Talk:Physical factors affecting microbial life

Allopathic or Homeopathic?

This issue has been raised at the Fringe theories discussion board. I too fail to see the point of this phrase. Homeopathy is not the topic of the article. It is an unnecessary and pointless addition to the sentence, since it introduces a theory that appears to have no meaningful role to play in the article. The fact that its effectiveness as a means to rid the body of "microbial life" is - to say the least - disputed makes the addition particularly problematic. The "in use" banner, BTW, is not a magical talisman blocking other editors from making edits. It's designed to avoid chaotic edit conflicts when an editor is in the middle rewriting content, not for when the article has been untouched for hours - as the template very clearly says. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you think that referring to allopathic and homeopathic drugs is irrelevant in an introduction that attempts to sketch the historical background to current therapy procedures? Paul venter (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether homeopathic medication is effective or not, is totally irrelevant. What they do do is to introduce drugs of various descriptions into the body and these, like drugs prescribed by MDs, may have counterproductive results. Paul venter (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is irrelevant - as content. Whether crystal healing, or acupuncture or any other method works or not is also irrelevant, because all mention of them is. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the opening sentences should follow WP:LEDE, which states that they summarise the content of the article, and because the "allopathic/homeopathic" distinction adds nothing meaningful to the sentence. You may as well have said "conventional or alternative", or "western and non-western" or "modern or traditional" or any other equally irrelevant opposition. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

May I invite you to finish the article according to your way of thinking? Paul venter (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "allopathic" is only even meaningful to homeopaths, not to anyone else. It's essentially using the terminology of a fringe theory as mainstream. And no, it is not my way of thinking. It is Wikipedia's policies. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear a few things up. I am not a proponent of homeopathy and neither, for that matter, of allopathy - both have fundamental problems in their approach to pathogens. Drugs are introduced into bodies by all sorts of routes, including your toothpaste. The people who claim that their methods of drug introduction will benefit the body include allopaths and homeopaths. Pot smokers and alcoholics also make these claims, but I think we can safely ignore them, as they do not hang out brass signs or join societies. As for quoting WP policies to support your views - I do wish you would be more specific and cite chapter and verse where a mere mention of "fringe" society results in a knee-jerk reaction. I also think that whoever started the ball rolling at the "Fringe theories discussion board" might have extended me the courtesy of inviting me along. Paul venter (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul V, apologies for not inviting you to the discussion. See it here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Physical factors affecting microbial life. I dashed off a quick message there this morning after I saw your second revert. I regret that I didn't have time to inform you of the discussion and didn't know how quickly someone would reply and I've only just now had the time to sit down to a computer at work. I agree with Paul B. As far as I know, this discussion is irrelevant to the topic of this article since homeopaths treat symptoms, not the underlying physical factors that would kill bacteria or infections. Have an infection? A homeopath prescribes something to treat inflammation, not something to fight the infection. I'd certainly be happy to add a section to this article on the bacteriocidal effects of low and high pH often assisted by preservatives like benzoate. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've known a few alcoholics. None of them made any more claims than that they needed another drink - right now. Pot smoking is something I'm less familiar with. BTW, I informed you of the discussion in the first sentence of my first comment, though I did not provide a link. Following on from Rkitko's comment, I'd add that homeopathy is not the only 'alternative' treatment that claims to be able to cure diseases. In so far as such claims are made about diseases that involve "microbial life", then they claim to be able to "affect microbial life". So I see no reason to pick out homeopathy and contrast it with "allopathic" methods. Diet can affect microbial life, as can other lifestyle issues. They too are physical factors, but I doubt they can be characterised as allopathic or homeopathic. It's also worth repeating that 'allopathic' is simply not a term that has any scientific meaning as far as I am aware (not to be confused with alleopathic). I'm not expert on the history of homeopathy, but the article on allopathic medicine seems to make it clear that the term is only meaningful in the context of 18th-19th century ideas about treating symptoms. Allopathic approaches are supposed to create counter-symptoms to those of the disease, or at least effects that differ from it. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me say again - the allopath's or homeopath's immediate aims or results in prescribing are irrelevant to this article - what is important and relevant is that both sections venture to formally prescribe drugs to cure a condition or disease. If there are other sections of the community that do the same then by all means let them be included in the article's lead. The terms 'allopath' and 'homeopath' are alive and well and certainly didn't die with Hahnemann. Incidentally, I find it strange that a discussion was started about this article on a remote noticeboard rather than where it belongs - on this talk page. Paul venter (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "allopath" may be in use among proponents of "alternative" medicine, but as I said, it has no scientific meaning as far as I am aware. It is simply meaningless to describe normal medical practice as "allopathic" and to contrast it with "homeopathic". Paul B (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not attempting to define it in any 'scientific' way. For the standard English meaning consult any good dictionary. Paul venter (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source (per WP:MEDRS, as the relevant policy) that states that homoeopathic 'drugs' constitute "physical factors affecting microbial life"? Unless you can (which seems unlikely), homoeopathy is irrelevant to the topic of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Please read the discussion properly. Part of the aim of the introduction is to provide a thumbnail history of chemical treatment of disease - a history in which homeopaths certainly play a part - so that it may be contrasted with physical procedures. Paul venter (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So can you provide a source that states that homoeopathic 'drugs' constitute chemical treatment? Given that they are almost always diluted to the state of non-existence as a chemical substance, this seems implausible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to fill in the gaps in education, but see Biochemic cell salts for starters. Paul venter (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - another heap of pseudoscientific waffle we need to get rid of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not what a lede is for - it is to summarize the article. If you want to provide a history, then that should be found in a history section within the body of the article. The general rule is that if it isn't in the body, it shouldn't be in the lede. (And as others have mentioned, the phrasing of it as "both allopathic and homeopathic" sets up a false equivalence between the two, giving the latter undue weight.) Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh piffle. If I mention "mainstream theories" and "fringe theories" in the same sentence, that is not giving them equivalence, but underscoring their complementary nature. Ditto for "allopathic" and "homeopathic". This discussion has become the vehicle for a lot of grandstanding. Paul venter (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Piffle with lashings of baloney on top. The phrases "mainstream theories" and "fringe theories" contain judgements within them; "allopathic" and "homeopathic" imply a false some conceptual equvalence between the terms. Removing four utterly irrelevant words in conformity with WP:LEDE is not hijacking the article. The only POV pusher here is you. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what it does. If you say that at the end of one's time on earth they either die or are abducted by aliens, it immediately provides the two with an inherent equivalence. Still, if you think the statement only has the effect of "underscoring their complementary nature", that too is a problem, as it represents an artificial attempt to inject a POV (complementarity of so-called 'complementary medicine') into an article which has nothing to do with homeopathy - it's using it as a coatrack. Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(copied from WP:FTN) Being that homeopathy doesn't actually kill microbial life (unless we're talking about microbial life that dies in water) I'd say there's no reason to mention it, especially if there's nothing mentioned about it later in the article (but it likely doesn't warrant any mention). The term "allopathic" shouldn't be used either as it is a POV term coined by the founder of homeopathy. Not that this really matters since there's no point mentioning it if there's nothing to which to contrast it, but for future reference a better terminology is "science based medicine" or "evidence based medicine." SÆdon^talk 00:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Any drug has an effect on microbes, and - as the saying goes - "what doesn't kill them, will fatten them" - or at least accustom them to the drug (=resistance). This article was taken hostage before I could complete it, so that talking about its structure as unsatisfactory is precipitate. Paul venter (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathic "remedies" aren't drugs, they're expensive vials of water with the minute posibillity of a single atom of an original substance, and that's only because we can never say that a single atom of anything doesn't exist anywhere due to probabilistic considerations. The article wasn't hijacked, an erroneous statement was pointed out and corrected; no one is stopping you from continuing your (pretty decent) article and I hope you continue. You just can't give WP:UNDUE weight to a farcical concept. You could just as easily have written "crystal healing" or "faith healing" and aside from the fact that no water is involved in those, they are all fundamentally the same. SÆdon^talk 07:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. A drug for which a microorganism has no receptor and no transporter, and which cannot diffuse into or across the membrane(s) will have no effect at all on the bug. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get these quaint notions? Paul venter (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Science? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wikipedia community would benefit from an explanation of how a drug can have an effect without there being any mechanism by which it can interact with the cell in question. telepathy? water memory? little dancing leprechauns? Oh, right, you're not here to fill in the gaps in what you call 'education'. (Or is this just a semantic quibble, e.g. something completely non-specific like a pH or osmolarity effect, or an indirect effect on an organismic level?) Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Osmolarity?

Shouldn't manipulation of osmolarity be included in the article? --Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)