Talk:Homeopathy

More false balance

Re [1],

Some studies have been able to replicate the results of Benveniste's original 1988 paper, while others have failed to do so.

This comes after a summary of the high-profile scrutiny the Benveniste paper received in 1988 that showed problems with the controls. The import of the paragraph is clear: no homeopathic effects have been verified. The addition above, referring to subsequent replication attempts which haven't received such attention, looks undue. We can't say, effectively, "But hey, there may be something to it after all. We report, you decide."

This is another recent case where citing a source that cites sources has the effect of circumventing WP:WEIGHT. We have to weigh sources against the rest of the literature in order to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is also a WP:REDFLAG issue, also recently discussed.

Everymorning, would you please review the previous threads #Louis_Rey #Contradictory_information_in_the_lead. The same problems keep appearing. Manul ~ talk 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see what's wrong with the cited source [2]. I don't think that papers having received relatively little attention is reason enough to say that they must be disregarded. The paper itself is published in The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, which is indexed by Medline. [3] There is nothing wrong with the source or the content other than that it conflicts with what some editors think about homeopathy, namely that it is "just water". Everymorning talk 11:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article doesn't reflect "what some editors think", it reflects scientific consensus. If that consensus is that homeopathy is just water, then that's what we say. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't say there was anything wrong with the Johnson paper. Encyclopedias are all about elision -- keeping things in proportion. Your comment above is similar to what you said last month, "there is nothing medical about saying that homeopathic dilutions are not just water". I've pointed to WP:REDFLAG several times since then, and sorry but I don't see an indication that you understand the issue. Would you please revisit this and other policies that have been mentioned. Manul ~ talk 13:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• And the same problem again. My response is to repeat what I have said in this thread and the previous ones mentioned. Everymorning, I would like you to show some indication that you understand what is being discussed here before editing further. Manul ~ talk 21:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• This is different. The paper I added from the respected journal Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery is a review article, so it meets MEDRS. The JACM paper [4] is also a review article. Your ideological opposition to homeopathy is not a reason to censor any positive evidence for it if this evidence can be found in reliable sources, as is the case here. Everymorning talk 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Different from what? Would you please explain why you think WP:REDFLAG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FALSEBALANCE do not apply here. Manul ~ talk 22:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well when I said different I meant compared with the Louis Rey discussion on this page that took place previously. The reason it is different is that the paper in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery is a review paper. [5] This means it meets MEDRS, while the paper by Rey did not, since it was primary research. I will acknowledge that REDFLAG appears to be an issue because only one source was provided, while REDFLAG says that multiple sources are needed. Accordingly, I suppose it shouldn't be included without another source, so I won't add it back in until I find such a source. Everymorning talk 00:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

My objection to Louis Rey was not MEDRS but REDFLAG. Above you thought I was objecting to the Johnson paper, but again my point was REDFLAG, WEIGHT, and FALSEBALANCE. Then you thought I was objecting to EODD, but again I said the problem was REDFLAG, WEIGHT, and FALSEBALANCE. I haven't even assessed the JACM paper and didn't revert it.

So ... now you are going to look for another paper that has "validated the effects of homeopathic dilutions in numerous different organisms"? If there were a fundamental change in scientists' understanding of the universe recently, then we would know about it, at least I would. There is a large disconnect here that probably can't be fixed any time soon. In the interim, would you please stop promoting homeopathy here? Manul ~ talk 01:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

While the abstract of the Expert Opinion paper states that:

"Although some areas of concern remain, research carried out so far both in vitro and in vivo validates the effects of highly diluted homeopathic medicines in a wide variety of organisms.",

the first sentence of the "conclusions" section of the same paper states that:

"There is no conclusive evidence that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are different from placebo;"

The article is actually just an overview of various studies that have been carried out. There is no declaration of how papers were selected for inclusion in the review and no indication that any of the material was critically assessed by the authors (giving no way to establish the risk of bias) and there is no statistical assessment of any data to establish significance of any of the reported findings (it's an informational narative review, not a meta analysis). In short, the article is nothing more than a list and brief summary of arbitrarily selected papers. We already know these papers exist, their inclusion in this review article does nothing to establish their value or further inform us on the value of homeopathy. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont't think we should care about your personal opinion about the paper. You are not a reliable source. The paper is a reliable source. I think everymorning is correct - I support his edit. . --EDtoHW (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And is your statement that it is a reliable source based on anything but your opinion? This isn't a vote, and if you are going to participate in the discussion, you need to explain your reasoning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:MEDRS:

"Broadly speaking, reviews may be narrative or systematic (and sometimes both). Narrative reviews often set out to provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature. Systematic reviews tend to use sophisticated methodology to address a particular clinical question in as balanced (unbiased) a way as possible. Some systematic reviews also include a statistical meta-analysis to combine the results of several clinical trials to provide stronger quantitative evidence about how well a treatment works for a particular purpose. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized comparative (or controlled) trials can provide strong evidence of the clinical efficacy of particular treatments in given scenarios, which may in turn be incorporated into medical guidelines or institutional position papers (ideal sources for clinical evidence). More general narrative reviews can be useful sources when outlining a topic."

Since there is a concern with WP:False Balance in our article, it is important that we choose the best available evidence to support the text we include. WP:MEDRS suggests that narrative reviews (such as the one in question) can be useful when outlining a topic, but that systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be used to establish specific claims. We don't need any more articles to outline what homeopathy is and this isn't the type of article we should be using to assess the value of homeopathy (according to WP:MEDRS, not my opinion). EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with everymorning that your ideological opposition to homeopathy is the sole reason to censor any positive evidence for it if this evidence can be found in reliable sources, as is the case here. Meds say "More general narrative reviews can be useful sources when outlining a topic" -- they do not say censor them if they provide evidence for homeopathy. By the way I see the same users who point at MEDS and conduct this crusade against homeopathy to be really active in .....creating these policies .. Is not that interesting ? --EDtoHW (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your vote of confidence and marvel at your ability to read minds. WP:MEDRS explicitly states what sort of information is appropriate for extraction from meta analyses and systematic reviews. It also explicitly states what sort of information is appropriate for extraction from narrative reviews. The article in question is a narrative review. Can you give us any reason, in accordance with WP:MEDRS, why we should use a narrative review to bolster claims which WP:MEDRS explicitly states are to be supported by an entirely different variety of source material (which is to say, a systematic review or meta analysis)? This is not censorship - it is an honest and objective assessment of the suggested source material and an attempt to adhere to the guidance of WP:MEDRS. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You don/t need to read minds to see the same users who continuously crusade against homeopathy to be extremely active in shaping the policies they are calling us to follow. A glance in the edit history ( homeopathy and meds ) will convince the unbiased reader instantly about the "game" here, Even these policies do NOT say exclude or censor info on a x topic because a review is narrative especially when this info conflicts with perceived consensus about homeopathy. They say use them to outline the topic ----An encyclopedia should inform by including notable views even if they conflict not run propaganda against or for a method. --EDtoHW (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There has been a considerable amount of discussion as to how Wikipedia should cover fringe medical topics, and this article in particular has received much scrutiny from Wikipedia contributors. If it didn't comply with policy, you can be assured that this would have been discussed before. As the histories of both the article and this talk page show however, the only significant disagreement regarding content has come from individuals who refuse to accept that as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should reflect the scientific consensus on the topic, rather than 'balancing' the overwhelming scientific consensus with poorly-sourced content which pro-homoeopathy contributors wish to include in order to misrepresent the reality of the situation. In the unlikely circumstance that the scientific consensus changes, Wikipedia will of course reflect the matter in the article - but until then, the argument that homoeopathy promoters have is with science, not with Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia. We represent the facts. An the simple undeniable facts are that science sees homoeopathy as pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In a quick glance, I didn't see any of the contributors to this particular thread making any contributions on the WP:MEDRS page. Some editors who have worked on the homeopathy article have also contributed to the WP:MEDRS page, but so have many, many others, which suggests that nothing is being written by homeopathy editors to serve their own ends without passing the scrutiny of other editors. If you want to simply complain about WP:MEDRS, you will be best served to leave Wikipedia all together, since we adhere to those policies. If you want to change WP:MEDRS, have at it, though I don't suspect you will have much luck since the policies reflect the input of a wide range of editors and reflect the practices of evidence based medicine as encountered in the real world beyond the confines of Wikipedia. If you want to make changes to the homeopathy article, please explain why a narrative review should be used as evidence to support any novel conclusions - without attacking other editors or hinting at some grand conspiracy - and keeping in mind that, the sole reason this is even being discussed is because there are NO high quality systematic reviews or meta analyses (read: appropriate sources) which draw these conclusions. The reason why these papers don't exist is no big mystery, but we are not here to fill that void with inappropriate references. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

people can look for themselves and decide that whether almost the same users who continuously crusade against homeopathy are extremely active in shaping the same policies they are calling us to follow. I answered your question- Per Meds ( even if in their present state) "More general narrative reviews can be useful sources when outlining a topic" therefore part of outlining of an x topic is including all these information since it is presented in such a reliable source- not to imply that this is the true. That would improve the article which today reads as anti-homeopathy propaganda and not as an encyclopedia. --EDtoHW (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, you are completely correct, there is an overwhelming consensus among WP editors that the scientific view should prevail over the pseudoscientific view. As encyclopedians, we should not keep our readers guessing, we should present the best knowledge available about a subject and that, according to consensus, is the scientific view. There are other outlets with less stringent ideas about verifiability of information, such as Wikia, if you feel that the guidelines and rules of WP aren't very friendly to homeopathy. AadaamS (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting that whatever sources do not concur with anti homeopathy views are automatically considered pseudo scientific --- not matter how reliable and high quality the sources are. Do you think that when they say "More general narrative reviews can be useful sources when outlining a topic" does not apply when it is about homeopathy? --EDtoHW (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is up to you to challenge the basis of WP:MEDRS. Now that the discussion has drifted from the quality of available sources into the realm of conspiracies, I find it conspicuous that your account was registered only yesterday. AadaamS (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the discussion ( and not to speculations ) you have to try to respond to what it is being discussed - I asked " Do you think that when they say "More general narrative reviews can be useful sources when outlining a topic" does not apply when it is about homeopathy? I hope you have something say more than that. --EDtoHW (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely applies to our homeopathy article. The problem is that the proposed edit:

"...a 2008 review found that in vitro and in vivo studies had validated the effects of homeopathic dilutions in numerous different organisms."

is stating that novel conclusions can be drawn from the cited paper. This would not be an instance of "outlining" the topic, but rather one of introducing undue weight. The authors did not conduct any original research, or at least they didn't describe any in the paper, so how can we use it to claim something in opposition of the best available information as presented by properly designed, high quality studies? Additionally, when the references used to write that paper have been analyzed as part of systematic reviews and meta analyses (i.e. subjected to stringent and well defined analysis), the conclusions have been that positive findings generally come from poor quality, smaller trials. WP:MEDRS is very clear that a narrative review should not be cited in efforts to supplant these more robust studies. Having to repeatedly explain this to you has become a big waste of time and is starting to look like a case of IDHT.EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There is also this review. Would this be considered acceptable for this article? The journal is Medline indexed. [6] Everymorning talk 16:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It is nothing but a summary of the authors own research, on plants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If a review is published in good journal it is not wiki pedia editors to question its credibility. i think this is clear ( unless the editors who several of them are active both in homeopathy and in MEDS decide to change these rules ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDtoHW (talk • contribs)

It is an unfortunate but all-too-common problem that editors who are not familiar with the scientific literature attempt to blindly apply the guidance in MEDRS as a mechanical checklist. "MEDLINE...whirr...review article...clunk...no more than 4 years 11 months old...bing!...It's reliable for all purposes and statements, in any article!" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

One would say the same for your approach - Does a study provide evidence for homeopathy "bing" ----- out. Is it anti-homeopathy enough .clunk yes let 's cite.it. Furthermore, no one suggested to use this review to supplant these more robust studies and again it is not your place to judge its quality-- since it is published in a high quality reliable source you have to accept it. The suggestion was to use it to inform and to outline the topic as MEDS dictate not to state it as a proven truth. Now (talk) you seem to be calling for ....a "little help from your friends" who by the way are totally .....uninvolved ---- so you can ban whoever disagrees with you through these codes you are using are you running out of arguments ? --EDtoHW (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the actual issue at hand. Your conspiracy theorizing is rendered moot on account of WP:MEDRS telling us how to proceed here. This is not an issue of source material quality, it is an issue of source material type. The paper is fine in terms of "quality", in so far as it comes from a respectable source journal, but as a narrative review can't be used in support of the proposed edit, which goes beyond simply "outlining" the topic. It is not an issue of editors disallowing sources they don't agree with, it is an issue of editors disallowing sources that do not comply with WP:MEDRS rules on appropriate use and more general WP policies on false balance in an area of pseudoscience. Have you even read the article in question, or have you only looked at the abstract? As pointed out above, the same paper states in its conclusions that:

"There is no conclusive evidence that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are different from placebo;"

Should we not also include this conclusion, or just cherry pick the part that says what you want to hear? Of course, if we include both statements, the paper essentially negates itself and doesn't add anything to our article. And, BTW, people don't get banned here for disagreeing with the content of the article - they get banned for carrying on as you currently are: refusing to get the point, continually pushing a previously addressed point of contention, and accusing other editors of biased collusion without any evidence beyond conspiracies. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"the paper essentially negates itself" ? This is false. No one said to use the review to prove homeopathy but to inform what high quality sources say about research on homeopathy as MEDS dictate. Again you keep judging the content of the paper and you should not according to the all wiki policies you want to follow. ( Of course it is very simplistic to accept that all the editors who find this article highly biased and make specific suggestions for improvement are ....somehow all wrong and disruptive and therefore banned.) --EDtoHW (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a straw man. Would anyone else like to try explaining to ED that identifying the paper in question as a narrative review, and suggesting that we adhere to WP:MEDRS policies on the use of such reviews, is not the same as "judging its content"? EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You said that the article negates itself if we include both statements therefore we should not include it. Everymorning and me now suggested that we use it to outline the topic and as MEDS say by informing readers what is the status of the research according always to the journal. --EDtoHW (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest suggested source[7] is from Hindawi, a borderline predatory publisher.[8] There are plenty of high-quality sources that examine homeopathy, and introducing a disputed source in order to achieve some kind of counter-balance to the scientific consensus is the epitome of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE weight. Also see WP:REDFLAG and WP:BESTSOURCES. Manul ~ talk 12:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a real reason and there is nothing objective about this just an opinion which cannot be used to balance the impact factor of the journal. --EDtoHW (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please elucidate why it isn't a "real reason". You are the first to mention impact factors in this thread. What does "balancing" an impact factor entail? Manul ~ talk 10:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Fringe?

The material I added that was just removed was sourced to the following two papers: [9] [10] Both these journals have IFs assigned by Thomson Reuters, [11] [12] so they are not "fringe" journals. A fringe journal would be something like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Thus it seems that the material added by me should be restored as it is reliably sourced. Everymorning talk 18:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy in the quintessential fringe journal. For the avoidance of doubt it's even named in WP:FRINGE. Even otherwise 'reputable' publishers publish utter shit (so long as there's money in it) you know. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is my understanding that there is a way to distinguish a journal that is reputable from one that is not. In addition to impact factors, there is the fact that Homeopathy is indexed in Medline. [13] Do you have a reliable source that describes it as fringe? I would also like to note that this article currently cites 4 papers published in that journal. As for the WP:FRINGE policy, I don't think that Homeopathy should be listed as a fringe journal in the absence of a reliable source that says it is such a journal. Everymorning talk 19:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not going to find many academic sources describing Homeopathy as a fringe journal, because that's so obvious it's outside their area of concern. Something like the Science-Based Medicine site will serve you, if in doubt. For fringe topics (like Homeopathy) we need to use WP:FRIND sources, and neutrality is non-negotiable policy. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm certain the Materials Research Innovations paper has shown up here in the past. The journal's founding editor is Rustum Roy, the same guy who is the lead author on the article you are proposing. He couldn't get his hypotheses published in a real scientific journal, so he started his own, and instituted the practice of "super peer review" in which a paper is accepted for publication if someone with multiple publications (such as himself) "sponsors" it. Essentially, it's publication via argumentum ab auctoritate. The paper is also a narrative (read: speculative) review. We are talking about a very remarkable claim here; it is going to require convincing data as published in high quality sources.

As for the Homeopathy paper, we have recently covered this topic as part of the whole MarioMarco NMR fiasco. No one denies that anomalous spectral data have been published. The problem is that 1) there are plenty of other papers which have been published which find nothing remarkable when applying the same techniques and 2) there are perfectly reasonable ways to explain away the oddities which do not require a reformulation of various fundamental principles of chemistry and physics. Any mention of such research needs to prominently mention the conflicting literature which makes it clear that there is no reason to believe that anything remarkable has actually been observed. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This does not violate "fundamental principles of chemistry and physics" as I noted above, there is another perspective to this issue, namely materials science, as discussed in both the papers under discussion. To quote from the Homeopathy paper: "The key stumbling block to serious consideration of homeopathy is the presumed “implausibility” of biological activity for homeopathic medicines in which the source material is diluted past Avogadro's number of molecules. Such an argument relies heavily on the assumptions of elementary chemistry (and biochemistry), in which the material composition of a solution, (dilution factors and ligand–receptor interactions), is the essential consideration. In contrast, materials science focuses on the three-dimensional complex network structure of the condensed phase of water itself, rather than the original solute molecules." If the literature is conflicting, we should reflect that in our article by indicating that some studies have indicated one thing while others have indicated the opposite. Everymorning talk 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but is obviously pseudoscientific BS (presumed “implausibility” ... I ask you!) in a non-independent fringe journal. There is no conflict in RS - to include this stuff would be to fall into the WP:GEVAL trap. We don't balance sense with nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have only Roy's word to take on this matter it would seem - and there is a clear conflict of interest (as the founding editor of the publishing journal) and an irregular publication standard ("super" peer review). He is repeatedly condescending in his musings, suggesting that mere chemists simply don't understand materials science, as if it were some big mystery. He is also defensive of homeopathy right out of the gate, stating early on that his intent with the paper is to discredit the notion of homeopathy's implausibility. This is not how science is conducted, it's how pseudoscience is promoted. The article doesn't provide any direct evidence of what he claims, but talks throughout about silicon dioxide glasses and simply assumes that liquid water MUST (according to Roy) behave the same way, without providing any direct supporting evidence. The most perplexing aspect of his writings is his appeal to epitaxy. He gives a supposed explanation for water memory, stating that solvents are known to form micro-crystalline coatings around solute molecules (though he offers no evidence to suggest that this actually happens in the pertinent aqueous solutions), but ignores the fact that these unproven micro-crystals are also going to be diluted out of existence along with the seeding solute molecules! The paper can't even really be classified as a narrative review; it's a purely speculative opinion piece. To be clear, I am not suggesting that my assessment of his writings should be the basis of any judgement on its inclusion here. The conflict of interest in its publication, the journal's use of "super" peer review, and his clearly stated unscientific objectives are ultimately the problem. Also, keep in mind that no one has ever demonstrated how any sort of water memory could possibly lead to the biological claims of homeopathy - demonstrating the one (an as of yet unaccomplished task) does not presuppose the other; so what bearing does it have here? EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your response is nothing else but a violation of wiki policies. You are not suppose to evaluate yourself the reliable sources but to inform about notable contradictions in the literature as Everymorning talk correctly points out. Every reliable source conflicting with the motto "homeopathy is pseudo science and placebo" is for some mysterious reasons not good enough for citation and to inform the readers -- it seems that you don't trust readers minds to decide on these matters.--EDtoHW (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in that we are not supposed to evaluate reliable sources. We do, however, need to have honest discussions about which sources are actually reliable. This one ain't. Fortunately, we don't need to rely on my opinion here; WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDSCI tell us how to proceed. The Roy journal is not peer reviewed, it is "super peer reviewed" (on top of being created specifically as a vehicle for promoting Roy's unpublishable speculations). It is also not a meta-analysis nor a systematic review. It isn't even original research - it is an opinion piece. While Wikipedia editors are not allowed to judge the value of the research in a proposed reference, we are empowered by WP:MEDRS to assess what sort of paper it is we are reading. The substance of a paper makes it very clear if it is a meta-analysis, a systematic review, a narrative review, or an editorial disguised as science. The Roy paper is clearly the latter since the paper contains no description of any methodology for inclusion of references, it includes no clearly defined methodological or statistical analysis, and all of its arguments are based on analogies with no evidence being offered to directly support his assumptions about homeopathy. All that being said, all we really need to concern ourselves with here is the fact that it was not published in a peer reviewed journal.

It would appear that you are unclear on our role as editors when you suggest that we "trust readers (sic) minds to decide on these matters". We are not here to create a false balance with poor quality resources and then teach the controversy. We are here to determine what material is of high enough quality to include in an honest and informative article about homeopathy. Inclusion of the Roy paper would not serve that end. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion does NOT mean adoption of its views by the way. But isn't really intellectually frightening for an encyclopedia editor to argue that the exclusion of a paper of such a notable scientist as Roy who is also famous for his research on homeopathy in the field will ....serve better an informative article on ...Homeopathy? --EDtoHW (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reverence of Roy as a notable scientist and famous contributor to the field of homeopathy does not outweigh his lack of publication on the subject in appropriate sources, nor does it establish that his opinions should be used to create a false balance in opposition of the scientific consensus. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The only "problem" with Roy who is very notable is that he is pro homeopathy - of course there are publication in appropriate sources ---http://www.pubfacts.com/author/Rustum+Roy -- Even if the scientific consensus were that you are implying -- which it is not - the inclusion of his views does not automatically causes a false balance --- this is a cheap trick for censorship. Another contribution to misinformation. --EDtoHW (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop using this talk page to expound on your conspiracies about "cheap trick(s) for censorship"; you are in violation of WP:AGF. Also, thanks for helping to prove my point. Most of the publications on that list are Op. Eds. or letters to the editor, and/or don't have anything to do with homeopathy. The listed publications which do pertain to homeopathy are the ones we have identified here already, with the exception of one which offers the following statement as the entirety of the "Experimental" section (where the author is supposed to explain exactly what was done so that others may replicate it):

"This paper is only a note on some of these interesting new findings. A much longer paper has been submitted elsewhere on part of this work, to which the reader is referred for more details both on the experimental and the larger pattern of results."

The reference he gives in lieu of an experimental section links to a conference abstract which describes results which were ultimately published in his own, non peer-reviewed journal. So, again, he only seems to be able to publish on homeopathy under the most unusual of circumstances (e.g. starts his own journal, eschews peer review, refuses to offer experimental details, etc.). EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are conducting you own original research to decide whether reliable sources are really reliable? This is not your task here. If he is published in reliable sources whatever he says the readers have the right to know it not as truth but as a different view -- Do you think that all the journals which cited this specific paper are less reliable than wikipedia ? http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/143307507X196167 --EDtoHW (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Evaluating sources is an important part of being a Wikipedia editor, as WP:RS/N shows every day. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, It is not. You just have to report them according to their weight not to evaluate if they were correct in publishing a paper. This is original research--EDtoHW (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Another straw man. The argument is not that the journal was incorrect in publishing the paper - the argument is that his research is only published in his own non peer-reviewed journal. As mentioned above, I am not opposed to mentioning reports of odd spectroscopic data as reported in Roy's other papers, though a more general statement that "some researchers have reported such and such results" would be more appropriate than a specific storyline about Roy. It simply needs to be mentioned that many other sources have reported that these sorts of results can't be replicated and that there are other, simple explanations for such results. It should also be mentioned that any demonstration of persistent structure in liquid water does not say anything about a plausible mechanism for homeopathy. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn. Puddin'head is correct on this one. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As do I. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course he is correct and all the anonymous editors here and all l the other reliable sources who cite the paper are simply "wrong" . What a surprise. --EDtoHW (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To get back to your question about this specific paper by Roy, I must ask again - do you even bother to read the papers you are suggesting here, or do you simply skim the abstracts? This particular paper looks at colloidal silver at ~ 1 ppm and says nothing about succussion. That's a micromolar (roughly 55.5 µM, actually) concentration prepared with no magic shaking, hardly homeopathic! Simply because Roy calls these preparations "ultradilute" doesn't mean it has anything whatsoever to do with homeopathy. Please stop suggesting that we include references which you haven't even bothered to read. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Effectiveness of homeopathy vs early medicine

Alexbrn, you undid an addtion I made about effectiveness of homeopathic medicine compared to regular medicine in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a well-know fact that the regular medicine did more harm than good for patients with a wide range of conditions. Not treating the sick, or giving them sham medicine, was of course better than taking them to a hospital. This is widely accepted in modern medicine, as such I don't see a controversy in including this in Wikipedia. Heptor _talk 10:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and we already have "These treatments often worsened symptoms and sometimes proved fatal." That doesn't mean homeopathy was "more effective" as you put it. It was in many cases likely less harmful mind you, since those harms were limited to wasting the patients' time & money. Alexbrn (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "more effective in the sense that it was not actively harmful". But perhaps that was a bit too lively a formulation. What do you think about what I wrote now? Heptor _talk 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary & problematic, particularly "The result was that homeopaths often had significantly better patient outcomes than the regular practitioners" in Wikipedia's voice. Homeopathic treatments were less actively harmful than the harmful treatments, but extrapolating that into the whole of regular practice across two centuries would require very strong sourcing. I don't see the need to add anything to this paragraph on this. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Alexbrn here. Categorically describing all of nineteenth century medicine as actively harmful is painting with a very broad – and unjustified – brush.

I am also concerned that the positive tone inadvertently suggests – to the casual reader – that homeopathy represented a beneficial intervention. (Essentially we're letting our readers forget about the 'placebo control' for the thought experiment. "Treatment A had better patient outcomes than Treatment B" carries a different sense than "Treatment A had identical outcomes to placebo; Treatment B had worse outcomes", even though both statements could be factually-accurate descriptions of the same data.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried another rewrite, this time strictly adhearing to the source. Again, I don't believe it is controversial that the 19th century medicine was, in general but of course not all the time, harmful. The text should be pretty clear to a reader on at least a moderate level of literacy. Homeopathy is equivalent to no intervention (sans the time and money wasted), which is still better than harmful intervention. Heptor _talk 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The general point is already covered in the article,

Because medical practice of the time relied on ineffective and often dangerous treatments, patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors of the time.[56] Homeopathic preparations, even if ineffective, would almost surely cause no harm, making the users of homeopathic preparations less likely to be killed by the treatment that was supposed to be helping them.

The added text seems undue and somewhat promotional to me. Manul ~ talk 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

e/c - Of course we must remember that it wasn't the homeopathetic treatments that were responsible for the better outcomes, but that they were in fact "no treatment except nursing". Water, homeopathic or not, was still just water. The homeopaths of course didn't know that they had often stumbled into the best way of treating something available at the time, ie nothing/homeopathy and nursing. Homeopathy was and remains ineffective. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Manul, thanks for noticing. I merged the additions that I made into that section. Roxy the dog, that's pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey. Heptor _talk 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Roxy the dog. I am not an expert on the subject (which is why I will not attempt to edit this into the article), but it appears that even in the 19th century there were quite a few people who did not consider the mainstream medicine to be reliable. In Wikipedia parlor this opinion was a minority, but not exactly a fringe one. For example, Jean-Baptiste Poquelin had an interesting insight with a play called The Imaginary Invalid, which satirized a hypocondriac with a prodigious determination to spend all his money on curing himself of immaginary diseases by the means of bloodlettings, colon cleansings etc. I am not entirely convinced that Hahnemann made his discovery by accident. Heptor _talk 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahnemann didn't make a discovery. According to his own writings in his Organon, he made an ipse dixit proclamation based on spurious correlations and poor assumptions. I don't think there is any need for our article to go into too much detail about how it was received by his contemporaries. Current assessments using the modern scientific method do a fine job of establishing its true worth. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discovery would be that by making -- as you quite eloquently put it -- an ipse dixit proclamation based on spurious correlations and poor assumptions he could make a lot of people stop harming themselves. This is pure speculation on my behalf of course, I have no intetion of putting this into the article. Heptor _talk 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Heptor, looking at what has changed since you arrived, I see a combination of things. Is it true that bloodletting continued into the late 19th century? You added that statement but didn't give a source. Why the deletion of "opium, myrrh, and viper's flesh"? Not a big deal, but no rationale. The part I quoted above has been changed around, making it clunkier, in my opinion. The most substantive part of your changes involves the addition of the Luis City Hospital example. That should probably be considered separately. Manul ~ talk 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the changes are clunky & not an improvement. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

While we're working on this bit, I've got some concerns with the following:

"The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science-based medicine.[30]"

First, the sentence has some grammatical problems. I'm not sure what the technical name for this is, but the second clause starting "to have begun the move towards..." doesn't follow properly from the beginning of the sentence. Which is to say, there is a two item list here that jumps off from either "...in the 19th century may have" or from "...in the 19th century may have led to". The second item of the list ""to have begun the move towards..." doesn't make sense following from either jumping off point. While this is being fixed, it might be worth rewording the whole sentence, which can be construed as suggesting that homeopathy was part of the new science-based medicine what had come to save us from the 18th century. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• So doing nothing in a clean hospital had a better outcome than bloodletting and purging in a dirty one, therefore confectionery is better than medicine? I think I must be missing something here. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta-analysis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this meta-analysis a reliable source? Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this study give strong evidence to the assumption that all observed treatments are equal to placebo? Nillurcheier (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It says "The results show the applicability of meta-analyses on the data from studies with homeopathic drugs and support the results from the individual studies indicating good efficacy and tolerability of VH in patients with vertigo." Also "The meta-analysis of all four trials showed equivalent reductions with VH and with control treatment." There is no mention of placebo in the abstract (I don't have a subscription to the relevant journal so the abstract is all I can read). Everymorning (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you think "control treatment" means, if not placebo? Manul ~ talk 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it means betahistine, Ginkgo biloba extract, and dimenhydrinate, which is what the paper's abstract says they are comparing homeopathy with. Everymorning (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright it appears that I read that wrong, since a placebo control is the usual expectation for these things. Looking further, the review only assesses four studies: two observational and two double-blind RCT. And Ernst says that vertigoheel is homotoxicological, not homeopathic.[14] Why do you think the review should go into the article? Manul ~ talk 17:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it would make the article more neutral. Everymorning (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean "neutral" or do you mean "NPOV"? Adhering to NPOV means that Wikipedia is not neutral on the subject of homeopathy. Manul ~ talk 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that cherry-picking poorly conducted meta-analyses from extremely obscure journals makes this article, or any article, more "neutral". The purpose of WP:MEDRS is being mangled pretty badly here. The goal is to represent accurately the current state of knowledge in a field, not to scour the literature for low-profile papers which can technically be called "meta-analyses" and then use them to rebut the existing scientific consensus on a topic. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Extremely"..... obscure journals ? What is the criterion for the degree of obscureness ? The fact you cannot pronounce it? --EDtoHW (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I fear that your involvement here is doomed to be short lived, now that you have moved from conspiracies to personal attacks. Stick to the discussion. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get access to the article through my VPN when I get a chance. I'm not sure that we should include articles, that no editors have actually read, simply based on their abstracts. The conclusions reported in the text are often at odds with the summary statements presented in the abstract. Or, as seen above with Roy, vital information (such as an experimental section) is omitted, making it impossible to determine if any research was done at all.

EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think should be judging the published papers for their content -- not your task here. --EDtoHW (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Citing an article you haven't read is unacceptable in any context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever research does not conclude that homeopathy is placebo - it does not qualify for some reason - I agree with everymorning it should be cited. --EDtoHW (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So, now you're advocating that we reference articles that no one here has even read? Wikipedia policies were not put in place to prevent assessment of source materials so that you can sneak in your point of view on a technicality; they were put in place to ensure that the references are of the highest possible quality. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

placebo or better???

Homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo, but... homeopatich drugs have a community and many professionals to support them, placebo don't, thus homeopathic drugs are placebo emotionally and socially supported! tests that do not take that in account fail to reveal the actual data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.222.127 (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be unclear on the concept of what a placebo is but this is not the place to hash that out. Rest assured, your concerns about emotional and social interplay are recognized as the definitive aspects of the placebo effect. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Basic research

There is a substantial amount of basic research into homeopathy (i.e. in vitro/animal/plant studies) and I think it should be discussed in more detail. I want to know whether other editors think so too, and to what extent others think WP:MEDRS applies to experiments conducted on cells, plants or animals rather than humans. Everymorning (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to sources used for medical claims, and quite rightly so. As regards reporting basic research, the science on homeopathy has been explained. (For the record, it doesn't do anything). There isn't any new science on this subject, and hasn't been for a long time. I'm not sure why you would want to expand coverage on something that doesn't really exist? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is a substantial amount of research that has been published on this subject in recent years. I have recently created a subpage at User:Everymorning/Preclinical_homeopathy_studies in which numerous studies of the sort I described above are linked to. Everymorning (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies here fully: I don't see how these primary sources could be of any use in the article. Darkdadaah (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no basic research into homeopathy. The fundamental doctrine, that like cures like, remains a false conjecture with zero evidence base. What you perceive as "fundamental research" is simply the pseudoscientific activity of believers looking for ways to wave away the obvious implausibility of dilution and twerking, none of it addresses in any way the belief in symptomatic similarity as a sole and universal basis of cure. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:MEDRS needs to apply here. There are so many obvious flaws with the "basic science" research into homeopathy (the vast majority of which constitutes nothing more than unfounded conjecturing by apologists such as Roy and Milgrom). We are not permitted to assess the quality of the findings/musings of individual papers so we need to rely on WP:MEDRS so as to avoid the inclusion of obvious and demonstrable bunk into our article. 73.181.114.203 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm sensing some fairly strong ethnocentrism here, and the racial aspects of that I find to be very distasteful. Haven't academic researchers in India and Brazil, where homeopathy is widely accepted, done fairly extensive, "basic" research into its effects? Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, I checked a few of Everymorning's list of sources on research, and many, if not most of them were done by Indian researchers. Editors, I'm very uncomfortable with the racial aspect that's part of the opposition to these academic papers. Of all the places where I thought I would encounter overt racism in Wikipedia, this is one of the last places, but I guess I should have known better. I suggest we start adding the information from this research into the article right away. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Give the above gratuitous personal attack, I have informed Cla68 that if it isn't withdrawn within the next 24 hours, I am going to report the matter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, where I shall call for him to be topic-banned from all alt-med subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not accusing any individual here of being a racist, but I'm alleging that there appears to me to be a racial and/or ethnic component behind the opposition to this research being included in the article. Note that almost all of the academic research allowed in the article is done by Western academics while most of the research being censored is by East Indian academics. In other words, it looks like we, myself included, are giving an ethnic preference to one group over another group. We need to stop it and I'm part of the problem also because I've allowed this to go on without trying hard enough to put an end to it. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Either unequivocally withdraw the accusations of racism, or face the consequences - you cannot make sweeping statements like that, and then claim that you aren't referring to the contributors responsible for the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm mainly referring to myself with that accusation. Because I haven't spoken up sufficiently about the treatment that non-white researchers are getting on this article talk page, I'm the one guilty of racism. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For the final time, either unequivocally withdraw all accusations of racism, now, or I am immediately going to raise this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Mealy-mouthed claims that you are only referring to yourself aren't the least bit compatible with your earlier statements, and aren't going to fool anyone. 01:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please notify me when you make the report. Sometimes you have to accept the consquences, whatever they may be, for standing up for what's right. And, we all here need to stop with the patronizing condenscension towards people whose science may be different from "ours." Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

errr...no, it means your casting that slur over other people, not being accused of racism yourself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, well, I respect your opinion so I struck out the part about racism. But, I'm not going to back off that I think that the editors here are giving way UNDUE weight to Western research over East Indian research on homeopathy. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I can't see much at all on wikipedia about homeopathy in Brazil, and if you (or someone else) are interested, would be worth adding, using reliable sources such as this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

'...patronizing condescension towards people whose science may be different from "ours."' YGBFKM. That's wall-of-shame bad. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Racism my butt. We're not playing a game of racial quotas when we find sources for an article. Sources for this article making scientific or medical claims about need to be MEDRS compliant. If it's very important for you to include sources written by Indian authors, find one that meets the same standards we apply to every other source and it will be discussed. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The scientific method does not change by region, nor is it practiced differently according to race. What you are actually asking for is a false balance, only you want it dictated by race/ethnicity, not the substance of the argument being made. I agree that you are being racist here; suggesting that something fairly objective such as the treatment of evidence by the scientific method should be usurped by information which you favor based solely on the race/ethnicity of the person making the proposition is pretty offensive, not to mention spectacularly absurd. You are discounting the likely possibility that Indian researchers who report positive results are promoting the same pseudoscientific bunk as are their western counterparts. See? Everyone is treated equally. 73.181.114.203 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Guys, by this point, any time Cla68's fingers strike a key on his keyboard, your bullshit detectors should be pinging off the scale. He posts this embarrassingly sophomoric nonsense to get a rise out of you. He's a junior-varsity troll. Don't feed him. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)