Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:24, 23 January 2008

Chemicals: Core Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

electrolysis

What reaction will occur at anode in the electrolysis of potassium dichromate? What product will be formed?Superdvd 10:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why is Potassium dichromate used as a preservative for artifacts when it is highly corrosive?

Glassware cleaning

Acidified potassium dichromate (with sulphuric acid) is used for cleaning glassware - and not just potassium dichromate

Someone's added poorly-spelled gibberish to the end. Anyone know what's useful there and what's not?

The above posts are unsigned.

Acidified potassium dichromate was used for cleaning laboratory glassware but not any more, at least in the UK, because of health concerns. It has been replaced by detergents, such as "Decon 90". Biscuittin 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Length?

Erm, just wondering why this article is being tagged as too lengthy....If I don't get a response in a few days, I'll take off the tag, it looks horrendous. : ) Delta 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those tags are ridiculous - they just appear on talk pages, perhaps with a tiny little icon hidden somewhere discrete in the article.

I do, however, think that parts of this article are excessively verbose. The section on ethanol titration is unnecessarily detailed − the exact method is not required, since Misplaced Pages is not a how-to manual.

I'm going to attempt a clean up.

Ben 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made it even more brief. It needs context - is it used industrially, etc? If not, we might as well do away with the section because it can be adapted to many contexts, and it is no longer significant. --Rifleman 82 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic use

Why should homeopathic use be deleted? Whig 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is notable as an ingredient of HeadOn and this text was already present under the Hazards section before I moved it into its own section and fleshed it out. According to the HeadOn article it is a headache remedy and not only for migraines. When used in homeopathic medicine, potassium dichromate is also called kalium bichromicum.

Can this text be reinserted without objection? Whig 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, is this actually used outside of HeadOn, as a homeopathic treatment, in any significant amount? Secondly, this is probably the least notable thing about this chemical that we'd be mentioning: if it goes in, it should go in at the end of the article, not before important chemical uses. Adam Cuerden 09:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kali bich is most certainly a very important remedy in homeopathy and its use should be included. It is in very frequent use for sinusitis, catarrh and hayfever especially were there is much thick sticky mucus or sputum difficult to dislodge or hard, tightly adherent crusts in the nasal passages difficult and painful to remove. These are its strongest features. See: cheers Peter morrell 12:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've put it back more or less as it was but below other uses. We could also add something along the lines of the uses Peter lists. As far as this being a "non-notable use" there are probably more people who come into awareness or contact with it as homeopathic medicine than the chemical in its raw state. Whig 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning glassware

I've removed this chunk, because this procedure uses chromic acid, not dichromate: --Rifleman 82 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

K₂Cr₂O₇ is used as an oxidizing agent in many chemical applications, and is often used for cleaning laboratory glassware of organic contaminants, usually in a solution with concentrated sulfuric acid. This solution must not be used to clean the glass tubes used in NMR spectroscopy, as residual contamination of the glass by the paramagnetic Chromium disrupts the NMR procedure.

Google books gives many hits for "potassium dichromate" cleaning glassware. I think either of them could be used, since the effective active ingredient is the same, Cr(VI). Do you know of any reason why potassium dichromate should not be used? I'm not an experimentalist, so I don't know firsthand. --Itub 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy section

This is surely wholly trivial. I completely fail to see the relevance. Only here to push the usual POV, IMO. Moreschi 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The only person POV pushing is you and cuerden. It is a major remedy in homeopathy period. If you knew anything about the subject you would know this. Peter morrell 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be a major remedy in homeopathy. Is that relevant? Moreschi 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely it is relevant; it is an actual use of potassium dichromate in the real world. A short paragraph on that does no harm whatever in this article EXCEPT to someone obsessed with deleting all mention of homeopathy in this WP, which he has all but admitted to in the past. Peter morrell 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess one sentence, perhaps two, wouldn't hurt. Curiously however, the paragraph as written and deleted made it look as though the homeopathic use of this chemical was responsible and wise - it was completely uncritical, except by very vague implication. My point is that the paragraph should have made the point that this is an actual misuse of potassium dichromate in the real world - not that you would agree, but scientific consensus does. Moreschi 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it restored by you in an edited NPOV form, then. Peter morrell 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the use of very much potassium dichromate, though, is it? Adam Cuerden 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It should probably get a mention though. A lot of consumers apparently believe that it's a remedy when diluted to practically nil. That's notable. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged into the safety section with a rename and rewrite. Since the homeopathic use depends on the effects produced by large doses this seemed the best section. Tim Vickers 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an inappropriate section. It's pretty clear that potassium dichromate remedies don't work because of any properties of potassium dichromate. It's contained in vanishingly small doses. It would be dishonest to imply that homeopathic sugar pills might give one cancer. Perhaps it's less dishonest than those who peddle these remedies, but it still doesn't belong in the safety section. Cool Hand Luke 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Safety and biological effects" is not a good section IMO. Whatever you may think of it, this is a use! Merging "biological effects" with "safety" and putting a use there does not fit the chemical style guidelines well IMO. Also, be careful with the overuse of words such as "claim", which tend to be POV-loaded, as discussed in WP:WTA. You don't need to repeat the criticism of homeopathy every time it is mentioned in passing on Misplaced Pages--there's a lot of room for that in the main article. --Itub 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes we do need to mention the criticism where we're talking about homeopathic uses - otherwise, it amounts to saying that this was a correct and scientifically-based use, like all the talk surrounding it. Adam Cuerden 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You can just say "potassium dichromate is used for homeopathy" and let the readers think for themselves. Inserting a discussion of the validity of homeopathy into this article is like inserting a discussion about the validity of prayer therapy into the article about candles. :-) Note: I don't think this article needs a section about the homeopathic use, just a sentence or two under uses. --Itub 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what can we say? In homeopathy, poassium dichromate is claimed (ref to lancet article here for claim) to be useful for headaches? Adam Cuerden 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you POV quibbling about now? Tim has already edited this back in. It does not need a whole section, a sentence or two will suffice. In fact Kali bich has a broad spectrum of uses within homeopathy (check the link) primarily for glutinous mucus conditions of nose and respiratory passages but including headaches. The ref to headaches is merely a proprietory use of it in the US NOT a strictly homeopathic formulation per se. Peter morrell 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct to say this has been resolved? Why not remove the request on the admin board?--FR Soliloquy 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the following has been added. "(in many cases to the point where it is extremely unlikely that there is even one ion left in the final remedy)". Doesn't this belabor the point a bit? I had added a link to the appropriate section in homeopathy with makes the point adequately. This section should be informative and to the point. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it a bit - the English was starting to get awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points that were now being made three sentences prior, and other such things. Adam Cuerden 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, you didn't revert my edits "a bit". You reverted all my changes. The reason I changed it is that the whole thing read like a typical anti-homeopathic editorial. Words like "purported" should not be in this article, just report the uses of sodium dichromate by homeopaths and the facts, there is no good reason to judge homeopathy. Here is the version I had written:

"Homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to suppress symptoms of irritation and inflammation and is more familiar as kalium bichromicum. Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute, or undetectable quantities, although meta-analysis of homeopathic treatments shows that these low concentrations are unlikely to do any better than a placebo treatment. One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."

You say it is ".....awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points.......". First, where are these "however's" you mention? Second, please improve the version above not just reverting to a flawed version. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleviate might be better wording than suppresses. It's potassium not sodium dichromate BTW. And BTW 1 ppm is NOT an 'undetectable amount'...thanks Peter morrell 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are good points, when I rewrote the section a lot of the baggage from the previous version got brought over. Basically the previous version was more of a critique of homeopathy rather than a description of the use of sodium dichromate. How about the following?

"Due its irritant properties (ref for this?), homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to alleviate symptoms of irritation and inflammation, although it is more familiar as kalium bichromicum. Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute quantities and one notable product is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."

Here I have even removed the meta analysis quote. Why is it necessary to be critiquing homeopathy every time the word is mentioned? The link to the homeopathy section on dilutions contains those critiques and is the appropriate place for such information. This article is about sodium dichromate and its uses not homeopathy itself. It could do with a sentence on why it is used as a pain remedy. Previously there was a mention of its symptoms but a reference might be good too. David D. (Talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I added back the part about the irritant properties. Is there a good general reference for this? David D. (Talk) 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revised para is now fine; please implement it; its irritant properties are listed in the next paragraph on safety, so no need to ref that unless you want an actual cite for that specific point. Peter morrell 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a generic cite for its irritant properties. Peter morrell 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

COPD

Friends, yesterday I added a NPOV reference and link to a study that was published in CHEST (a highly respected medical journal) and that was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. This study tested homeopathic doses of potassium dichromate (THE subject of this article) vs. placebo. The clinical results were substantially significant. An anonymous editor took out this reference, and for unknown reasons, called it POV. Although this edit seems to be this person's "first" edit, it is more likely one of the many antagonists to homeopathy who is vandalizing this article anonymously. My NPOV reference should be kept, though if others have a better way to describe it (or improve grammar), I'm open. Dana Ullman 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference is a primary source about one small study that has a few obvious flaws. (I have to question if the results can be explained simply by the approaching-significant difference in the overall health of the two groups: the placebo group was worse in COPD level, FEV1,PaCO2, and BMI, p between 0.140 and 0.178 for each, while every other measure was well-matched with the verum group.) This paper, cited seven times elsewhere according to Google Scholar--and only once that wasn't a paper or commentary by the same authors or a criticism of this paper, and that single example is something in Russian that I cannot access--has not been replicated and so stands as only a single observation and the only published study to date regarding homeopathy and COPD. Additionally, PubMed searches for "Kalium bichromicum" and "'potassium dichromate' homeopathy" gives three relevant hits (1 on sinusitis and 2 involving the same study on otitis media, plus the aforementioned criticism of this study by David Colquhoun). In total, nothing much can be reliably said about this study, nor the state of potassium dichromate as conventionally-studied homeopathic remedy. To follow WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE, I think there's an argument that presenting a single study on a topic that has received no other scientific attention is potentially over-representing this chemical as a plausible disease treatment option rather than the known carcinogen that causes dermatitis and worse. As such, I'll change the current wording of the appropriate section from

Due its irritant properties, potassium dichromate is used as a purported anti-pain remedy in homeopathy, where it is also called Kalium bichromicum. However, in these remedies the substance is used in specially prepared non-toxic doses, with repeated dilution and succession leaving either only traces of the chemical, or even beyond the limt of there being any of the chemical remaining. Because this preparation is believed to be useful in treating people who suffer from extremely tenacious mucus in the bronchials, researchers at the University of Vienna Hospital tested it in the treatment of a small number of people suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This double-blind trial gave half of the COPD patients a placebo and the other half were given the 30C potency of Kali bichromicum (potassium dichromate). This small pilot study found evidence for a beneficial effect from the homeopathic group as compared with those given a placebo. One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million.

to something like this:

Due its irritant properties, potassium dichromate is used as a purported anti-pain remedy in homeopathy, where it is also called Kalium bichromicum. A small study at the University of Vienna Hospital explored the effects of homeopathic potassium dichromate on the tracheal mucous secretions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), reporting decreased tracheal secretions compared with those given a placebo. One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million.

— Scientizzle 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it is worth mentioning this study. Wasn't it a pilot study? If so, isn't it premature for it to be in an encyclopedia? David D. (Talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your succinctly stated reasons. — Scientizzle 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scientizzle & David D...just a couple of comments: Rather than saying "small study" (because that is relative in each disease), I'm changing it to "a study of 50 patients" (also, nowhere does it state that this was a "pilot study"). As for the control and treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Colquhoun's published critique of this paper didn't mention this as a problem. As for the results, they are not simply significant; they were substantial, and not just the tracheal secretions but also the rate of extubation and (importantly) the length of the hospital stay. Because this study was published in such a prestigious journal, this information is important. Let's avoid making the subject of homeopathy the issue in THIS article. Dana Ullman 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, a few points..."a study of 50 patients" is perfectly reasonable versus the subjective "small", though "25 patients given ___ performed better than placebo group" better frames the issue for the lay person, I think. The control & treatment groups didn't have a stat/sig. difference, but, as I pointed out, as a reviewer I would have had a major issue with the almost significant differences between the groups (and the real possibility that there is an associated trend of poorer health). I agree that Chest is a perfectly good journal. Whether this study was "technically" a pilot, there's probably no way of knowing, but the fact that it's the first and only study, and used a small number of patients for two days each, it sure sounds like one. (That, of course, is my own WP:OR.) Finally, this isn't really about homeopathy for me, it's more about a single study standing alone in an empty field: there's no other literature on the subject, so I am uncomfortable having it discussed in an encyclopedia; I would be similarly uncomfortable about any other treatment for any other disease that had a similar paucity of medical literature. It's questionably giving undue weight to the view that this compound is in any way useful as a therepeutic, particularly since 895 PubMed articles on potassium dichromate are overwhelmingly about its dangers as a toxic irritant. — Scientizzle 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you ever have a significant result with only 50 patients in the trial? By the way this article did say "pilot study" at one point. This section of the article should not be about the efficacy of potassium dichromate as a drug but just about the usage. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistically significant--yes. Medically significant--no. I think it would be more proper to forgo the reporting of the p values and the peacock words of "substantially" to state as simply as possible: there was one small study that showed a signifcant difference in a single use of this compound as a treatment. — Scientizzle 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is what I mean, medically significant. One cannot assume that all patients are the same and fifty is no where near enough to distinguish from the chance of a skewed distribution in the randomised patient sample. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable man, and you've made some reasonable edits. Glad we can dance together. As for David's comment about medical significance, the average hospital stay in the homeopathic group was 4.20 days, and in the placebo group it was 7.68. This difference suggests medical significance. Dana Ullman 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad we could come to a reasonable compromise on the text. — Scientizzle 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If all the patients were identical in the study, yes. Were they? A larger study will be the test. Fifty is too small to be sure. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Page 938 of the article shows the two groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. Please note that the journal in which this study was published is the leading journal in respiratory medicine. Dana Ullman 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No statitical differences in the measured parameters does not mean no difference. There are plenty of medical studies where initial studies show encouraging results while the larger studies show insignificant differences. This is the initial study that leads to the next step. As I suggested above, too soon to be encyclopedic, and possibly not that relevant to this article anyway. David D. (Talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's starting to move beyond the realm of this talk page, allow me to clarify what I mean by "medically significant." A study can be statistically significant without being medically so if the conclusions that flow forth from the study are insufficient to warrant any change in clinical practice. This can be due to methodological flaws within the study, limited scope of corroborating evidence within the relevant literature, negligible real gain in cost-benefit analysis of treatment, small study sizes, and better-established practices being "entrenched" (for better or worse); usually some combination of these factors limits the clinical significance of any one study, instead helping to shape the current medical literature and informing future studies with larger samples and more careful controls. What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter. — Scientizzle 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: We'll see soon enough, I imagine, whether this holds up. — Scientizzle 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle...I appreciate the homework that you've done here...and our dialogue as well. What is interesting is that these two forthcoming trials have 56 and 40 patients in them. I assume that no one (!) should call the previous CHEST study to be a "pilot" just because it had "only" 50 patients. Dana Ullman 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Clinical trials are conducted in phases. The trials at each phase have a different purpose and help scientists answer different questions:

In Phase I trials, researchers test an experimental drug or treatment in a small group of people (20-80) for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.

In Phase II trials, the experimental study drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.

In Phase III trials, the experimental study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people (1,000-3,000) to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the experimental drug or treatment to be used safely.

In Phase IV trials, post marketing studies delineate additional information including the drug's risks, benefits, and optimal use.

Source http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand

So if these are phase III trials why would they only be using 56? Are you sure that is not how many they have enrolled to date? And if that is the final number why so small? Re: Pilot study (it was an IP that added that not me), what would you call phase I trials then? David D. (Talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was curious about that, too. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the two "phase III" trials are actually to be held in Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Israel? Maybe ICU-ridden COPD patients are in short supply? Dunno, just speculating. — Scientizzle 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Those of you who are anti-homeopathy feel perfectly OK about including a reference to a commercial product, Head-on, of which you can make fun, and yet, you want to delete out any reference to controlled clinical studies published in peer-review journals? If this isn't chutzpah, what is? And then, you assert that an encyclopedia like wikipedia should not include every use of a substance/medicine!? What happened to NPOV and reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.24.23 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are asking for trouble with such a comment. The anti-homeopathy editors are wanting the whole reference to homeopathy out of this article. For example. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of COPD

The study was returned and described with the edit summary of "This study is notable. See talk page.", but is it? Why is it notable, I see no discussion on this talk page about notability. David D. (Talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be notable to homeopathy (I'd say not), but it isn't notable here. It's a small study that suggests further research may be necessary, but also has some problems that have been discussed on the homeopathy talk page. When studies with these results are the norm rather than the exception they may become more interesting. It does smack of cherry picking too; have there been other studies of this particular preparation? --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be removed --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This study is notable for several reasons: 1) its source of publication (the most respected medical journal on respiratory medicine); 2) its place of study (University of Vienna Hospital); 3) its substantially signficiant results on three important and clinically relevant measures; 4) its worthiness as recognized by the fact that two other research groups are seeking to replicate it and are using a similar subject size; 5) this is not consider a small subject size for this specific ailment, as is noted by the planned replication trials. Let's have someone other than the typical anti-homeopathy people comment here, preferrably an admin. Dana Ullman 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As the (phase I or II?) study was performed in 2005 and has not achieved a place in standard practice, has had no as-yet published follow-up research, and has received no citations that I have yet found, I don't see this as particularly important. Not yet. Now, that doesn't preclude some mention of it. What type of wording would you suggest? Antelan 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, leave it out. This isn't Potassium dichromate in homeopathy, this is a general article. Using a pilot study to promote homeopathy here, after lengthy discussion rejected its inclusion in Homeopathy, pointing out serious flaws, is just a WP:COATRACK Adam Cuerden 11:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The study has not been rejected for inclusion in Homeopathy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If that article existed, we would merge it here. Nothing wrong with including homeopathic uses, but—as others have said—this study is not notable. Cool Hand Luke 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above points...It's really not the place of an enyclopedia article to catalogue every manner in which a substance has ever been utilized. As there's only been a single primary source about this topic and no completed follow-up, it's really premature to consider this a significant utilization of potassium dichromate. If the further studies pan out, then the issue should be certainly revisisted. — Scientizzle 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The COPD study was referenced by the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA This should end our discussion on the notability of this study. It IS notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than a tad confused that some people here would consider a study published in a major medical journal that was conducted at the University of Vienna and that was cited by the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA to be "non notable," and yet, the HeadOn product is somehow notable. This is silly scholarship, POV pushing, and plain-ole-chutzpah.Dana Ullman 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. We could easily cut the HeadOn reference as well. Adam Cuerden 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

HeadOn's more a part of culture due to the relentless mocking it's attracted. The "pilot study" is a half page of garbage, however. Delete and destroy. Jefffire (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Friends...Antelan above said that the study in CHEST was not notable because there were no citations to this research, but I corrected him by noting the citations to the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA (I could have included many more citations). RDOLivaw said that this study is not notable because it was a "small" study and Adam C & Jefffire referred to it as a "pilot." And yet, Scientizzle's link to replications studies show that one of them is a smaller study of 40 patients and another is of 56 patients (a similar size as the original study of 50 patients). Clearly, many scientists consider 50 patients with COPD to be a reasonable number to evaluate efficacy of treatment. It is therefore inappropriate and inaccurate to refer to the original trial of 50 patients to be "small" and nowhere in the article does it reference that this original study was a "pilot." I will not revert the editing now myself, though I hope and expect that one of the editors (perhaps even one of the anti-homeopathic ones) will do so.Dana Ullman 12:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling a COPD research study that was cited by the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA "garbage" is an example of POV pushing at its worst. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you are incorrect about the NEJM and JAMA. They list this paper as having cited one of their papers, not the other way around NEJM JAMA. Now, moving on to papers that actually cite the one in question: A search netted 7 results. One is 2007 a correspondence to Chest in which an author questions this study, and the study authors reply, pleading for funding. Two are largely discussions of the Lancet meta-analysis. One is an article written in a Cyrillic script that I cannot read. One is an actual research study. Two are discussions that you wrote: a conference report and a letter of correspondence that cited the article in question. None of this is encyclopedia-worthy. Antelan 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All that matters is that this is a single weak study, not a conclusive report, and not something which has any scientific or medical weight. Reporting on it is undue weight, and not encyclopedic. It goes, and it stays gone, unless it can be justified that this has any weighting in scientific and medical circles. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is NO preset onesizefits all "size" for a medical study. The appropriate size for a study depends on the effect being studied. If the difference between the placebo group and the intervention group is expected to be small, investigators need a larger sample size, etc See Statistical power. Anyway, we are not in the business of peer reviewing this article here; this was done by peer reviewers before it was published in CHEST. Abridged 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. On the one hand, this paper is peer-reviewed. On the other hand, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers that don't receive mention in Misplaced Pages. Surely, just because a paper has been published in an archival journal doesn't mean that it deserves mention on Misplaced Pages. How should we evaluate which ones do? Jefffire has mentioned one (size of study); others include journal quality, impact of the article on the field, citations to the article itself, and follow-up research. I'm with those who don't think this paper passes muster yet; I've documented in detail all of the articles which cite it. Perhaps as more research is done, this paper will grow in importance, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Antelan 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sample size doesn't cut it as a criteria, please see my comments on sample size above. Chest is a major mainstream medical journal and publication in this journal certainly is notable by wikipedia standards. The reason that this bit is in the article is that a wikipedia editor has put it here. The fact that other peer reviewed papers are not mentioned in the encyclopedia is not a reason not to take this bit out. Abridged 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing homeopathy from mainstream science articles

While the makers of head-on believe this compound to be of note for use in their product, it is my belief that mere mention of homeopathic pseudoscience is probably too much weight in this article. I propose removing the section entirely. I will leave this notice here for comment. Please argue why, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT homeopathy should be mentioned at this article. All other comments will be relegated to their own section. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It may actually be notable for the volume of mockery directed at the silly ads they ran. Just food for thought. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I only found out about those ads via this article, and headon too. I visit EU countries regularly (and live in two), and visit the US/Canada occasionally, and have never heard of this company, product, or ads. I think that although headOn ads may be notable to a US audience, they aren't to the rest of us. They are mentioned on the headOn page, but I see no reason to mention it here. (I realise your suggestion was half in jest though :) )--88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this is an important point. Head-on is notable enough for its own article. But why mention it here in an article on a chemical? Do we mention oscillococcinum in our article on Muscovy ducks? No. And rightly so. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the HeadOn section as it is currently (very short) as it seems to be a major commercial/industrial use of this compound. If it turns out that it is really only a minor commercial/industrial use then drop it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's fairly minor use. If I calculate correctly, the amount of potassium dichromate that this company uses each year could probably be purchased for less than 100 American dollars. There is probably more of the stuff in most academic chemistry department stock rooms than there is in the entire stock of the product. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried by the treatment in Asthma. Adam Cuerden 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of potassium dichromate there. ???ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But a lot of Homeopathy-pushing. Adam Cuerden 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As a general principle I agree that mentions of homeopathy should not be inserted into mainstream science articles. I believe this article on potassium dichromate, however, should mention the homeopathic uses since the homeopathic remedy made from this chemical compound is widely used. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think that this makes sense otherwise we would have a mention of homeopathy in the muscovy duck article as I mentioned above. Fringe links should be one-way per WP:FRINGE. We can certainly discuss the claimed "use" of potassium dichromate on the head-on page and link here. But to mention head-on in this page seems is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages protocol. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant quote from WP:FRINGE: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects." ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a small section, esp since there is a cite from a major mainstream journal (Chest). It is INTERESTING. I do not think there should be mention of any particular brand or propriately formula. The phrase "because of irritant properties" should be removed since there is no mechanism of action that is known. Abridged 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a journal on chemicals, it's a journal on medicine. As such, it is iteratively irrelevant to this article. Just because something is INTERESTING doesn't mean it deserves to be included. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collect of information after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a section in an article on a chemical compound describing some of the uses of the chemical compound. For a medicinal use, there is a cite from a medical journal. I am not sure why you have a problem with that. I also don't know why you removed my section head as I had three points to make about the section, and only one is relevant to your section head above. This is why I created a new section. Abridged 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main question is, should the section exist. You are arguing that it should exist, but have failed to deal substantively with the rationales provided why it shouldn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a chemical compound that is also used medicinally in homeopathy. There is every logical reason to include such a section. Repeatedly referring to WP:FRINGE is irrelevant here, except for certain editors' personal POV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd call a content guideline irrelevant here. Can you explain your thinking on this issue? Antelan 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When something is the subject of a study published in Chest, wp:fringe does not apply. Abridged 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE should always apply. On some articles, say an article on art, it will be irrelevant (so its application will have no impact). On other articles, its application will have the impact that it is intended to have. Antelan 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it doesn't apply to this particular case. There is a reasonable cite here. Abridged 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is in a peer-reviewed article doesn't automatically make it sacrosanct. Pseudoscience does appear in peer-reviewed articles. Fringe applies when the subject is pseudoscience and has nothing to do with the status of the journal in which it appears. In this case, of course, homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the article is published in a reputable journal makes it worthy of consideration for inclusion in this article. Whether or not it should actually be included should be determined on its merits. Again, I've outlined some criteria for determining a study's merits, and I think this one fails here. Antelan 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps you could outline the criteria you have left after we've eliminted some based on peer review and statistical power, along with the fact that every other paper ever published in a peer reviewed journal is not included in Misplaced Pages so why should this one be??? HOw is this particular cite from a Chest paper in Misplaced Pages not notable? THANKS. Abridged 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained this above, as have others. Antelan 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've replied to many of them, so perhaps you could nail down what you have left???? Abridged 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple: there's no verifiable source about potassium dichromate that mentions homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an absurd remark given the Chest cite. Abridged 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Chest is not a journal about chemicals. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The effects of many chemicals on various chest diseases are subjects of articles in Chest. Abridged 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But since the chemical isn't found in the homeopathic dilutions, this particular article isn't about the chemical. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is made FROM the chemical. Abridged 14:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. Jefffire (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent). Yes, actually it is made from the chemical. Read any homeopathy textbook for materials and methods. I agree that flaky fringy stuff should not be cited in Misplaced Pages, and have never put anything in from a bad source (look at my contrib history if you want to look at the quality of my work; I stand behind it.) But, comeON, this is CHEST. This is as mainstream as you can get and the level of peer review on that journal is OUTSTANDING. YOur objections here are categorical rather than evidence-based. Abridged 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a weak study, and a crappy piece of science. End of story. Jefffire (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of it's pros or cons, it is a single, small, study and a primary source. This page is not about homeopathy and uses no other primary sources; especially not ones that go against current scientific knowledge. This study is interesting, but it is not scientifically notable; it is only notable in that it is anomalous (and hence warrants further study, probably by a different team). It should not be included here. The whole homeopathic section is a bit weak, a wikilink from remedies that use it to here would be more useful - but it is not notable that homeopaths use this chemical. They use millions of others too --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just chemicals: I've seen reports of homoeopathic provings of everything from antimatter or light from Venus to a shipwreck or the Great Wall of China. If we're going to be consistent we probably need to add a section on homoeopathic use to most of the pages on Misplaced Pages. Or maybe just remove this one. Brunton (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

these provings were not the subjects of publications in major mainstream journals. I'm giving up here. Abridged 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where have you seen such riduculous "reports of homoeopathic provings"? It appears you do not even know what provings are. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A "proving" of a homoeopathic remedy is the recording of symptoms reported by healthy volunteers given the remedy in question. What makes you think I don't know this? As for the provings I mentioned, they are all reports from homoeopaths who include the letters "RSHom" after their names, or who can be found in the Society of Homeopaths' list of registered homoeopaths. This makes them pretty much mainstream as far as homeopathy in the UK is concerned and, according to the society's website, means that they have "a thorough understanding and knowledge of homeopathic materia medica and repertory". Brunton (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "science article". It is just an article about a substance, which like any other substance can have scientific and non-scientific aspects to it. Perhaps the technical-sounding name of this substance makes it seem completely different, but just go and take a look at articles on better-known substances for comparison. Silver mentions the fabled use of silver against werewolves, diamond the politics of diamond mining and its use in engagement rings, and salt mentions its use in purification rituals. None of these aspects have anything to do with the chemistry or physics of the substances, but yet they are aspects of human interest that should be included in a comprehensive general encyclopedia. If potassium dichromate is used (or even allegedly used) in homeopathic products that are sold in the real world and used by real people, I see no reason not to mention the use. Briefly, however. Adding an entire section discussing the pros and cons of homeopathy and the recent primary literature could certainly become undue weight. --Itub (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Homeopathic remedies

{{editprotected}} I think this cat should be removed, as this is a chemical not a homeopathic remedy. It may be used in homeopathic remedies (at least in the initial stages), but this chemical is not of itself a homeopathic remedy. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I note it is the only chemical rather than remedy in this category too, hence should be removed. --88.172.132.94 (talk)

Agreed, but the article is currently protected. Jefffire (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the tag for an edit, hope I've done it right --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's that urgent, really. It'll wait for the block to clear. Also, have you considered registering? Adam Cuerden 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not urgent, but since it has nothing to do with the reason of the protection, and is probably uncontroversial, I've done it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate article kalium bichromicum regarding the homeopathic remedy prepared from potassium dichromate. That should remove the confusion. —Whig (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this suggestion. I think such an article would amount to a content fork, and would incorrectly imply that homeopathy uses some specialized form of matter unlike anything known to science. I continue to believe that homeopathic uses should be mentioned here, but that the article should follow reliable sources to state that there's no evidence that potassium bichromate itself does anything when diluted in homeopathic remedies. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. A section of this article can be on the remedy kalium bichromicum, and therefore this article can be relisted in Category: Homeopathic remedies. I don't agree with your POV being necessary to incorporate here, we can link to the Homeopathy article. —Whig (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of Category:Homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy uses a dizzying array of notable compounds and extracts as remedies. Is it really a good idea to have separate articles on Magnesium Phosphoricum and Magnesium phosphate? Should we really create Natrum muriaticum as the homeopathy equivalent of sodium chloride? I think not.

At the same time, would it make sense to tag sodium chloride as a homeopathic remedy (along with countless other compounds and extracts)? No. Let's create a list, with a nice table showing the substance's name, its homeopathy name, and the symptoms the remedy is supposed to cure. This would be many times more helpful than the current category and sorry stubs like Magnesium Phosphoricum. That way, we don't have to have this discussion on umpteen other articles. Cool Hand Luke 07:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the list/chart idea is very good. I think a user had a prototype list that could be used on their talk page. It was linked from the category but has gone now. Maybe this should be discussed on the talk page of that cat or in the homeopathy cat? --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the list would further have the advantage of being an example of the principle of one-way linking in action. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it'd have to be better than that list - easter-egg links as the only way of identifying what the terminology means?! Adam Cuerden 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it would have to have a good introduction that explains that most of the remedies don't actually contain any of the substances, that there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy, that various homoepaths have wildly differing methods for preparing similarly named remedies and so forth. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a table with headings such as: Scientific name, Homeopathic name, Potency/Dilution (using C/X and ppm or something), Used for (what the homeopaths use it for). This is just a quick idea, better names can be suggested I'm sure. Maybe Homeopathic name should be Homeopathic remedy (in which this substance is used in the preparation of, as a footnote), and then it could be a list of Homeopathic remedies --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "scientific name" we would need a heading like "substance" because sometimes the substance involved is not necessarily "scientific" (like duck liver, for example). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Every dilution below (above??) 12C could be in red with a footnote marker saying that there is none of the substance remaining in the 'dilution', with a link to homeopathy or a short explanation --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I like that idea of listing dilutions, but most preparations are used at all sorts of dilutions. It would be hard to even find a reliable range. I was searching Google books to try to find a list of remedies, and An Introduction to Homeopathic Medicine in Primary Care shows that even a single homeopath picks nil concentrations off by a factor of more than one googol: Author recommends 15 substances be stocked for patient use, "(1) Arnica montana, 30C, 200C; (2) Arsenicum album, 30C..."

Any ideas where we can find a large list? Cool Hand Luke 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cool Hand...I'm a tad confused. Above, you wrote that "there's no evidence that potassium bichromate itself does anything when diluted in homeopathic remedies." How can you say that when this entire discussion is in light of an important study published in the leading pulmonary journal in which this specific chemical in homeopathic doses was used in the treatment of people with COPD? My question to others here: why should there not be a reference to this chemical's use in medicine (whether it be homeopathic or not) and when a leading medical journal has confirmed its effects. At the least, one could say that one double-blind, placebo controlled trial found...and two replication trials are presently in process. Dana Ullman 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps you would be less confused if you noted my repeated comments that homeopathic uses should be covered in this and comparable articles. The use is notable, but we should also follow reliable sources and note that the use has never been proven efficacious, ect.

That brings me to your first point. A scarcely-cited preliminary study is undue weight without sources putting it into context. Moreover, even it it were proved, we can be certain that potassium dichromate itself is not responsible. It was diluted as 30C. That means it's absurdly unlikely that any dose contained even a single molecule of the original K2Cr2O7. According to drinking water guidelines, 0.05 mg/L Cr(VI) is allowable. We therefore drink more dichromate every day than we could by consuming all the 30C pills in the world. Whatever the homeopathic remedy purports to do must rely on some mechanism (magic?) beyond the chemical properties of this compound. In other words, "there's no evidence that potassium bichromate itself does anything when diluted in homeopathic remedies." Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can preempt an argument against this: It isn't the dilution that makes it effective. Dilution alone does nothing. You have to shake it while you're diluting to do anything (succussion). Why this makes a difference I don't know. I've never seen any evidence that shaking something while diluting it does anything other than ensure it's mixed up a bit more. --Infophile 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that a good solution would be to state: "one double-blind, placebo controlled trial found...and two replication trials are presently in process." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this is simply one rare study which slipped through the cracks of the peer-review system. The study was low-population, possibly insufficiently randomized (a quick look at the patients showed that the control group was in general worse off prior to the study), and had contradictory information in the subject summary. It's a wonder how it got past the peer-review system, but this just goes to show that nothing's perfect.

But anyways, that's just my analysis of it. What's relevant in the end is the fact that Misplaced Pages is primarily a tertiary source. We report what reliable secondary sources say and sum it up. This study (and any leading off of it) is a primary source. We can't go in and judge its notability or quality ourselves. We have to let secondary sources do that for it. So far, nothing has shown up. The only notable thing we can say about how others judge it is in its citation rate. This has been discussed before on this page, and all we've found are other papers by the same authors, automatic backlinks, and refutations. Net result: We don't have enough reliable, secondary information to judge that this is a worthy study. --Infophile 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First, stop the theorizing about whether there is or isn't molecules of the original substance. Misplaced Pages is not the place for theorizing. You must provide veriable information...show me your studies published in peer-review journals. And please do not say that this study "slipped through the peer-review" process unless the editors have written a letter of apology acknowledging that it was an error of publication. If you do not understand how the homeopathic process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking) may be different than simple dilution, this ignorance does not change the FACT that the homeopathically prepared dose of potassium dichromate in the 30C potency had a "substantially significant" effect on three clinically relevant measures. That said, Arion's suggestion above is a good compromise. Dana Ullman 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a study of 50 people. That makes it a Pilot study. Adam Cuerden 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about creating a new list of homeopathic remedies should be centralized at Talk:Homeopathy#List of homeopathic remedies.

Feel free to continue discussing potassium dicromate as a homeopathic remedy in another section. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam...hello there...please reference your definition of a "pilot" study, and make certain to provide a reference to a pilot study of COPD. If you cannot do this, please stop saying this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a phase one study, with few participants, often called a "pilot study". References for such things are not required on talk pages. Please sign your edits. To continue an off-topic discussion, please start a new section as asked above (edit conflict) --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Study?

Adam C. is one of the kings of editors who demands verifiability. Therefore, it is essential that he (or someone) verify how he (or anyone) can call the CHEST study a "pilot" trial. In fact, one of the replication trials is a "Phase III" study Further, here's another citation to this important study...this one is from the journal, Critical Care. Does it work for you if we add to the article here: According to the authors in the journal Critical Care, "Homeopathy, in the form of potassium dichromate, shows promise as a new treatment for excessive tracheal secretions" in COPD patients. Dana Ullman 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, you do like Pubmed crawls. A few points:

1. A pilot study means a study done with a few people. 50 is a small number. There are also strong questions as to the reliability, as they have treated everyone who was removed from the trial under a Last Observation carried forward scheme, and the vast majority of the control group were - meaning, that, as I understand it - it is in German, after all - they were comparing a control group that had fewer days to recover. That alone raises great doubts about the article's validity.
2. The Critical Care piece is a chatty puff piece, discussing a few trials out of context, and noot written at all like a standard review paper, but more like an upgraded newspaper report. Frankly bizarre-looking.
3. There's something called Cherry-picking. Have a read up on it.

Adam Cuerden 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, where in the article does it say pilot study? Has anyone attempted to put this back into the article? It doesn't need a source or verification until someone puts it into the article. I don't know why you object so much to standard nomenclature of a small, preliminary, study being called a pilot study. "Pilot" doesn't mean it's bad, in fact it means it may be providing illumination or showing the way forward. To describe this study as important is over egging things quite a bit, but we can call it what we like on this talk page (without providing citations). Adam is right above, and your obsession with this one study is going a bit far. If you wanted to add the statement that this is a very important study to the article then people would demand citations to back that up, and then debate it. Just having a citation doesn't mean it must be included. Why is it essential that someone respond to your asinine and vexatious requests? Especially since RDOliver already has replied --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First, 88.172, I will not nor should anyone on wikipedia tolerate your offensive remarks above. You may not agree with my point of view (obviously), but I have a legitimate proposed inclusion into this article, and I have made a strong case for its inclusion. Let's make an effort to be respectful. You've been warned. An apology is in order. How can the CHEST study be considered a "pilot" if a replication trial is a "phase 3" trial? Please explain. Further, Adam C, it would be nice if you read the trial. Contrary to your above statement, it is not in German. This is a part of the problem: several of the editors here are viciously against homeopathy and seek to delete reference to it anywhere. Adam, you're an admin, you should maintain high standards on wikipedia. I still insist that you reference why you say that a COPD trial of 50 people is a "pilot" trial. Actually, for this condition, it is a common number, as is evidenced by the two replication trials. This trial is notable because it is in a notable journal, it was conducted in a notable institution, and it has "substantially significant" clinical results in three important measures. Dana Ullman 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok Dana, no need to apologise. I'm afraid the trial still isn't notable. Notability isn't transitive, associative, or reflexive --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound dumb here but the paper continually refers to the experiment as a study. So if the paper is not reporting data from a clinical trial how could it be anything but a pilot study for the subsequent clinical trials? I have no idea why anyone would take offense to such a description. As mentioned above pilot does not mean bad, it is a description of its place in the sequence leading to approval. As an aside, do German homeopathic remedies need to go through clinical trials before they go to the market? Or is this being done to prove the efficacy of the remedy? David D. (Talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the article refer to itself as a pilot study, or does another V/RS source describe it as such? —Whig (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the only person who referred to it as a pilot study, as mentioned way above, was an IP. I made the mistake of using with that terminology, as I read in the article, despite the fact it never stayed in the article for long. Dana has been critical of it ever since. Needless to say this has caused some confusion. Firstly, since no one is trying to put the terminology into the article, and secondly, because it is not actually an inaccurate description. Originally I had asked "if it is a pilot study, is this notable?". Whether it is called a pilot study or not, this question is still valid. The study was an early study, possibly the first?, with a low number of participants and preceded clinical trials that are currently recruiting patients. David D. (Talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be stated clearly in the article that this study had the limitations you have described, but it seems to me to meet inclusion criteria. —Whig (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Adam C has asserted that this was a "pilot" trial, even though he seems to have not read the trial (he thinks that it is in German), and his references above to "Last Observation" suggests that he is not reading the study in CHEST. Adam C is a smart guy, but I think that he is too busy on too many subjects that he is not doing justice to this one. For the record, the authors of THIS CHEST article do not refer to it as a "pilot" trial. While large trials are common for certain ailments, they are not common for others. As such, it is not always appropriate or accurate to refer to this COPD trial as a "small trial." Also, this drug, Kali bichromicum (its Latin name) is already a legal homeopathic drug in European, American, and virtually all international markets (I actually do not know a country that doesn't recognize it as a legal homeopathic drug). Yeah...this drug is notable, and the study is too. Dana Ullman 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got my trials confused, and have scanned and caught up.

First off, the 2005 study says "This is the first scientific study of the effect of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions." It also has a major problem in that the control is at a significantly higher stage of COPD at the start of the trial (1.20, sd .5 vs. 1.08 sd .4) - not good.

There's also a reply to it. Why don't we read it.

doi:10.1378/chest.06-2402 (Chest. 2007; 131:635-636) Treating Critically Ill Patients With Sugar Pills, David Colquhoun, FRS

It surprises me that CHEST would publish an article (March 2005)1 on the effect of a therapeutic agent when in fact the patients received none of the agent mentioned in the title of the article. It is not mentioned in the title, but reading the article reveals that the "potassium dichromate" was a homeopathic C30 dilution. That is a dilution by a factor of 1060, and for those of us who believe in the Avogadro number, that means there would be one molecule in a sphere with a diameter of approximately 1.46 x 1011 m. That is close to the distance from the earth to the sun. To describe this as "diluted and well shaken," as the authors do, is the understatement of the century. The fact of the matter is that the medicine contained no medicine.

The authors1 will doubtless claim some magic effect of shaking that causes the water to remember for years that it once had some dichromate in it. The memory of water has been studied quite a lot. The estimate of the duration of this memory has been revised2 downwards from a few picoseconds to approximately 50 femtoseconds (50 x 10-15 s). That is not a very good shelf life.

It is one thing to tolerate homeopathy as a harmless 19th century eccentricity for its placebo effect in minor self-limiting conditions like colds. It is quite another to have it recommended for seriously ill patients. That is downright dangerous.

(Quoted under fair use)

Adam Cuerden 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, It's normal for such a letter to be rebutted by the authors of the original paper, why not in this case? Is there any mention that they refused to comment, or if they did comment, can you post that too. Thanks David D. (Talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, here's another study on COPD

Rennard et al. Extended Therapy With Ipratropium Is Associated With Improved Lung Function in Patients With COPD, A Retrospective Analysis of Data From Seven Clinical Trials Chest 110 (1): 62. (1996)

"Data were obtained from seven clinical trials in which ipratropium was compared with a Beta-agonist over a 90-day treatment interval. This comprised all the available data from clinical trials performed for registration of ipratropium and included 1,445 evaluable patients. Results of pulmonary function tests were evaluated prior to and after short-term administration of bronchodilator both before and after the 90-day treatment period."

So, seven trials here included 1445 patients. That's over 200 patients per trial. Funny, though, given you claim 50 is normal for COPD trials. Adam Cuerden 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, 50 is small. David D. (Talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam...you're losing your touch and your NPOV...but sadly, with the subject of homeopathy, you seemed to lose your NPOV a long time ago. You purposefully overlooked the response by the authors to that silly letter by David Colquoun that says that homeopathy can't work, so everyone should ignore the statistics and ignore the double-blind, placebo controlled part of the experiment...and heck, ignore science too. The authors were wonderfully diplomatic in blowing David C's shallowness out of the water. As for the differences in the treatment and the control group, there is no (!) statistically significant differences prior to starting...and there were "substantially significant" differences upon completion. As for Adam's reference to this study or that study with 200 subjects, the FACT of the matter is that two replication trials are with 40 subjects and 56 subject respectfully. THAT speaks volumes. Listen and learn. The fact that several strong anti-homeopathy are doing their damnest to keep people from learning about this CHEST study is additional evidence that this study is notable, therefore, it is very scary to them. I say that we should let the reader decide if they consider 50 people small or reasonably sized, and we should describe the study as it was. By the way, the above study with 200 patients is not even listed on the wiki page for that drug; only a study in Japanese on dogs is referenced. Dana Ullman 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

1. KALIUM BICHROMICUM hosted by http://homeoint.org
2. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L; et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Kalium bichromicum hosted by http://homeoint.org
4. https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/335/25/1864
5. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/20/2561
6. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00473473?recr=open&intr=homeopathy&rank=1
7. http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15987408

• Start-Class chemicals articles
• Mid-importance chemicals articles
• Start-Class WPChem worklist articles