It isn't. 12 test tubes = 12 test tubes worth of water. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana, as was involved at the start of this thread I think I can comment here. It wasn't 88 who made that common analogy (which is correct as far as dilutions go). There is no dispute that if you use 12 test tubes of water then you have only used 12 test tubes of water, to say otherwise would be stupid, and to say that anyone has said this would be a straw man. The point about dilution is that you can achieve the same concentration of your original substance without serially diluting, etc, by just using a lot more water in the first step, and then not doing any further dilution. This is why 12C concentration is equivalent to the same amount of substance you started with in a much more massive body of water. This is very simple. We have not claimed that the single step dilution would have any homeopathic properties, but it is certain that the concentration of the original substence would be the same. You still seem not to get this point, so please state where is the first part that you think my reasoning is faulty. Remember, this discussion isn't about homeopathy - just dilutions and concentrations --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing me. I get the creative use of math, but it has no basis in reality, and it provides confusion and misinmformation to readers. Repeating these innane statistic many times make it more true. Instead, it shows that you know how to beat a dead horse and try to make it look like it flies. It is dead. Move on. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Dana. For my part, this was an honest attempt to reach out to you and explain the physical realities of concentrations and dilutions to you. If you can't accept these simple facts, then it taints all your work and everything you do and say with regards homeopathy and science. I hoped we could end the confusion you have with concentrations and dilutions, but you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you cannot see the truth. I implore you to go to a friend of yours who is not involved in homeopathy, but knows maths or physics or chemistry to high school level, and go through these arguments with them, and to read some basic books on dilution (such as a child's science book). I am not trying to be patronising. This is truly very, very sad. I hope you are not discounting these valid arguments just because you personally dislike me. I fear that the rift between science and homeopathy will only grow if homeopaths refuse to engage in science, by following simple arguments and attempting to learn --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all "entrenched" in my beliefs, and the questionable use of math and statistics does not strengthen your argument. I don't think that you're being patronizing; instead, you choosing to provide warped analogies that suit your anti-homeopathy POV. I have no opinion of you as a person (I don't know you, though heck, we may have other things in common...do you play basketball or frisbee or hate our US President like I do?), but I do have a critique of your arguments and your positions, which I find hyper-biased and inadequately informed about this subject. As for homeopathy and homeopaths engaging in science, you are showing your unfamiliarity with the body of basic science work and clinical research. By the way, I am transparent. My publication record is a matter of record. Please alert me to your publications. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the maths do you think is questionable? There are no statistics involved. We are not talking about homeopathy --DrEightyEight (talk)

To equate the 12C potency with the Atlantic Ocean is false information. The 12C potency required 12 test tubes worth of water. The dilution of 1:100 occurred, then vigorous shaking, then 99 of the 100 parts of water were dispensed, and a new 99 parts of water were inserted, vigorous shaking, and then the sequential dilution and succussion occurs. Do you see how ANY reference to an Atlantic Ocean is a creative use of math/statistics and has no real basis as a means of informing people about homeopathic pharmacology. I hope this helps you understand. Does it? Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A 12C potency is equivalent to a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dilution. How many test tubes would it take to fill the Atlantic Ocean? Brunton (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How many test tubes does it take to make a 12C potency? THAT is the question. Any other question is not the right question, and knowing the right question is of utmost importance. Your question is akin to tell a consumer how many molecules exist in a prescribed drug (as a way to scare them into thinking that these drugs are just too powerful to be safe). Please verify which drug companies tell us this. Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is my last ditch effort to help here. I will make this as simple as possible to explain the ocean analogy. Dana, I fully believe that you are choosing to not recognize the questions raised by the other editors and simply keep reverting to the "but you only use 12 test tubes!" comment. Please see if you can understand this (I used 1/100 for an easier read):

1/100 dilution is made, vigorously shaken, and 99 parts of the dilution are removed. The remaining 1 part of the 1/100 solution is added to another test tube and the tube is filled with 99 more parts of water. The dilution is now 1/100 (original dilution) * 1/100 (new dilution) or 1/(100*100) or 1/10,000. A better way to express this is 1/(100²). This is a 2C dilution. The new dilution is then vigorously shaken, and 99 parts of it is drained. This 1 part remaining is added to the 99 more parts of water, giving a dilution of 1/(100*100*100) or 1/(100³) (3C). If we continue this process out, a 4C dilution is now 1/(100⁴), a 5C dilution is now 1/(100⁵), a 6C dilution is now 1/(100⁶), and so forth. The 12C dilution, using only 12 actual test tubes, is a dilution that is diluted down to 1/(100¹²), or as Brunton mentions, 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dilution. This does not mean that 100¹² molecules of water are needed for the solution. The 30C dilution is a dilution that is 1/(100³⁰). For comparison, an Olympic sized swimming pool has an roughly 100³² molecules of water contained within it's walls.

Does this actually help at all? Baegis (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the question is, what sort of dilution is a 12C potency. The illustration of the dilutions involved is necessary because intuition will not necessarily make the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression obvious. And the dilutions involved are relevant because there is no good evidence that succussion actually does anything. So, how many test tubes full of water would it take to fill the Atlantic Ocean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunton (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

YES! Dear dear Brunton...do some homework...read the research by the chemist V. Elia (numerous articles in major scientific journals) and his work on thermodynamics of homeopathic medicines, read the physics research or L. Rey, read about the silica hypothesis by many authors, and the water research by Chaplin...and there are many others. For starters, go to Chaplin's website [5]. Perhaps if you open your eyes you will see something. Most of all, start practicing humility (or show your chops listing your publications that match the people I've mentioned here). Humility is a worthy attitude for scientists...please know that despite my confidence in many things related with homeopathy, there are many more things for which I am quite humble. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I'd be very interested to see the work on thermodynamics of homeopathic medicine. Since particles and waves are interchangeable (QM), those waves must persist and be infinitely divisible without being capable of dilution into nonexistence (TD). That is, information must be conserved, even if molecules are not. —Whig (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's where I get a bit (WP:SYNTHetic) -- because I don't understand QED well enough to be authoritative, but really all particles are composed of smaller particles, molecules are made of atoms are made of elementary particles which are equivalent to photons with different attributes, i.e. spin, etc. —Whig (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already discussed this over on the homeopathy talk page, and QED and the like provide no basis for homeopathic effects. The scales involved are too large, and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, fourier analysis and other techniques all point out the flaws in this approach to understanding. Then there is simply the fact that over the lifetime of a molecule or group of molecules, it will have had to have undergone similar processes to that used in homoepathy many times, and if homeopathy's processes impart information, so do these previous processes. Please go look at the section on occam's razor there for the full argument (occam's razor was called in favour of homeopathy, would you believe...!). LinaMishima (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at Planck constant. Infinite division is not possible. LinaMishima (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lina, it would serve no purpose for us to debate QED here or anywhere, as I make no pretense to being expert in the theory. However, the fact of unmeasurables does not mean nonexistence. Thermodynamics has not been overthrown. Unless you have a V RS source that supports what you are saying, and anyhow I'm not advancing my understanding as anything authoritative or suitable for content inclusion. —Whig (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we can try a different tac. Do you, Dana, accept that by using two different dilution methods (not involving homeopathy), one sequential using small amounts of water, and one just using a single large amount of water, that for the same amount of solute you can achieve the same concentration? No homeopathy involved, no analogies, just dilution by two different methods. If you need further clarification please ask --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Any answer, Dana? --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no one test for any or every homeopathic medicine, though there is a possibility that R. Roy's spectroscopy work may be such a test (more work has to be done to determine that). Review the previous literature to determine which test and which medicine you wish to conduct your experiment. I recommend review Chaplin's website and/or the July 2007 issue of HOMEOPATHY (the latter is the best source). Don't re-invent the wheel. Try to replicate previous work...but do it correctly, not like the BBC's and 20/20's "junk science/tv research."Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I see you have chosen to mention Roy's spectroscopy paper again though now you have retreated to saying there is a "possibility" that it could test homeopathic remedies. I shall be generous and assume you have not had a chance to read the letter [6] in Homeopathy and seen that the authors' delegated respondent could not rebut the criticisms. Your "possibility" therefore carries no more weight in debate than if you were to say there is a "possibility" that a blind Romanian gypsy can test homeopathic remedies with her crystal ball. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, in an infinite Universe, all things are possible. The job of the intelligent human is to discover those things that are probable. So, I shall ask again that you cease now to deploy Roy's spectroscopy work as if it carried any evidential weight. Thank you.OffTheFence (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[User:OffTheFence]

I think you've replied to the wrong thread, I haven't suggested any experiments. This has nothing to do with the questions put to you. I have read the issue of Homeopathy, and I know those two "scientists" and I'm familiar with their work. Now, what's your answer to the question about achieving the same concentration by serial dilution and direct dilution? Do you a, accept that this is possible; and b, realise that the total amount of water used in serial dilution is smaller than that required to dilute to the same concentration in a single step? Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already told you my opinion about this many times, and I sincerely hope that you would stop equating 12 vials with any ocean. Also, for unknown reasons, you continually take the succussion (the vigorous shaking) out of your equations and thinking. This is akin to thinking that two atoms can create an atomic bomb without any reference to the technology that gets them to smash into each other. Do you see the possibility, just the possibility, that succussion changes the pressure within the water? Do you see the possibility, just the possibility, that there is hypersensitivity from resonance/similars? Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Friend, perhaps all the zeroes are deflecting this discussion from a very simple point. Consider two situations:

1ml of initial solution containing 1,000 dissolved molecules is added to 999ml of stock solvent. How many dissolved molecules are in a typical 1ml of final solution?

1ml of initial solution containing 1,000 dissolved molecules is added to 9ml of stock solvent. 1ml of this solution is added to 9ml of stock solvent. 1ml of this solution is added to 9ml of stock solvent. How many dissolved molecules are in a typical 1ml of final solution?

A single pair of numerical answers will suffice.

Please also note that I would acknowledge that the second example has a history of 3 phases of mixing while the first has a history of one phase of mixing. If you believe this affects the required numerical answers then please indicate how that may be the case. Millions of laboratory workers would be fascinated to learn something new.

With respect to the issue of "possibilities", I refer you to the comments I made above. You seem to equate "possibility" with groundless speculation.OffTheFence (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[User:OffTheFence]

Your atomic bomb analogy is as flawed as your CD analogy (and has been debunked in places where I know you've read the debunking), whereas the comparison to a body of water the size of the Atlantic ocean has the benefit of being true, but we digress. You haven't answered me once. This has nothing to do with homeopathy. Please answer: "Do you a, accept that this is possible; and b, realise that the total amount of water used in serial dilution is smaller than that required to dilute to the same concentration in a single step?" With a justification if you wish, and then we can see where you're going wrong --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found the rather good wikipedia page on this topic: serial dilutions. Since you're not editing so much anymore, why not have a read then get back to us and answer the two questions given above too (marked a and b). Hopefully we'll be able to overcome this chasm of misunderstanding that homeopaths have with real science --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are now harrassing me, despite my repeated statements that I didn't consider your question valid nor your limited choices to be worthy of response. Further, you seem to have forgotten that the homeopathy articles are probation, and yet, rather than treading lightly, you have chosen to ignore my previous responses. Further, creating new articles in which you only quote from and give reference skeptics of homeopathy doesn't create my definition of a "rather good wikipedia page." Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm harrsing you, that hasn't been my intention. If you do feel like replying, although I'm obviously not compelling you to, which part of the two questions, that are not about homeopathy, do you think is invalid, and which points that you've raised have I not addressed? I haven't created or quoted from any new articles, so I'm a bit confused by that comment. Yours sincerly, --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean - I hadn't looked at that page hisory so didn't know it was new, and I hadn't edited it or quoted from it. Sorry for the confusion. I do think it makes the point about serial dilution rather well. I would be grateful if you could respond to my questions, but I understand if you feel unable --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

For the record, from an outside view, every one participating is this discussion comes off as pretentious. It's not a particularly flattering trait on anyone. And if I had to line each of you up from the most to least rude, I'd end up stacking you on top of each other. So how about everyone just close your eyes, take a deep breath, imagine all your frustration gathering inside your lungs as they fill, and blow all that frustration out with a grunting exhale. Then try to understand that you are all intelligent adults with different points of view and different beliefs and figure out a way to somehow coexist here in some sort of civil manner, imagining all the time that you're talking to your opponent's mother as opposed to them. That should help with some of the comments being a little less than productive. Clearly Homeopathic doses are not literally comparable to a drop in the ocean, so let's be realistic, as the alternative is unquestionably unproductive and almost certainly disruptive. Lara❤Love 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which discussion? What's wrong with the one above, for example? -88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I covered it pretty well. The main problem with the above started with the comparison of doses to a drop in the ocean. That's just not productive. Keep the conversations civil, the comparisons realistic and everyone assume good faith, have a little respect for others and their professions and positions, even if you may not agree with them. Maybe have some appreciation for what "the other side" is trying to accomplish, even though it differs from what you're trying to accomplish (and this comment is directed to everyone, btw), and come to a compromise for the betterment of the project. We're an encyclopedia. We cover all views. So come to an understanding and cover all the views. Lara❤Love 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read over this section of the Homeopathy article before you begin to criticize the use of the ocean's analogy. Simply speaking, these numbers and dilutions are so astronomically large, that most people will not understand the level of dilution without an apt comparison. It is a perfectly acceptable analogy, but on the Ullman article, it should redirect to the section linked above (which it did last time I looked). Baegis (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, by trying to help Dana understand this oft quoted analogy (which he still fails to understand) I'm doing wikipedia a disservice? I don't see how. I'm trying to engage with him and bring our understandings closer together, to better not only wikipedia but the understanding between homeopaths and science. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask Dana if he could keep his edit summaries to summaries of his edits, rather that airing his opinions and making unproductive remarks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not totally clear which remarks to which you are referring, but I will try to be more graceful. Based on our above conversation, do you still feel comfortable using reference to any ocean in the light of homeopathic dilutions? Because the 200C potency still uses only a bucket or so of water, any reference to an ocean is "beyond the pail" (bad pun, my apologies). Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No not with a 200C preparation. I'd have to use an analogy like "the concentration is eqivalent to a single molecule in a body of water the size of the known universe, even though the homeopath has in total used less than a bucket of water to achieve this staggeringly low concentration, which they feel will have a very deep effect." or something along those lines. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the process is accurately described there is no reason for confusion. What happens is that the word "dilution" gets thrown around without a discussion of what is being done. If you took a pail of water and dissolved a mother tincture into it, you wouldn't say the remedy isn't present in the water. Of course that's not what's done, the process of serial dilution and succussion is what happens, and the resultant water at the end of that process may have no molecular particles of the mother tincture but may have been physically altered in structure or energy patterns as a result of that process. At this point it is clearly controversial to say what is present but does that seem like a fair description? —Whig (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)You know what, it really doesn't matter if the lot of you don't understand the dilutions. It is clearly covered as such in the Homeopathy article (and sourced as well) so ANY, and I do mean ANY, claims that this is not true are clear cut examples of disruption. If you think the dilution coverage is a problem, it should be discussed at the Homeopathy article. However, I see that Whig and Dana have not brought this up, to the best of my knowledge. Baegis (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Baegis...we've only just met. Greetings. I plan to begin some dialogue on the homeopathy article at some point in the near future. That article is simply so full of misinformation that I have decided to work on other subjects first. But let's talk here about that ocean analogy and my above reference to the "meat" and the "motion." Do you think that homeopathic medicines are just "dilutions" or is there something else involved? Might there be something different that goes on when something is vigorously shaken vs. simply diluted? Let's just start there.Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no hidden benefit of shaking vigorously. If there really was a benefit, then I have been performing cutting edge research in my kitchen every morning when I make my whey protein shake (strawberry). The problem, Dana, lies in the fact that fundamental laws of both physics and chemistry would have to be revised if this were actually true. By choosing to not accept this fact, it is tantamount to disruptive editing, especially when it begins to disturb articles. You have a wealth of homeopathy knowledge that could contribute to this project to the benefit of both sides, but by moving the goalposts and always insisting you are right, you can't be a valued contributer. Baegis (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that Baegis really should have perhaps used a more cautious and correct tone, allowing for future research, but when such tones are used, people leap on them as magic proof, rather than a healthy ability to judge upon the quality of evidence to hand and a willingness to revise opinions. Dana does not so much have to accept the fact, as accept that the current scientific weight is strongly towards that view, and so when discussing mechanisms, that viewpoint should be taken (with appropriate allowances for ongoing investigation and problems in reported studies). Please, we should all try to be civil, even if it will get used against us. LinaMishima (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that sums it up well, which is the point I was trying to make with the Semmelweis analogy in the previous section. His anecdotal observations fell on deaf ears until the germ theory was accepted. Additionally, we don't know much about protons yet, so a plausible theory may (or may not) come from further elucidation of the proton. Anthon01 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally it is established that shaking causes the formation nano-bubbles and detachment of silica from glass. If nothing else shaking has some effects. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Beagis I sincerely hope that you read some of the homeopathic literature published in the peer-review journals, including the work by Elia (a chemist), Rey (a physicist), Roy (a material scientist), and Geckler (a chemist). None of them used "blenders" nor did they conduct research on smoothies, but they conducted serious research and found that the homeopathic process of potentization (serial dilution with vigorous shaking in-between dilutions in glass containers) produced specific and unique effects on water. The July 2007 issue of the journal, HOMEOPATHY, published by Elsivier, had provided a good summary of this work by these and other scientists whose work has been published in non-homeopathic journals (and most were published in high-impact journals). Please avoid demeaning a specifically defined pharmaceutical process to anything that is made in a kitchen. Besides showing a paucity of knowledge on the subject, your statement above shows a strong and ill-informed POV. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would read it if it was published in a reputable journal. Homeopathy, the journal, doesn't cut it. It's like getting information about Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute. The biggest problem with Homeopathy is that it resorts to an a priori assumption that there is some benefit from the solution and that water does have a memory. That is not how actual science works. If it's not published in a mainstream scientific journal, it will forever remain on the fringe. Btw, its not a bad thing if my views are shared by the entirety of mainstream science. Thats how the articles dealing with science need to be written. Baegis (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guy, the articles in HOMEOPATHY in July 2007 are mostly articles written by some of the scientists mentioned above who have had their work published in leading basic science journals. Read the articles just to get to those references. To make your life a tad easier, I will spoon feed you to the website of Martin Chaplin, a professor of water sciences who was the guest editor of that special issue. He is an objective observer whose website article has 1300+ references to water research. If you're really smart, you'll start be a bit more humble about what you think you know about water...and you will probably be embarrassed by your above silly reference to shaking of water having no real effect (it's OK...we all occasionally make silly errors when we speak or write too quickly or simply think we know about subjects for which we know little). Go to: [7]. This website is quite rich in information that will open your eyes...and one day soon you'll stop equating homeopathy witn "intellectual design." Jeez. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, please go look at the link I posted earlier for criticism of that issue before commenting further. LinaMishima (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to your page and couldn't find it. Please clarify...and/or send me a direct link.Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That is some simply stunning research. And I see it appeared in the Homeopathy journal and not a more respectable journal that published any of his other papers. I mean, it would seem to me, that he has 28 papers listed on the website, yet only one of them discusses the memory of water. And guess which journal published it. Am I missing something? I ask you, since you appear to be at the very least, a person with degrees in physics and chemistry, where is your published research into this field or, if you choose not to publish your results, where are you currently teaching chemistry? I would like to attend on of the lectures in which you discuss this topic at length. Instead of appealing to the authority of a handful of people doing research into this field, how about recognizing the extreme amount of evidence on the other side of the aisle? My comparison to the mixing of a protein shake was in your response to the question of "might there be something that goes on when it is vigorously shaken vs simple dilution". To simplify, that would be a "No, nothing happens when you shake something 'vigorously', aside from mixing up the delicious particles of the whey protein". Imagine if I then diluted it down to 30C. And you are correct, homeopathy shouldn't be compared to intelligent (not intellectual) design (or creationism). That is because one sides proponents grossly outweigh the other side's. I'll leave you to figure out which is which. Baegis (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to [8], which is a list of criticisms of the articles in that issue. This list by no means invalidates all the information within, however proper pursuit of science requires an acceptance of all criticism and looking to use this to better future investigations. LinaMishima (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Baegis, I'm one of the very few people on wiki who is transparent. I use my real name. I truly honor others who are similarly transparent...it is an admirable quality. Who are you? (This question is not simply directed at Baegis) You can see all that I've written in various places, though I am most proud of my newest book, "The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy." [www.HomeopathicRevolution.com] Besides being a scholarly researched book on many cultural heroes of the past 200 years who used and/or who advocated for homeopathy, this book includes some chapters that explain homeopathy in a more modern fashion. You might enjoy and benefit from it. You might also be intrigued by the chapter on "Why Homeopathy is Hated and Villified." Please note that I am not a "researcher," nor do I have advanced degrees in chemistry or physics. However, I can report on the work of others who are more technical than I. By the way, at my website, there's an article that I wrote that may be worthy of your attention, entitled "Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works" [9] Finally, I hope no one here complains about me referring to my own writing. This fellow editor inquired about them. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I should think on your own user talk page you should be allowed to refer to your own writings elsewhere without controversy. —Whig (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hang on! You're the person who falsely claimed Darwin approved of homeopathy, when his letters are publicly available for checking and actually say something quite different! [10][11] The tone may not be great, and the criticisms do not negate all that is said, but there are some sound points, I feel. I'm certainly not going to complain about you refering to your own writing on your own talk page, but be sure to announce a conflict of interest and be careful with any involvement in the field of homeopathy here on wikipedia. LinaMishima (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, the only mention of Dana on WP:COIN that I could find was here. As not everyone will immediately recognise your name, I would advise that you place a conflict of interest section on your userpage to notify other editors. Generally, you seem to be working well, and as long as everyone is aware, I can't see a problem as long as you continue (however I have not read many edits by you, so I reserve the right to be found to be wrong) LinaMishima (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's being mentored, so don't worry about any of that. It's under control. Lara❤Love 09:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey LinaMishima, you've chosen to make an unfounded accusation, though I'm glad that you acknowledged a certain degree of humility. Please go to my article on this subject and tell me what is wrong with it: [12] I NEVER (!) said that Darwin "approved" of or "advocated" for homeopathy. Only people who have attacked me have put those words in my mouth (please know that the anti-homeopathic literature is full of strong POV and misinformation). I have always said that Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy, but that he took homeopathic medicines as a part of his treatment from Dr. Gully and that, according to Darwin's own words, he experienced great benefits from Gully's care. This information has undergone careful editing on wikipedia as well, and there is strong evidence that Darwin experienced great benefits from the treatments of James Manby Gully. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this homeopathic evidence? Because looking at it I see next to no evidence that Gully's treatments helped Darwin, apart from the temporary respite one feels after attending a spa ("water cure"). Certainly no evidence or suggestion that homeopathy helped. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

88, you remind me James Randi, the magician. You're great at providing mis-direction. I didn't say that one specific treatment cured or helped Darwin. Quoting from Darwin's letter, I wrote that Darwin experienced great benefit from Gully's treatments, which included water-cure and homeopathy. One cannot say that one or the other provided benefit. Can you now get off your high horse and come down to earth with the rest of us? Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that praise? Which part of my comment do you feel is inaccurate? Neither the water cure or homeopathy helped Darwin in the long run, the water cure (esp. the showers) gave him some temporary respite. Please try not be insulting (you aren't very good at it!) --88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do remember the pre-existing bias towards interpretation that a reader will have, based upon their assumption of the intent of a piece of writing. I see what they were getting at and it wasn't really misdirection, however I generally agree that your intent was not to exclude all other aspects of Darwin's stay, but rather to state that the stay did help, which is clearly did. LinaMishima (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The accusations were those printed by others who are known in the 'sceptic' field, and sadly that is how those who read that side of things know you. Sadly the whole problem with this entire field is that neutrality, a reliance upon the science and the historical facts alone, is far too rare. As such, statements and accusations by all sides end up far too strong. Reading the article you linked to, the statement "he experienced the power of these medicines" is typical of the sort of speech used on both sides of the debate, however aside from the obvious and understandable biased view I felt it was well-written :) I'd love to see more neutral documents published on this matter, with less push to discredit or advocate homeopathy. I suppose the biggest problem most reasoned critics have is that of homeopaths and their ethics. I see Ben Goldcare write regularly how he values the additional patient time and enhanced placebo effect that homeopathy certainly does offer, however it is the dangerous claims, such as regarding malaria and AIDS, then then gets people's backs up and makes it harder for them to accept even the proven benefits. LinaMishima (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I should note that 'enhanced placebo effect' here is not intended to mean all that is offered, but that even if homeopathic remedies work, homeopathy's approach will enhance their effect further . Studies have shown that the greater and more substantial the encouragement to the patient to believe that something will work, the better it will work, be that sugar pills, saline, or conventional medicine. LinaMishima (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[LinaMishima], it is good to talk here...I sense that you are trying to understand, but to really do so, you need to read some good modern writings on homeopathy. To clarify, I too believe that the placebo effect is ever present; however, it is NOT all there is to homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy is not always effective (nothing is), but there IS a reason that it has persisted, though its successes in treating 19th century epidemics to the modern chronic ailments. Let me know if you get a chance to read any chapters from my newest book. There are 50 or so references per chapter. "The Homeopathic Revolution." Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As for 88, it is fully verifiable that Darwin had fainting spells and black spots before his eyes for several years prior to seeing Gully, and he never complained about them again after seeing Gully. No one know if homeopathy or water-cure helped him here, but there is a reason that Darwin said "Gully did me MUCH good." Right out of the horse's mouth. End of story. Thank you very much. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, try again. He liked Gully, that could be all he's referring to, or maybe just the showers. There is no evidence for the claim about fainting and spots etc that you are making --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

88's logic is silly (and carries no weight or logic). "Gully did me MUCH good" is somehow interpreted by 88 as friendship!? 88 suggests that Darwin's statement has NO reference to Darwin's health (which is the reason that Darwin and Gully had a professional relationship). Hmmmm. You're two tacos short of a combo plate. That is as diplomatic as I can be based on your POV pushing (without substantiation or verification). You're over the edge. Thank you for proving this. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Dana, Assume Good Faith and do not make personal attacks --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RDO...I do assume good faith, and my above statement was not a personal attack. It was a critique of a behavior, not a person...and I showed how 88 is POV-pushing. I did notice that you didn't come to his aid to explain how Darwin's statement is evidence of only "friendship" and has nothing to do with the purpose of Darwin's relationship with Gully. Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He said "could". Your comment (the taco one in particular) is definitely a personal attack --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But because you have not said or even implied how Darwin's statement is or "could be" an assertion of "friendship," your argument goes nowhere. Because Darwin's relationship with Gully was as a patient, Darwin's statement is in light of his health. I am beginning to think that you're just trying to waste my time by making frivilous, unsupported fantasy statement (like this "friendship" argument). Until you show me otherwise, my analysis is accurate (please know that I'm always open to good substantiation, but you haven't provided that yet, while I have). Let's be honorable. I want to respect you; I really do. In any case, I assume good faith and simply assume that you need more education. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks? Dana you're not being very civil. "Gully did me much good" could refer to any number of things, and Darwin may have changed his opinion or just saying that to be polite to the person he was talking to. If he had said "Gully's treatments did me much good", then that would be different. But he didn't. My point was you have no evidence of what he meant and neither do I. The quote is in the article, and is fully contextualised. I'm interested in your response to the dilution comment above. I'm "88" by the way --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dr88! You're part-way out of the closet. Doctor of what, or is that just a name? Please stop assuming that I am personally attacking you, especially when I made it clear that I was questioning your arguments and your information (and lack of it). Was my reference to wanting to play basketball with you seen as some type of attack. Ok...are you ready for the slam dunk? I cannot help but sense that you reviewed the link that I gave to that above Gully quote. Well, heck, the very next sentence says: "I sincerely hope that you have profited by the water-cure & are now stronger." [13] Clearly, Darwin was talking about Gully's treatment, not about "friendship" (but because you seem to have reviewed every link that I have provided, I cannot help but sense that you knew this already).

How is the taco comment not a personal attack. I have a PhD. --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr88...We all make errors. We all type responses and then realize that we should have said something different. However, in this case, you have repeatedly (!) harped on this quote from Darwin and suggested that it is some type of statement about friendship rather than the results of Gully's treatments. When you have clearly shown to be incorrect and still don't admit it, this is evidence of something missing from your plate (or such as strong POV that you blind yourself). That said, I seek to assume good faith and will hope that you will admit errors at times. When I am clearly shown to have erred, I will do likewise. Let me ask you this: do you STILL believe that Darwin's statement is about friendship and has nothing to do with the treatment that Gully provided him? Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is as much evidence for the view I put forward as there is for yours. I don't think the view I postulated is correct. I think it's much more likely he was reassuring his friend, and Gully did provide temporary relief (not permanent, and especially not to his "severe" symptoms) and did no harm. Darwin's view of Gully is clear, and no more is needed for the article. I will repeat that I never said I believed this. I notice that you also admit the personal attack, but have not apologised or withdrawn it (a "misdirect worthy of the great Randi", perhaps?) I am a scientist, and open to scientific evidence, but not to your poor rhetoric, poor synthesis, misdirection, and misrepresentation. --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Additions to the article space

It would be best if your proposed additions were first added to the talk page, as you've begun, but not added to the article space until corrections and improvements (including WP:MOS issues) have been made by others. Progress is being made on the talk page of Gully's article. Prematurely adding the information back could put a speed bump in the progress. Lara❤Love 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arsenicum album

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album. Thank you. TableManners^C·U·T 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How to tell the difference?

Hi Dana. I understand that you are considered by some people to be an authority on homeopathy, and such experts are sorely needed here. I am wondering if you have some thoughts about the following situation. I would like to propose a mental experiment here, so we are indeed talking about hypotheticals, but based on your knowledge and experience I suspect you can still shed some light on the situation.

Let's contruct a double blind controlled trial of a 200C homeopathic potency medicine. Let's use Oscillococcinum, a 200C product, but we'll make it ourselves in a small quantity. We don't need to supply the whole world's yearly supply! We'll leave that up to Boiron. This will be an in vitro experiment, not an in vivo experiment, so no patients will be involved. This is strictly a laboratory experiment using the latest modern lab equipment and testing methods.

We start with a quantity of pure water and divide it into two equal portions and place them into two identical containers. Using some of the water in one container, we add the properly prepared duck's heart and liver. (We'll use your blender, since my wife might object to using ours....;-) Then we start the process of potentization by diluting and succussing the contents of both containers, keeping them separate all the time. In essence we are making a homeopathic preparation of Oscillococcinum with the water in one container, and the other container is only potentized. The only difference between the contents is that the water from one container originally contained the heart and liver. In the end we should have two portions of water that have been treated identically, except for the addition of the heart and liver to the water from one container, but not the other.

Now we take an equal number of samples from each container and - using the blinding process - we have a laboratory test them. Can you name any conceivable method whereby they could ever measure any difference between the two different sets of samples? I don't know of any. As far as I know, there is no known method. What do you know?

Boiron has stated that there is no difference: "There's nothing in it." [14]

The experiment could of course have included a third ("control") sample, by dividing the water into three portions, but not potentizing the third portion. Maybe there would be a difference, but that's another experiment!

Do you know of any laboratory method to tell the difference? -- Fyslee / talk 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey hi Fyslee, Your statement above sounds like you're really want to test homeopathy. Good for you. I too like to see good research. However, your above statement makes it clear how little you know about homeopathy and the making of homeopathic medicines. Where did you get the idea that homeopathic manufacturers use a blender? Were you really serious here? Do you understand that homeopathic medicines are legally defined as "drugs," and as such, they have to be made by "drug manufacturers" (I am not one, and I assume you are not one too)? Further, do you understand that homeopathic medicines have been to made under strict FDA-regulated conditions that require a hooded environment, with precise high quality ventilation so that no or as few dust particles become a part of the potentization as possible? There are a lot of other very specific requirements in the manufacture of homeopathic medicines that make it impossible to make them in a kitchen (I'm trying to not laugh at your suggestion). There is a tendency for skeptics of homeopathy to assume that anyone who conducts homeopathic research becomes a "homeopathic researcher" and thus is no longer "trustworthy." If you don't believe this (and I hope you don't), then why don't you review the vast amount of scientific studies that presently exist and simply replicate it. There is a lot from which to choose, though I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not familiar with the depth and breadth of the homeopathic scientific literature. Hopefully, you are disprove this suspicion. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I am clearly insufficiently familiar with the history of homeopathy. From where did Samuel Hahnemann obtained his " hooded environment, with precise high quality ventilation"?OffTheFence (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you have misunderstood my tongue-in-cheek approach. I assumed you'd notice the smiley after the blender remark (which even though simplified and an obvious joke, only referred to the preparation of the liver and heart, and had nothing to do with potentization). Instead of making it a thought experiment that was obviously very simplified, let's assume the experiment is all done by top trained homeopathic producers (such as at Boiron), by all the rules that govern the proper production of homeopathic drugs. Now I hope we're back to square one and have removed all your objections. You are the expert on this one, so please answer my question. Do you know of any laboratory method to tell the difference? -- Fyslee / talk 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: This has already been done. I will say more a little later. Anthon01 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please provide the information on my talk page so that this discussion between Dana and myself doesn't get too broken up. -- Fyslee / talk 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to talk here. By the way, I referred another skeptic to the website of Martin Chaplin, a professor of water sciences. If you're not familiar with it, you should be: [15] and [16] Please read these articles, enjoy the links, and then, let's talk. No hurry. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment was a reply to Anthon01. I do expect an answer from you on this talk page and am still waiting. It's only one question. -- Fyslee / talk 08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me if you found a method to do so at the site of Martin Chaplin. Read both short sections and get back to me. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I asked you a question, and I am expecting an answer from you. Don't send me off to find an answer. You are supposed to be an authority and a short "yes" or "no" answer, with a short explanation of the reasoning, should be easy enough to produce within a few seconds or minutes. -- Fyslee / talk 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, are you going to answer or not? Others are wondering why you haven't answered, and I am going to have to provide an account of this situation. Why aren't you answering my simple question? The answer should be pretty simple. -- Fyslee / talk 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, please respond. If you are unable to answer the question, then just say so. If you don't know of any way to tell the difference, then just say so. Whatever the case, please respond. Leaving this hanging won't look good for you and I think you deserve a chance to let us know what you, as an expert on the subject of homeopathy, know about this matter. -- Fyslee / talk 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[Fyslee]] I'm glad that you consider me an "authority." As soon as you and others consider me a RS, I will answer your question. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana, that will never happen. Firstly, most of your material is self published, which is usually frowned upon, 99% of the time. Your books could be classified as an RS, but only with relation to homeopathy and not the proving of water memory or any other topic. Secondly, any essay on your website also qualifies as original research. Thirdly, you appear to be completely unwilling to listen to any possible evidence that contradicts your thoughts. By not responding to Fyslee's question, it only strengthens the previous statement. You can't just be granted limitless powers to state whatever you wish and have it be taken as gold here on WP. Last time I checked, the only person to have powers anywhere close to that was Jimbo himself. Baegis (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana, "you are supposed to be an authority," but I'm beginning to wonder. You are of course a "reliable source" as regards your own opinion, but nothing more. That doesn't prevent you from answering the question, and by so doing at least to some degree attempting to show that you actually are an authority. Lacking an answer, all claims to being an authority ring pretty hollow. Authorities on subjects don't beat around the bush. Please just answer. I know you can do it. -- Fyslee / talk 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be a clue about the answer to this question in the evidence given by Kate Chatfield of the Society of Homeopaths to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. [17] See question 538. Brunton (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is that answer in context:

Q538 Lord Broers: I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?

Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.

Brunton, thanks for your help and showing yourself to be the authority here. That answer jibes with what I have read and believed for many years. There is no doubt more information on this matter, and if Dana will be so cooperative as to supply it, he can contact me on my talk page when he answers here. I'm finished with him, since others are providing the expertise needed here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, I need to alert you that most of my writings are not self-published. If you say that statement again without attribution, I and others will consider it uncivil WP:CIVIL and simply incorrect. Besides writing 10 books, I have written 3 chapters for medical textbooks (in the fields of oncology, pain management, and veterinary medicine--all published by leading medical publishers), and hundreds of articles (dozens of which are from the peer-review literature). You and others who read here are put on notice, and considering the present probation status of homeopathy, there will be little wiggle room for you. Let's be nice and let's be accurate. As for my writings at my website, many of them have great primary and 3rd party references. For that, they are invaluable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just like many scientific specialties, there are different experiments to test each substance to test their activity (see the literature that has numerous replications of potencies of arsenic, aspirin, histamine, and thyroxine, for instance). Roy's new spectroscopic work may be a tool to differentiate one medicine from another and one potency from another. Further, Elia's work has been published in numerous leading chemistry journals and shows physical effects at beyond Avogadro's number dose. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you still haven't seen the criticism of Roy's new spectroscopic work from the most recent issue of Homeopathy, which the response from one of the article's authors completely failed to rebut. Brunton (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

False analogy

How do you respond to being criticized of making a false analogy ? If you have published a response to it or even know of an apt and reasoned published response to those remarks Please say so. It may be helpful in the feat of balancing even a short criticisms section. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of that critcism in the block text below March 16, 2000.

"Homeopathy - It's not wizardry; in fact, it's based on the same principle as vaccination" is the title of an article by Debra Ollivier for Salon.com. Homeopathy is not based on the same principle as vaccination. Homeopathy is based on a metaphysical belief that like cures like and that healing is brought about by the vital force; vaccination is based on empirical facts regarding bacteria, viruses and the immune system. This is just one of several errors Ollivier makes in her panegyric to a pseudoscience.

According to Ollivier, Dana Ullman, an advisory board member of alternative-medicine institutes at Harvard's and Columbia's schools of medicine, is a leading spokesman for homeopathy. Ullman uses a musical metaphor to describe the homeopathic law of "similars":

If one piano is at one end of a room and if one strikes the C key, the C notes in another piano in the same room will reverberate. This experiment works because each key is hypersensitive to vibrations in its own key. This is called 'resonance.'

It is also called a false analogy. The human body shares almost nothing in common with a piano string, and reverberation is unlike anything in the body's natural healing system. The analogy may make sense to Ullman because he buys into the notion that homeopathy is a type of "energy medicine." Disease is caused by blockage of energy and health is restored when the energy flows freely. Ollivier claims that according to Andrew Weil (whose bunk we have noted before), "energy medicine" like homeopathy is one of the major medical developments of the 21st century.

Ullman's finest false analogy, however, is when he compares the work of infinitesimal amounts, sometimes equalling zero, of homeopathic substances, to tiny atoms containing vast amounts of energy.

There are many phenomena in nature in which extremely small doses of something can create powerful, even very powerful, effects....One certainly cannot say that the atomic bomb is a placebo just because some extremely small atoms bump into each other.

From this he concludes that we shouldn't dismiss the "successes" of homeopathy to the placebo effect.

Ollivier's article does provide some useful information, however. For example, did you know that Oscillococcinum is the biggest selling homeopathic flu "medicine" in the U.S. and France. The stuff is made from the heart and liver of Barbary ducks. (I have no idea how the flu and these duck organs are similar. We may have to consult Edgar Cayce on that one.) And did you know that there are 700 homeopathic veterinarians in France and 17 student chapters of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association among the 27 U.S. veterinary schools? Neither did I.

The article does have one skeptical paragraph (about 4% of the overall article). In the middle of her piece, Ollivier quotes Dr. Michel Tramos, a Paris general practitioner, who claims homeopathy is psychobabble, unscientific and its successes are due to the placebo effect. Ollivier made no effort to find support for Dr. Tramos's claims, as she was obviously too busy resonating to the vibes of Ullman's moronic metaphors. [thanks to Joe Littrell]

Albion moonlight (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Albion moonlight, it is cute to watch a virgin of homeopathy try to understand it by only reading the skeptics' literature, proving that a little knowledge is dangerous. I encourage you to consider doing some homework and reading others' writings (consider reading my article "Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works" at my website [www.homeopathic.com]. The fact that you do not know what connection ducks have to the flu simply shows your own lack of knowledge. Ever heard of the "bird flu" or of "avian sources" of the flu? I assume yes. Epidemiologists today recognize that ducks, like other avian sources, are carriers and reseviors of various flu viruses. The fact that homeopaths have used Oscillococcinum since 1920s shows how advanced we have been. For the record, Oscillococcinum is the 200C potency of the heart and liver of this duck, and there have been 3 large placebo controlled trials, each showing efficacy. I assume that you believe in research. Please accept my apologies for these somewhat smug remarks above, but I encourage you to explore this subject with greater curiousity and humility than your presently arrogant (and ill-informed) point of view. Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding my intentions here. I think that the critics of homeopathy may be correct but quite frankly I don't care. My purpose here is to help edit and create a biography about you without resorting to original research. I was quoting one of your critics in a block quote because the direct link to that quote was malfunctioning. I am not the least bit arrogant when it comes to these things but I do intend to try and include the opinions of some of your critics in the article. I think you may be living under the false assumption that Lara and some of the other admins can dictate the content of a wiki bio. If that is so you are entirely incorrect. I have no problem with keeping the criticisms of your work down to a bare minimum in your bio. But because I know that in the long run it is the wiki community who makes these content decisions I realize that such a section could become quite large, so I can prepare for the worse case scenario. So please stop with the rhetoric and the personal attacks and work with me here. OK. ? Albion moonlight (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My interest is not rhetoric but facts. You wrote that you have no idea how the flu and ducks are related, and I showed you their connection, despite your choice to not acknowledge this conection after it has been shown to you. Please confirm whether you get it now. I am not clear how someone's assertion that I may have used a false analogy (to which I disagree) is notable. You're stretching the envelope here, me thinks. And I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that Lara or any other admins dictate the content of an article. I never said that, though I have on occasion noted that certain admins agree with me just as a reminder that I am not alone in my point of view. The homeopathic principle of similars is observed in immunization, allergy treatments, the use of Ritalin for hyperactivity, and many other medical applications. The principle of similars is also observed in electromagnetics. "Like regenerates like" is quite similar is concept and practice as is "like cures like." My reference to immunizations comes from Emil Adolph von Behring ("the father of immunology") and one of the 3 MDs who started the AMerican Academy of Allergy was a homeopathic MD. My advice to you is that before you consider making claims about false analogies, do your homework before you come back to this page. I don't mean that in any arrogant way. I simply mean it in a way that is responsible. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The homeopathic principle of similars is observed in..." would be more accurately written as "A similar action to the homeopathic principle of similars is observed in...", since they are similar in concept, but differ in actual mechanism (for instance, immunology requires enough stimulation of the immune system to be effective, and allergy desensitisation requires increasing the dosage over time. Conventional medicines are also shaped similarly to, but not similar enough to work the same as, various chemicals and hormones. LinaMishima (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion of the Shang meta-analysis, and also Oscillococcinum (mentioned above), which can be found here [18]. Dana also partakes in this discussion, and the conclusions are interesting. It shows that Shang's analysis is totally valid, and criticisms flawed --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The criticizms in parentheses are not mine

They are from another source altogether. I tried to send them by wiki link but the link was wonky so I put them in a Block Quote. I made no mention of Ducks or anything like that. I made no criticisms of your work whatsoever. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the clarification. My apologies. I had thought that you had posted that weak critique because you believed it to be true. It was hardly worth responding to. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for the apology. I left a message on Lara's Page prior to reading your apology. Please

feel free to read it and join me in my attempt to minimize the onset of a criticisms section. As I said before it is the communtity that ultimately decides these things. I am not opposed to such a section but I prefer a mere mention of the fact that you have been criticized for your work by opponents of Homeopathy. Thanks again.: Albion moonlight (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

reverted

I've reverted you on Arsenicum album - those additions were pure editorialising. "It's very important, dammit!" isn't really NPOV, but it is WP:OR. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, have you considered how your words might be received by an expert editor relatively new to WP? I can think of more collegial approaches that straw-manning their arguments and showering them with WP alphabet-soup jargon. Additionally, your revert was partly wrong: the "see also" stuff did need to be retained, but the study you deleted was a V RS that only needed a little tweaking for "according to so-and-so" language. You can be both collegial and correct with a little more effort, I think. If not, why are you editing these topics? --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Adam isn't talking about someone new to wikipedia, I don't see the relevance of your point. If you feel Adam has not assumed good faith, you should tell Adam and remember to observe good faith yourself. I assume you are not aware that Dana has been editing here for some time and is familiar with the "alphabet-soup" Adam uses; Dana uses it himself often enough and claims to have read and understood them. I hope we can all get along to build consensus that respects the scientific evidence on these pages, and that is what I've been trying to achieve by tutoring Dana in dilutions above --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Offsite canvassing?

Your account has been mentioned at the Administrators' noticeboard#Offsite canvassing?. Feel free to comment there. You may want to address whether you have any connection to this offsite forum post. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's great, isn't it? --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes. Apologies for not pinging you myself. One of your complaints is about a biography deletion. If you provide appropriate sources and it meets site notability guidelines I'll restart the biography myself. I'd be glad to talk with you about site options for addressing BLP concerns. Please respond at the noticeboard thread or at my user talk. Durova^Charge! 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

His biography was stubbed some time after he voiced his concern off-wiki. It is now being rebuilt by others with his input on the talk page. Lara❤Love 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and comment

Dana, I'm delighted to see that you're editing WP. Expert editors are very much needed here, although unfortunately many get frustated and leave because they are treated poorly by other editors. Please check your email.

On Arsenicum album, I just restored the West Bengal study (see here). However, it was correct for the editor above to retain the "see also" links to Evidence-based medicine etc. Please read the part of NPOV called WP:WEIGHT. We can and should have articles on all sorts of alt-meds, and go into ample detail in them, but at the same time we need to clearly reference mainstream in all of them. Hope that makes sense. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I hope you don't mind me tapping your knowledge. What is the significance of the different dilutions beyond the point where the chemicals are no longer toxic or an irritant? For example, why go all the way to 200C when you could use 30C? Is this only to do with potency, or is there something more meaningful? In Benveniste's water memory paper (the infamous one in Nature) I seem to remember the papers conclusion was that there were certain dilutions that had an effect and others that had no effect, as if some dilutions were more important (effective) than others. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey hi David D.. It took Hahnemann 30 years to begin experimenting with doses higher than the 30th potency, and initially, he didn't want to believe that they could work. However, being the good and avid and open-minded experimenter that he was, he was surprised to learn that the 1,000 potency and higher worked well. Homeopaths have found for over 200 years that the higher potencies (those above the 30th) tend to work faster and deeper and require less repetition than the lower potencies. In fact, it is quite common for homeopaths to prescribe only ONE dose of a 200th or 1,000th (or higher) potencies (1M potency = 1,000 potency). That said, a homeopath does not simply use the highest potency of a medicine. A homeopath usually has to work up to their higher potencies, or s/he will have his/her patient experience a healing crisis that may be too strong (a "healing crisis" is a temporary exacerbation in symptoms prior to a significant relief). If you read my story about Darwin at my website, you'll see that he experienced a skin rash shortly after getting homeopathic treatment. This type of skin symptom is quite common in homeopathy and is almost always a good sign. As for Benveniste...your memory is correct. He found certain potencies to be more active than others. It is interesting to note that one of Hahnemann's last contributions was his recommendation to place a potency in WATER and have the patient create additional dilutions (with succussion in-between each dose and each dilution), thereby increasing its strength in action...and perhaps increasing the chance that one of the subsequent doses will be one of the more active potencies. Does this help? Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A little. So when you say "he was surprised to find that 1000 potency worked well", you mean better? Or is that not always the case? I guess my main confusion is according to homeopathy you say "higher potencies (those above the 30th) tend to work faster and deeper and require less repetition than the lower potencies" but I am wondering if it is more subtle than this, maybe it is more accurate that only some higher potencies work faster and deeper? Taking Benvenistes work at face value some higher potencies would actually be much worse. So I guess, I'm really asking if this work by Benvensite, where some dilutions are much better and others worse, fits with the current ideas of homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it may depend on your measuring apparatus, interference patterns are common when measuring electromagnetic phenomena for instance. Sorry for interrupting, I look forward to Dana's perspective. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Electrodynamics has nothing to do with the homeopathic effect (re your edit summary). A bigger problem is that there is no good body of evidence that homeopathic dilutions beyond 12C have any effect. The few studies that show an effect have been criticised for methodological flaws, or have not been replicated (they are statistical flukes in other words). Benvenistes ideas have been pretty well debunked, especially the digital encoding of homeopathy. The dilution thread at the top also illustrates that, as far as the solute is concerned, there is no difference between 13C and 200C - they both only contain (with a probability very close to 1) none of the substance being diluted. Although I guess you know this already, David --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate that people are using wikipedia to discuss the efficacy or not of an alternative medicine, especially with regards to such a use in a user's own talk page? Dana, you would be well within your rights to ask that this topic is not discussed in depth here. LinaMishima (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I was trying to help out David and Whig, and I should have commented on their talk pages. Apologies --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, When I initiated this question I wrote "I hope you don't mind". I am happy to stop asking questions if you find it a problem. E-mail is possible too, i was just interested to hear the homeopathic opinion on these issues (wih no agenda other than interest). David D. (Talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

David D., I realize that you are skeptical, and I really have no problem with people being skeptical of homeopathy, as long as this skepticism is a stimulus to learning and understanding more...to really try to get understand the phenomena of homeopathy (its philsophy, methodology, history, clinical practice, and implications for science/medicine/society). To me, there are good skeptics, bad ones, and ugly ones. At the least, you ask questions, rather than making unfounded and ill-informed statements. Generally, a homeopath who uses low potencies (3X to 12C) must repeat the medicine 2 or 3 times a day for a week or several weeks, while when prescribing high potencies (over 200X), s/he usually prescribes one dose that can last 1 month or several years! The Benveniste study was a laboratory study, and he found an S curve, finding certain potencies very active (15C, 16C, 17C, 18C, 19C, 20C, 21C, 22C, and then it dropped off and becoming very active again between 26C to 29C and again at 32C to 36C...and so on. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely skeptical but, nevertheless, interested. Yes, the S-curve phenomena was what I was referring too. So was this new to homeopathy or already established as a phenomena? I rarely see it mentioned in discussions here, or elsewhere for that matter. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted some QED lectures by Richard Feynman to User talk:Anthon01#QED. You might find this interesting because the same sinusoidal effects phenomena are common to electromagnetic fields in a water medium. —Whig (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes these lectures are very good, and every scientist knows of them. But if you're trying to imply some mechanism for homeopathy via QED it fails very quickly. The people studying macro structures in water are clearly aware of this, as are all physicists and chemists worth their salt. But I agree, it is very educational and I encourage everyone (anywhere) to read or view Feynman's lectures. --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that Feynman is worth listening to, but I think your dismissive response indicates you probably didn't choose to watch it before responding, i.e., you might have seen it or read some of this a long time ago. I encourage you to view it again. If you seriously want to maintain that this is irrelevant, I encourage you to provide RS and V sources which say that QED cannot provide a mechanism. —Whig (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a mechanism, QED would be involved (it is with everything), however, QED does not provide that mechanism. I realise you're not an expert and I'm afraid you'll either have to do a physics degree or take physicists on trust (don't trust me if you like, research it yourself. Email your local university physics department) --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've actually studied quite a bit of physics at several universities. Just for the record. But QED was not part of my instruction, I was more involved in astrophysics. Please don't assume I'm a rube just because I'm not an expert. As you say, if there is a mechanism, QED would be involved, so you should probably go and watch the Feynman video again as I suggested. —Whig (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)