Talk:Homeopathy

And another thing poor quality citing

I'm looking at the quality of the references here. OK, so lets look at the references on the "malaria" point, which should be pretty black and white.

One is an article on the guardian newspaper, which reports on the BBC news show http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/14/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

One is a letter to the bmj with a single case report [1]

(if this is the quality of quotes that I can use, then can I please, PLEASE use a letter from the National Enquirer to prove that Michael Jackson killed Elvis Presley when he went back in a time machine).

And the other is a reasonably credible source. The BBC quoting it's show, and quoting the NHS London Homeopathic Hospital in saying that they believed there was no evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm

If someone really wants to get cit-tastic they can of course cite the 1999 BMJ [2] quoting the "A recent meta-analysis, published in the Lancet, examined over 100 randomised, placebo controlled trials and found an odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.93) in favour of homoeopathy. The authors concluded that, even allowing for publication bias, "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.""

Lets have a little bit more quality in our citations people. I know some of you love to get hot under the collar.. but it's a little crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

I firmly believe that this has no place in the introduction. Tim Vickers states that it succinctly communicates the opinions of many groups on the subject. It doesn't, it communicates the opinions of one group. Its place in the intro renders it too much importance and is a content bias. Rray holds that this is fine because it is a cited study, but a single cited study has no place in the introduction of an argument. Put it in criticism, and back it up with more studies. A collected list of citations which details opinions is better for expressing the opinions of a whole community than a single citation.

"In the words of a recent medical review" has no place in an encyclopedia unless said review is for some reason superlative. The use of the colloquial "quackery" itself is incorrect as "quack" is a derogatory term. The neutral definition of quackery (fraudulent medical practice) would be better.

Better than all of these would be a policy statement from a large organization such as the AMA: "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies" http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html

Embattledseraph (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We tried summarising the opinions of several groups previously, but people thought it was better to attribute and quote a prominent and reliable source. This is a very reliable source, it summarises the opinions of most of the scientific community and the quote is directly attributed. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A single cited study is fine to use as an example in the lead here, because it's representative of the opinion of the scientific community at large. And the word "quackery" is fine for use in an encyclopedia too. "Fraudulent medical practice" is no less derogatory. It just sounds fancy and is harder to understand. And the policy statement that Embattledseraph suggested is far too vague to be representative of the scientific community's opinion of this specific subject. Rray (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the crux of the problem. Both Tim Vickers and Rray claim that this single study is fine to use because it summarizes the opinion of the scientific community. If you feel that a single study summarizes the view of an entire field than you must back that up. Unless there are reliable sources which state the superlative nature of this study it has no more weight than any other study, particularly in conveying broad opinion. The suggested policy statement may not be the ideal wording which some would like, however it is the only reliable source of community based sentiment which has been suggested.

By only using one source, the scientific community is being misrepresented. This study http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507#id2365677 (citation 7) shows that 42% of surveyed American pharmacists would take a homeopathy course if offered and that a majority of pharmacists are interested in homeopathy. Furthermore, this interview with your reliable source http://www.harcourt-international.com/ernst/interview.cfm has him stating that in Germany and Austria complementary medicine (which Homeopathy is a form of) is practiced primarily by licensed physicians. In India homeopathy (as is stated in the article) is regarded as a legitimate form of medicine, and the recent opening of one of the biggest Indian oncology centers ([3])

features homeopathy. The legitimacy of homeopathy in India indicates acceptance by much of its scientific community. According to this (clearly bias, but probably not lying) website (http://www.homeopathyheals.com/intro.html), 40% of licensed MD's in France either practice homeopathy or refer patients to homeopaths. Several news sources also mention a WHO study which was in favor of homeopathy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm Regardless of the scientific validity of the WHO's study, the WHO is composed of members of the scientific community. In summary, I have shown that using the "quackery source" to sum up the scientific community is a misrepresentation which excludes the following groups from that community: Many American Pharmacists, German M.Ds, French M.Ds., and Austrian M.Ds, much of India, and the World Health Organization. Embattledseraph (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry about the bad integration of references.)

Ernst

Dr. Ernst, who is cited throughout the article, is repeatedly accused of having an anti-homeopathic bias, should he be allowed to be cited so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.146 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No convincing evidence arguement

When talking about Clinical Trials, this article goes on to suggest that the NHS finds "no convincing evidence" but this is not supported by the reference. I have previously discussed this with the editor who vehemently reverted my changed, twice. Thus I'll let someone else change it this time. The NHS article (which is in a public "NHS Direct" watered down website) goes on to say that there is difficulty with the evidence, but not that no convincing evidence exists. The other bodies listed do (in my view anyway) hold the view that no evidence exists, but the fact that the NHS runs multiple homeopathic hospitals lies question to the suggestion that they are of the view there is nothing in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead + Neutral point of View ?

If you disagree with what the meta analyses state please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone reverts edits please explain why.I thought this was the way to work here. thanks

U didnot make any edit war. I did not revert anything. User OrangeMarlin reverted the edits.

The lead summarises, it should not consist of a long list of quotations. Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead is not neutral though. Studies dont state that. The homeopathic objections? This is what I wrote.

"Reasearchers in 1991 had concluded” that at the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias..This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy”.

Another metanalysis (1997) concluded “that the results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo but there was insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.” . However the same researchers (2000) “concluded that in the ( above ) study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”

Another one concluded that “The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing”. INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy”

Other meta analyses found “that there is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.”

Homeopaths argue that “Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored”. They say that “The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."

Try summarising the quotes in your own words. This summary can't be over a few sentences, and must give due weight to the quality of the source and provide an accurate reflection of current knowledge on the subject. What do you propose? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop all this endless edit warring every night, Tim and Orangemarlin, and place the text as a quote or use the actual phrasing the cite says. thanks Peter morrell 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why this external link was removed? "Join us to debate the evidence on both sides with Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and Dr Ben Goldacre, medical writer and broadcaster, and decide for yourself." The Natural History museum website is not a good source? Or the editors dont like debates in general? The debate was about the Lancet (2005) meta analyses.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html

Ask Wikidudeman, it was HE who deleted masses of pro and anti links a few days back. I asked him to justify those deletions and he has never replied. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to have different opinions.

A recent meta analysis found that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” Homeopaths criticized the study for being biased. Previous meta analyses found that homeopathic treatments were somewhat more effective than placebo ( or reported positive results ) but the evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the flawed design of the studies. One meta analyses found the evidence promising for some topics, another stated that” there was a legitimate case for further research” and two meta analyses found evidence that the higher the quality of the studies the less promising the results. Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology.” They say “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect”

The previous summary was not neutral. The text of the original studies is above and you can compare. I think this one complies with the WP lead rules. Feel free to comment and/or revert but please justify here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the writing was pretty awful in your revision - things got said multiple times, and infelicities abounded. Also, you'd have to show reference for some of the comments from similar high-quality sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam is correct; however, it would be nice to get this sorted out and settled for good, because every single night we seem to have this same spectre of 'insert then revert' by the same small bunch of folks, and it is wrecking the general' stability of the article. Can't 72.43.191.226 and OM and Tim come to some amicable agreement re wording so we can get back to more serious topics? if possible, that would be great. just a suggestion. thanks Peter morrell 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some meta-analyses stated tha studies on Homeopathy “seem to report positive results.” However, the researchers pointed out that the “evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the low methodological quality of the studies”; they also found “clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.” However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo not without its own critisism by homeopaths for being biased. [4] [5] Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his/her single ailment, disease or pathology.” [6] They believe that “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect” [7]

How about that? I tried to keep the sentences of the original texts - look above and compare. The criticism for the Lancet 2005 studies is here [8](I think a good source) and here, in a video file. (Natural History Museum website - a good source). I think it was included before in the article. The museum being aware of the controversy on the recent studies (Lancet 2005) on Homeopathy organized a debate, which is available on line.

[9] “Homeopaths' objections ”.(BBC) [10] and Vithoulkas website [11] (the article refers to him - wikipedia has an article about him and includes his website as well ).

My point is that if you don’t include these most basic homeopathic ideas in the lead of an article about homeopathy, the article might be regarded as incomplete and biased. It fails to inform the reader about the most basic principles of homeopathy and why homeopathy is a controversial subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Look, for goodness' sake anon IP 72.43.191.226 - would you please sign your comments with ~~~~ at the very least, so we can follow your rather disjointed comments in a logical manner? And while you are at it, signing up takes but a moment, and makes you less anonymous. Please! docboat 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead is not neutral. I agree with the comments stated. The article seems to be good. It needs to be balanced though. --Radames1 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, Radames1, by "balanced"? Tim Vickers 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

There is a controversy on the evidence.It is well known and documented Thats why I changed it.

INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy. [12] --70.107.246.88 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

David, do you mean that there is no controversy on the evidence? This is what all the sources say. From BBC to the meta analyses? Look above. Please justify your revert. --70.107.246.88 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[13] Another example: "Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).

It is debated how something that causes illness might also cure it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And another one: WALTER STEWART (Research Chemist): If Madeleine Ennis turns out to be right it means that science has missed a huge chunk of something.

Here is another one: "NARRATOR: She (Madeleine Ennis) has reawakened one of the most bitter controversies of recent years" [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you think that the above sources which state that there is a controversy are incorrect? --70.107.246.88 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly controversy about how medicine should respond to people's use of homeopathy. However, there is no good scientific evidence that homeopathy is effective. The very best interpretation you can make of the data is that it might not be completely due to placebo effects, but this interpretation is highly unlikely to be true since no plausible mechanism exists. The best data we have point to it being just placebo and this fits best with other areas of knowledge. Consequently, when describing the scientific evidence about homeopathy, calling this "controversial" is misleading. Tim Vickers 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but this is not what the studies say and sources say. I thought in Wikipedia we have to write what high quality sources state not what we think they say: NCCAM and metanalyses say there is a controversy on the issue as you see above. You cannot change that even if you disagree with it.

--70.107.246.88 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is about the effectiveness and the theory. It is not about the people's perception. - this is what is clearly stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the sources do not clearly make that argument. We both agree that homeopathy is controversial, but we disagree about what the controversy is about. Within science and medicine, the controversy is not about efficacy, but about the proper response to homeopathy and alternative medicine - this is what the sources say. The current phrasing is completely unacceptable "...the evidence supporting its efficacy" is a highly biased presentation of the data. Tim Vickers 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No Tim that's wrong. The controversy is very much about proving efficacy using trials, which as you know homeopaths regard as too crude a method and thus they show nothing. Also, your phrase 'the proper response to homeopathy'? huh? what is that about? the other issue is how such tiny doses can elicit actual physiological responses in folks...that they do so is of course potentially another pebble in science's shoe; so I think those are two points around which the controversy revolves. As for molecules, well of course, if homeopathy was a truly molecular phenonemon at all, even remotely, then its dosage system would be up the swannee as absurd as science believes it to be. If, however, homeopathy empirically can show physiological responses from such tiny doses, then either there is something more to matter than molecules or something very fishy is going on. Either way, science should investigate that more neutrally and more thoroughly than at present. Hope this summarises that issue for you. thanks Peter morrell 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming, broad, government-endorsed scientific agreement is that trials are actually a terrific way to demonstrate efficacy. Few things are as neutral as a doubly-blinded, controlled study in a system where all trials must be pre-registered in order to avoid positive publication bias. There is no controversy regarding the science of clinical trials; there are just those who disagree that they should be held to such stringent standards. Antelan ^talk 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with clinical trials, as anyone experienced with homeopathy will tell you, is that the choice of appropriate homeopathic remedy and potency is determined by "taking the case". In other words, the individual patient's mental, emotional, and physical symptom patterns are analyzed, and the remedy is chosen on that basis. You do not have specific remedies for specific conditions, except for a small number of what are termed "polycrests".

And yes "there is something more to matter than molecules" - atoms and molecules are made up of of waves. They only act as particles when standing waves function as expressions of elements in configurations we call atoms and molecules. Each molecule resonates with a unique pattern. It is THIS MOLECULAR PATTERN RESONANCE that is transfered to the dilutant, whether water, lactose, or alcohol. Arion (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as the homeopath is blinded as to whether or not the pharmacy is actually dispensing the remedy or a placebo to his patient, then a double blind trial could be completed. Antelan ^talk 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point Antelan - that might work at a superficial level. The issue though is that the "gold standard" of randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled studies is flawed. Take, for example, a series of studies as to the efficacy of a simple NSAID for joint pain, as brought in by the pharma reps, all of which show that their particular brand is better, cheaper, more efficacious than all others. And these are valid studies. Take then, independent studies of a single NSAID and out of 10 studies you will find 4 say "effective", 4 say "ineffective" and 2 say "inconclusive". Which is the source for all these drug rep studies which say the opposite of what the other reps studies show. There is a wealth of information about these flaws. Now, place homeopathy under such a flawed system of examination, and the results you get out pretty much reflect what the investigator wants them to show. Which is why so many pure allopaths criticise the positive results, and so many homeopaths criticise the negative results. Ideally what we need for further discussion on this page is a course in statistical analysis. docboat (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, a double blind study is only as good as it is designed and carried out. It is the bare requirement for a authoritative medical study, but is not sufficient in itself. Painting the entire process with a broad brush because some unnamed pharma company somewhere didn't do it right isn't going to convince anyone. Jefffire (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, you claim that controlled trials are "flawed" as a gold standard, but your example doesn't address this point - it addresses fraudulent reporting on the part of pharma companies. So, getting back to the point at hand, the fact that drug companies misrepresent their products does not begin to convince me that homeopathic remedies could not be usefully tested with doubly-blinded trials. If you have a more rigorous trial in mind that you think drugs, surgical procedures, or homeopathic remedies could be subject to, I'd like to hear about it. Antelan ^talk 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Antelan, you miss the point. These studies - or at least the uses made of them by pharma companies - are not in the least fraudulent. Pharma is usually very keen to avoid any suspicion of fraud. And in no way are they misrepresenting. It is just that the imagined "gold standard" of these studies (placebo controlled etc etc) is NOT the gold standard people imagine. Hence the need for more people to actually study statistics. Boring, I know, but it is very useful. Been there, done that. As for other examples - well OK - any study on SSRI's for example, or the whole "cholesterol as a model of heart disease" studies - that model is plainly wrong, although a billion dollar industry is predicated on it. References for that abound, but an IHT article from last year springs to mind as a popular but well-written analysis of the issues. As for trials for homeopathic remedies - the problem is that for one diagnosis (say "sore throat") there may be 100 different homeopathic "causes" and 100 different individual remedies. So when you do a double blind etc etc trial on 1000 sore throat patients, you are getting only 10 patients per group. Not valid for analysis. Rigorous studies? I would think the best method is probably a cohort study over a number of years. And the best study method for medical practice in general? I wish I knew .... <sigh> .... a major problem in medicine is the question of validity of our actions. In 100 years time they will look back and think very poorly of us, much as we look back at treatments from the 1920's (hint - treatment for asthma in 1920? A cigarette laced with strychnine. True. And it worked to a degree) - no good answer there, sorry. Now back to the issue of investigating the efficacy of homeopathy - If we had a mere placebo effect, there should be a 30% cure rate. Recent pharma admissions in public (hearing US Congressional hearing? Not sure of date) claimed that any drug presented to the medical profession for general use had a 25% chance of success in any one patient. Hence you often need to try a second or third drug before the desired effect hits. Not saying drugs have no effect - that is patent nonsense. But we need to look with a clear - if jaundiced - eye at the whole medical business in general, and the statistics in use in particular. docboat (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not all drugs have no effect, double blind studies on beta blockers and antibiotics would be clear. Your point is well taken though, many drug trials are so poor statistically that their supposed positive effects are doubtful (in fact, the whole field of epidemiology is now beginning to be questioned), especially considering there may be side effects too. However, this does not negate the point that homeopathic drugs too, have a less than clear effect with respect to treatment. At least they have no side effects, so in that sense they are better. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. But that leaves the issue of which method(s) can best be used to demonstrate an actual effect, if any , of the substrate? Meta-analyses are not worth anything, really, based as they are on very varying studies with very varying standards. Individual studies using the placebo controlled etc etc method of classical allopathic design will fail due to known statistical issues. A cohort study on a population may be of interest, but a cohesive group such as SDA vegetarians, or the classical Framingham study will be very difficult to control in all parameters. Maybe we should go back to 19th century approaches as used by Koch and Virchow? docboat (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I say i have answers? ;) I think the point that should be made is that there is no definitive effect, this is clear from trials that have been done. Obviously this point can also be made for many pharma drugs, but that does not mean the same point cannot be made here too. David D. (Talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, the medical and scientific communities have taken a position on the issue of evidence, and the views that you advocate are not in favor. This is not to say that the views are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that they are fringe. Wikipedia has relevant policies concerning such views which we must dutifully apply in this article. Antelan ^talk 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Antelan. I would not agree that the views are fringe. I believe that most of us (the medical fraternity) accept these views, just that we do not speak about them. Partly because most doctors are woefully ignorant of science in general, and statistics in particular. The concerns I raised on studies of SSRIs are in fact most definitely and worryingly mainstream, because the conclusion is that there is not one single SSRI available that can be rationally prescribed with full knowledge of the drug, because due to the manner of the studies, the bias of studies, the choice of publishing (journal or location of publication) etc etc the facts have been irretrievably muddied. Sad, but true. Or, for example, prescribing antibiotics for middle ear infection which - as demonstrated in Holland - can be avoided 95% of the time with simple analgesia and time. But that solid evidence has been largely ignored. What this article needs to have applied is a dose of mutual understanding and acceptance. docboat (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks a neutral POV

• This article lacks a neutral POV and instead reads as an attack and mockery of this "obviously fraudulent" practice.
• Having utilized homeopathic remedies in my practice for almost 27 years, I can say that I have the personal experience to back up my positive assessment of homeopathy.
• I frequently use high potencies (especially 200C through CM). All homeopathic practitioners understand that although no "physical" molecules remain of the original substance from which the remedy is made, there is the transmission of the "essence" or unique "molecular wave pattern" of that substance. Just as a simple example, I recently had a patient mention that after she returned home from her treatment, she had itching and small red rashes appear in various areas of her body. I had not told her that the homeopathic remedy that I gave her was made from poison ivy (Rhus tox 1M). At this high potency (1,000 dilution and succusion) there were no "physical" molecules left of the original poison ivy. Yet this remedy that is so effective in the treatment of many joint and nerve disorders, in certain sensitive individuals will cause a temporary itching and rash reaction. Arion (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Testimonials are not evidence that it works. How many others patients get a rash when they use this particular remedy? I'd believe it if you had some decent stats to back up the statement. Afterall, placebo works too. Having said this, I agree that in places the article reads like an attack. David D. (Talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I did qualify my statement with "in certain sensitive individuals". Using terms like "testimonials", "placebo" and "placebo effect" as the counter to anything that disagrees with one's perception of what the facts are is not realistic. If placebos were an effective method of treatment, then all doctors, allopathic and homeopathic, would be using them exclusively. I have been using homeopathic remedies for almost 27 years and have found them effective modes of treatment. That is not a testimonial. That is my practical clinical experience. Arion (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

People get ill, people recover. Some need the crutch of drugs, some need herbal remedies, others just let their body do it. I have been letting myself heal without any medicine for over 27 years and remarkably my body does a great job of curing me most of the time. The point is that 'no treatment' is also effective. If you cannot show cause and effect above the bodies self healing properties, and usually one can't with homeopathic remedies and many pharma drugs, then why should we consider them to be so special? David D. (Talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Write a reliable source about your experience and we can discuss putting it in Wikipedia. Until then it is original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is already in the article needs to be changed for starters. This article lacks a neutral POV. For this article to be presented according to Wikipedia standards of neutral point of view (NPOV), the material should be so neutrally presented that readers cannot tell what personal beliefs any of us hold. Arion (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not think you understand what WP:NPOV means in cases like homeopathy. Since homeopathy is part of medicine, or purports to be, it is part of science. Therefore, the dominant POV for examining homeopathy is the scientific POV, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A neutral point of view is not necessarily a sympathetic point of view, we report what the reliable sources say in a way that gives due weight to the reliability of each source. People reading the articles on Motherhood or Apple pie may be left in no doubt that these are good things, but only if this is what the sources say. Equally, the article on Nazis might not be so positive. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's why the article on the Nazi's is has questions about the neutrality of it's point of view and colourful language. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I need a drink. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but it's still early in the afternoon. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is AWFULLY BIASED. The atomic model is merely a framework - a model that serves to explain a tiny set of phenomenon. Ignorant people see it as the absolute truth and reject everything that cannot be explained by the atomic model. There are many known quantum phenomenon which cannot be explained in the models you learned in high-school chemistry. So are you gonna label all those phenomenon "quackery"? This is absolute ignorance. Try an experiment - Next time you have acidity try nux vomica 30 or any homepathic preparation you can get for acidity - a very good choice would be schwabe 's pentarkan . You'll see it acts much faster than any allopathic antacid. There is more to the world than what can be explained with the puny models taught by highschool textbooks. The world theory comes from the root as theatre meaning to see - that is a theory is only a model that helps us gain a better perspective on 'a set' of phenomenon. In physics there are many observed phenomenon that dont fit into any known models - so we reject their existance? When people become so ignorant, pseudo-scientific and closed minded that they confuse text-book theories with absolute truths - that i feel is the limit of absurdity and ignorance. When you have a framework which you so blindly believe is true you'll reject everything that cant be explained in that framework - withut bothering to comprehend or experiment. If Neil Armstrong goes back to the 16th century and tells people there he's been to the moon - they'll carry him off to a mental asylum - because what he is saying cant be appreciated by their framework of notions.

121.246.170.167 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that disprove the application of atomic theory to dilutions of drugs, then please post links to these papers on the talk page. I would be fascinated to read them. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The atomic model is merely a framework - a model that serves to explain a tiny set of phenomenon." Huh? Surely you exaggerate? David D. (Talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Neil Armstrong, but a man having been on the moon doesn't change the fact that if I claimed I was there last weekend, I would still be shipped off to a mental asylum. Claims without testable observations to back them up are just a little better than worthless. rmosler (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that a diluted acidic solution (or basic solution) mixed with an acid will more rapidly reach a pH of 7 than mixing an acid with a strong base/alkali, then I would be fascinated. Please provide peer-reviewed mainstream studies in a mainstream scientific journal. The person who finds this will likely win a Nobel Prize.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beer-Lambert law would have problems as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A word in favor of homeopathy

You know, the placebo effect is incredibly strong. It should not be knocked. And the administration of "medications" which operate by the placebo effect usually have no negative side effects. So it is not all bad...

So do not fight the verdict of the scientific community when it says that these medications act by placebo. There are worse things...--Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Placebo effect is not as pronounced as you might believe. It's hard to have a placebo effect when you're racked by metastatic cancers of various sorts. But I don't think doctors would get behind a theory where placebo effect is rare and random. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true. There are still negative side effects to placebo. Tell a severe asthmatic that they don't have access to their short acting inhaler. See if that doesn't make their throat feel a little tight. rmosler (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. I think placebo only takes you so far.--Filll (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks a neutral POV. For this article to be presented according to Wikipedia standards of neutral point of view (NPOV), the material should be so neutrally presented that readers cannot tell what personal beliefs any of us hold. No one should be attempting to redefine neutrality in order to force an article biased against homeopathy.

What has been done repeatedly in this article and Talk page is the setting up of straw men so that they can be easily knocked down. Ridiculous things are stated to be homeopathy which are not. Then a logical argument is presented that these things are ridiculous, and that is the conclusion one is left with. Except that the things that are stated to be homeopathy are not homeopathy.

There has been the repeated presentation of the false premise that homeopathic remedies are made by simply diluting them, such as was mentioned above ("a diluted acidic solution"). But that is not how they are made, and that is not what they are.

Homeopathic remedies are created through a process of "succussion". This is a series of steps (the number depending on the potency being created) of dilution and forceful agitation to transfer the "molecular wave pattern" of the original substance into the dilutant. Simple dilution simply dilutes the original substance and has no effect. Arion (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well if homeopaths do not rely on diluted solutions, what do they use? Please present reliable sources for your claims. If they do not produce remedies by a sequence of succussion and dilution, what do they do? Please provide reliable sources for your statements. I think that the article describes this process of succussion and dilution. Where does it say the wrong thing? We do not know what a "molecular wave pattern" is. Do you have a reliable source for that term, if you want to introduce it into the article? Also, for us WP:NPOV is defined according to our policies, using WP:FRINGE, [WP:UNDUE]], WP:WEIGHT etc. You might not like those policies, but those are the Wikipedia policies. There are many other Wikis which do not have these policies and I would be glad to give you a list of other Wikis if you want to write articles that do not abide by these policies.--Filll (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Molecular waves are what all matter is made up of, including your body and this entire planet. You are asking me to do research for you? Try Google.

• I suggest you stop the superior tone in your writing. When you write "defined according to our policies" you are trying to convey that you are speaking for Wikipedia. The loud and clear fact is that this article lacks a neutral POV. For this article to be presented according to Wikipedia standards of neutral point of view (NPOV), the material should be so neutrally presented that readers cannot tell what personal beliefs any of us hold. No one should be attempting to redefine neutrality in order to force an article biased against homeopathy. Arion (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. You refuse to provide a reference for molecular waves? When you are talking about nonstandard nonscientific topics, it is a bit much to just make the those kind of statements. If you are talking about the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics, I suspect I know a bit more than you do. How many years of graduate quantum field theory did you say you had studied? Where did you study this?

I am not adopting a superior tone. We are all editors on Wikipedia. And the policies of Wikipedia are the policies of all of us. Did you not realize this?

The article was principally written by Wikidudeman. I personally cannot tell where his sentiments lie from reading the article. Can you? There is material that is pro-homeopathy. And material that derides homeopathy. I cannot tell where his own sentiments lie. If you can, I am impressed.

Being neutral does not mean we remove all the negative material. Sorry. You are confused. You do not understand Wikipedia policies.--Filll (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. A article about homeopathy must inform the readers about basic homeopathic priniples and views- for instance – how homeopaths regard meta analyses. --Orion4 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Like every group of people, I'm sure they love meta-analysis when it supports them, and hate it when it doesn't. More to the point, if you've got a reference, especially to some sort of homeopathic organization's official stance on the subject of meta-analysis, that'd be a great resource. Otherwise, we're spinning wheels. Antelan ^talk 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology

This is a view I just added to the article. It is stated in VIthoulkas website, The article includes and comment on his views hence it is a valid source. --Orion4 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source. BBC. A good source, I do believe. "It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion4 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can use a placebo controlled randomized double blind study. The homeopath makes the "holistic diagnosis", and determines the correct remedy for treatment. The remedy is prepared by the homeopath and provided to a third party. A computer determines whether the unafilliated party gives the prepared remedy or a placebo to the patient. The labels are the same, the bottles are the same. The patient, homeopath, and experimenter are blind to what the remedy is until the data is collected. What is wrong with a study like this? rmosler (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what homeopaths say. You have to include it you like it or not. At this point I request an administrator who is not inlvoved to protect the article and the under dispute tag if Adam Cuerden keeps reverting without disucssion.There more than two editors regard the artcile views as POV. --Orion4 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What homeopaths claim about peer-reviewed trials might be noted in a section on homeopathic viewpoints, but not in a section discussing the scientific analysis of homeopathy. This is simply a case of special pleading and unsupported by any kind of evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Orion has found some useful stuff here. There is a statement made by a representative for a society of homeopaths claiming that homeopathy has been shown to be more effective than placebo. This could, as you say, go in a section on homeopathic viewpoints. It is certainly not a neutral fact, not something that should be stated as if it were, but it is a viewpoint. Perhaps most notably, it is telling in that it implies acceptance of the placebo-controlled model for proof of efficacy. Antelan ^talk 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like that might go in the article body, but certainly has to be carefully couched in the right terms, and should not go in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, to the strongest degree. Antelan ^talk 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After using homeopathic remedies for several years I was firmly convinced about their efficacy. But 2 days after starting a new treatment I felt very bad I could not understand why, as far as previous experiences have always been resolved with success. I called my doctor and I realized that I have misunderstood the dose and was taking the double of prescription. If remedy were a simple placebo there would not been any reason for getting worse. On the other hand, if it was a placebo in form of “pure water” it would produce whether a healing effect or no effect at all, but in any case not an aggravation of symptoms.

So, I strongly disagree with the biased content of the article about homeopathy which is obviously against it and stands for the placebo theory. I would be better a simple explanation of arguments about the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepbl2 (talk • contribs)

Grammar and language problems etc

As I survey the article, although it is immeasurably better than it used to be, I still see lots of examples of little problems. However, with the edit warring going on, it is almost impossible to fix these. People who are frantic to destroy the article by introducing statements that are effectively equivalent to "Homeopathy is fantastic and all other medicine is BS and we hate all doctors and scientists and science so there nya nya nya...now bugger off now" really is not helpful. There are still problems remaining in just a pure exposition of the subject, without having to contend with edit warriors who think if they just rant and rave enough, we will turn this article into a paean of praise for a pseudoscience. Sorry, but that ain't gunna happen. I would rather see the article deleted permanently than see that outcome. --Filll (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and language problems are definitely a problem. The third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph that could be reworded slightly and placed in the section "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism" but certainly not in the opening introductory paragraphs. The way it reads now sounds like something out of "Quackwatch" or some other biased group with an agenda. Arion (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1) That's not a grammatical issue. 2) The lead summarizes the article. Hence, the presence of that material in the lead. 3) It's neutral, although not favorable to homeopathy. Antelan ^talk 00:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

POV + lead

In an article (in the lead) about homeopathy you have to include homeopathy's basic views on meta analyses. This is not a matter a evidence. They have an opinion - let the reader to decide if their arguments are strong or not. It is a matter of NPOV to include them - otherwise the lead and the article is biased and mainly incomplete. If conventional and mainstream science has strong arguments - it ( science ) has nothing to afraid of including the basic homeopathic concepts. Otherwise it seems you are trying to hide basic and highly important homeopathic views fearing that you cannot answer them properly. The sensitive editor will include the above opinions - I believe.

You are writing an article about this minority - Homeopathy and its views should be there. This is obvious. This is not undue weight. It is a matter of balanced information. Even BBC as tyou see above and Natural history museum organize debates on homeopathy inviting both parties and giving equal time.!! These major orgenizations are not neutral??? Are BBC and Natural History museum biased?

I think people should not revert without discussion. POV tag should attached and protected by univolved administrators. Who agrees ?--Orion4 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) - I dont like edit wars

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." - Homeopaths' views on meta-analyses are those of a tiny minority. They may be included in this article, but should not be given undue weight. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Tim. This article should be about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy - which it is, at the moment,but there will be little chance of changing this in the short term. If it were an article on homeopathy, it would give peer-reviewed information about homeopathy from a scientific homeopathic POV first and foremost, followed by the representation of the anti-homeopathic scientists as a rebuttal. At the moment, things are reversed. docboat (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if you are making the claim that "homeopathy" has some certain view on meta analysis, it would help you immeasurably to produce a link or a source to support that claim. Antelan ^talk 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote your statement above yes, "homeopathy's basic views on meta analyses" do exist. Do I really have to provide sources to support statements that you have made? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor indentation on my part. It was meant to be a reply to Orion's opening comment in this section. I wasn't aware that the field of homeopathy had adopted a notably unique view on meta-analysis. So no, I'm not asking you to provide the sources, but I would like to see them from Orion if he has them. Antelan ^talk 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats an evidence that you nave not studied the subject. This exists in Vythoulkas website which the article includes and also comments on his views. He has an article in wikipedia as well.

- http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html

I think there is some confusion on your part. Only one of those even treats the notion of meta-analysis. When it does so, it does not expound upon a homeopathic view of meta-analysis, it just says that the author thinks that a specific meta-analytic study was wrong. That is a far cry from a "homeopathic view on meta analysis," which you originally claimed existed, and about which I was interested. Antelan ^talk 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion, just as much as an opinion in the 18th century that watching live television from the other side of the world was "scientifically implausible". Arion (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If this encyclopedia were being written in the 1700s, it would be appropriate to reflect the majority view that viewing motion pictures on the other side of the world was implausible. Electromagnetic theory had not been developed yet. Maxwell wasn't even born yet. Likewise, since today homeopathy has become scientifically implausible, we reflect that here (it was not really more or less plausible than traditional medicine originally, but has become implausible with the advent of atomic theory, among other things). Antelan ^talk 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, will people please try not to break up comments with later insertions? It makes this very difficult to read and keep track of. If you think of something new to say, please consider saying it at the bottom of the thread. It really helps the rest of us keep track of who said what, and when. Antelan ^talk 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PLease dont revert without discussion. I added in the article the same sentence. If you disagree please explain why.--Orion4 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean positive. Try to learn that.--Filll (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means not writing the article in a way that favors one side over another in an issue in which there are two opinions. Try to learn that.

With the advent of modern physics and the ever-widening knowledge of molecular waves, homeopathy has become scientifically plausible. Arion (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saying it over and over does not make it true. I suspect you will not get consensus acceptance of your claims.

As I asked above, can you provide a reliable source on molecular waves?--Filll (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what Arion is saying here. Referencing a specific theory, pointing to a paper or a wikipedia article or something, would really be helpful. People say "quantum this", "wave that" all the time, but it really helps when someone can say, "OK, take the wavefunction for this particular 3D molecule. Now here is my interpretation." Or maybe, "I found this paper that disputes the evidence showing that water loses its 'memory' in picoseconds 50 femtoseconds [15]." That sort of stuff I could deal with. It's hard to deal with broad claims about the possibilities of quantum-sounding things when there is no math to back it up. Antelan ^talk 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any physics textbook will explain molecular waves. Molecular waves are what all matter is made up of, including your body and this entire planet. You are asking me to explain matter? A simple explanation is that all substance is made up of waves that at certain modes of expression function as particles. One understanding of the duality of particles and waves has developed from early expositions of de Broglie's theory of matter-waves, linear velocity and inertial momentum. Some wave functions are mass-bound and others mass-free: electrokinetic energy, thermokinetic energy, electromagnetic energy, mass-energy and ambipolar massfree energy. Arion (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which physics textbook is going to talk about "linear velocity" and "inertial momentum" {whatever those are)? Where should I look to find about mass bound and mass free wavefunctions? Where can I find out about wavefunctions for EM energy, mass energy ambipolar massfree energy and thermokinetic energy? Are these scalar wavefunctions? Vector? Tensor? Quaternion? Octonion?--Filll (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I can not do your physics education for you. You need to take the initiative yourself. I still have many patients waiting in the reception room for treatment tonight.

A simple explanation is that all substance is made up of waves that at certain modes of expression function as particles. Those wave identities ("patterns" or "signatures") are unique to each molecule, and when those molecules are grouped together in a substance such as calcium fluoride (Calcarea fluorica), there is a unique wave pattern that is present. Arion (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculously patronizing and completely hypocritical given all you have written above. You shouldn't treat people here as idiots. In fact, many here have Ph.D's in the very areas your are professing to lecture us on. Please. :eye rolling: David D. (Talk) 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to educate me in Physics. I already have a PhD in mathematical physics from one of the best Universities in the US, thanks. And I looked up some of those terms. Sorry they are related to orgone energy and the aether and are just in the realm of pseudoscience. Most of what you wrote was pure nonsense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of interesting (if sad) to watch someone flailing about with terms that they obviously don't understand in the slightest, trying to impress people who do understand them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting but annoying, he hasn't patronised me with pseudoscientific waffle about enzyme kinetics yet, so I'm beginning to feel that my field of expertise is being unfairly ignored. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting (if sad) to watch someone like Filll flailing about with terms that they obviously don't understand in the slightest, trying to impress people who do understand them with his "PhD in mathematical physics". Arion (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's suppose I am a complete moron and lying about my graduate degrees. Fair enough. Please show me a few peer-reviewed papers in Nature magazine, Science magazine or Physical Review that discuss ambipolar massfree energy wavefunctions. I would be most interested. Basically, pretend I am from Missouri, which has as a state motto, "Show me".--Filll (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bluster all you will but Fill sums it up best. "Pure nonsense, sorry". So far you have brought nothing to the table except buzz words. David D. (Talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you have not heard about how all enzymes are made up from fundamental enzymions? They are actually a form of tachonyium and capture the emitted karmic energy from people's emotional states. This is the hottest stuff. The rates of reactions are determined by the karmic energy gaps and the recombination of the enzymions causes the aether to pulse at a deep fundamental wave energy of the universe, connecting us all to the nether world and other universes in ohter dimensions. Did you not know?--Filll (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blusteritis seems to be going around. What is the best remedy for this condition? David D. (Talk) 03:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The approach used by Dobby the house elf -- beating oneself over the head with a teapot -- is looking better all the time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer those rubber chickens, they hurt less. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not want Tim to feel left out. But I would like to see us actually improve the English in the text, which still could stand some use. I am tempted to make a sandbox copy and edit there, since it is very hard to edit with the threat of POV warriors.-Filll (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ignore the lead and actually edit the article people tend to leave any improvements alone. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the lead

Adam removed the following contribution from Orion.

Homeopaths argue that "Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect." They contend that "the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."

First if these are quotes what are the citations? Second, this addition will lead to 'he says, she says', type editing where the whole flow of the text is interupted by counter points. If these points are to be made they should be as a note, in the main body of the article, or the whole section need to be adjusted so homepathic counter arguments are not interjected in the scientific arguments, IMO. For those who say this is unfair, go back and read how the intro looked only a few weeks ago. It was full of anti homeopathic interjections. Lets not now swing the other way. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the article are incomplete and biased.

I have to repeat myself: here are the citations http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm,

In an article (in the lead) about homeopathy you have to include homeopathy's basic views on evaluation of homeopathy - for instance.....about meta analyses.

Homeopaths have an opinion - let the reader to decide if their arguments are strong or not. It is a matter of NPOV to include them - otherwise the lead and the article is biased and mainly incomplete. If conventional and mainstream science has strong arguments - it ( conventional science ) has nothing to afraid of including the very basic homeopathic concepts. Otherwise it seems you are trying to hide basic and highly important homeopathic views fearing that you cannot answer them properly. The sensitive editor will include the above opinions -

Even BBC as you see above and Natural history museum organize debates on homeopathy and meta-analyses inviting both parties and giving equal time.!! These major orgenizations are not neutral??? Are BBC and Natural History museum biased?

David what are action are you taking if someone reverts without discussing ? if nothing then we could leave the talk page and start editing only.--Orion4 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you have to repeat yourself, I missed that section above, it appeared so fast and by the time I looked at it I was distracted by Arion's comments.

I don't understand why homeopathys basic views on evaluation of homeopathy have to be in the lead. At present the lead has three paragraphs. One gives a little history, one gives a description of what homoepathy is from a a homepaths view, the last from a scientific view. The debate should remain in the text of the article. If you extend the deabte in to the LEAD it will become unreadable. It was unreadable when the scientist POV was always interjecting, I have no doubt it will be the same if the homeopath POV is also interjecting. Why can't we just have two independant preambles to set the scene?

I agree this article should be sympathetic to the homeopathic POV and would actually argue that the state of modern homeopathy should be described uncluttered with scientific interjections. Clearly the scientic case should be presented too. My problem is when the He said, she said style predominates thorughout, especially in the LEAD, the article reads like a debate where everyone is shouting at the same time.

Adam should have started a discussion on the talk page to justify his revert. I don't know why he didn't. David D. (Talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, those sorts of quotes, properly sourced, do not belong in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed that, So much activity here today. That is why one of my options above was in the text (I've edited for clarity to "in the main body of the article"). I tend to agree with this. I like the way the current lead keeps the two arguments separate and instead sets the scene for the article. David D. (Talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Way I see it, Homeopaths just got two paragraphs largely criticism-free. We're now presenting the mainstream scientific opinion in the third paragraph, not the mainstream scientific opinion and facetious homeopathic objections. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t want a pro homeopathy article. Just state the facts and the truth and as much cited criticism as you wish - as long as you include the basic homeopathic principles.

No sympathetic approach is needed.

Since you refer to evaluation of Homeopathy in a paragraph (lead ) about homeopathy you must refer to its objections. Even in one or two sentences. This is the most basic homeopathic principle individualization of the therapy. There is nowhere in the lead and how this is connected with the evaluation of the therapy in a study.

The lead could have 4 paragraphs according to the rules. If it is a space problem the mainstream scientific point of view could “ take” one more paragraph and state whatever it wants.

Homeopathy ‘s objections and basic principles can fit in two sentences. Why so much………. fear?

If homeopathic objections are… facetious that will work in favour of conventional science. The fact you don’t want to include them next to homeopathic objections might mean that your arguments are not that strong. Otherwhise I m sure you would not mind --Orion4 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC

You say, "Just state the facts and the truth". That's exactly what I mean by sympathetic, we agree on this point. If you want to add the homeopathic principle individualization to the lead it should be in the second paragraph. I think you'll find more support for that location. I asked before but it got missed in the noise, where are the quotes from?

Fear? I think not, incremental progress more like; the first LEAD was far more lop sided before. What do you propose for the fourth?

That I don't want to include them next to homeopathic objections" is solely for stylistic reasons. A debate is not framed with each speaker rebutting every sentence. For the same reason this should not be done here. David D. (Talk) 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the principles of Wikipedia, as I understand it, the percentage of the article devoted to pro-homeopathy material should be roughly equal to the proportion of people in the relevant fields of science and medicine that have pro-homeopathy sentiments. Therefore, most of this article should have a skeptical tone. In my last evaluation, it was about 60% pro-homeopathy, not mainly skeptical. The LEAD must also follow these same proportions, roughly. and it is 2/3 or so pro-homeopathy. So I do not think homeopathy advocates have much to complain about.

Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE theory and therefore is treated as such in Wikipedia. Maybe in Conservapedia or some other wiki you can find different rules for dealing with homeopathy. You can investigate. Wikipedia has its rules. And we try to follow them.--Filll (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility among editors

I have participated on this Talk page for the last 24 hours. In that time I have been on the receiving end of rudeness, belittling, and mocking laughter at my comments given in response to questions.

The use of derogatory terms like "ridiculously patronizing and completely hypocritical" is not what is expected of Wikipedia editors (see Wikipedia:Civility). I would also like to caution all of us to remain careful not to engage in wording that might be construed as personal attacks, even if unintentional. We should not assume that someone has an "agenda", but instead assume that each editor is a sincere individual who is attempting, in good faith, to assist in the editing of an article to improve it to the highest standards of academic excellence. Arion (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You were. You have been asked many times to offer citations for your claims. You have given us arguments from authority with nothing to back it up. Why are you not citing references and suggesting changes to the text? The irony is on mutliple occassions above I have agreed that the article is POV in many places and that homeopathy should be given a voice in this article. Give us somthing to work with and maybe you'll get a warmer reception. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given you something to work with. I have repeatedly pointed out that the introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion that does not belong in an encylopedia entry on homeopathy. You can cite a reference for a quote of that nature by someone in the Medical criticism section, but you can not state an affirmative statement like that in the article since that would be considered a non-neutral point of view (WP:POV) and "original research" (WP:OR). Arion (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the scientific perspective. Why would it not be from the scientific point of view? This has been addressed above. Would you rather it looked like this? That version was less than a month ago. David D. (Talk) 06:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Things work here by compromise. We work together, and things get done. If homeopaths are unable or unwilling to learn the rules of Wikipedia and the reason that we write things the way we do, then they will find they have some difficulty. When I am confronting a haughty attitude from pseudoscientists, things are not going to go in a positive direction. --Filll (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your concept that the "rules of Wikipedia" allow for insulting other Wikipedia editors is unacceptable. To accuse other editors of being "pseudoscientists" and having a "haughty attitude" is outrageous. Arion (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to reign yourself in. Many places above people who are arguing to turn this into a noncritical article praising the advantages of homeopathy have tried to goad others into fights or baited them. If you want civility, you have to give civility. Otherwise, things deteriorate. If you really want to help improve the article, please try to provide peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals for your claims. And sorry, but orgone and the aether are part of pseudoscience. This does not mean they might not be true, but so far there is no scientific evidence for them. So they are pseudoscience. Like homeopathy. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• You are the only one bringing up "orgone" and "aether". I never did.

• The Wikipedia rules are very clear. An article on a particular subject must be presented from a neutral point of view. Therefore, this article can not be presented as an article promoting homeopathy as legitimate, nor as an article condemning it as a fraudulent "pseudoscience".

• The labeling with the term "pseudoscience" of anything that is not accepted or understood by someone has no place in an editor of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Using the term "pseudoscience" is a deliberate act to diminish and degrade the valie of that subject. That can be done in a specialist publication article, but not in an encylopedia. The subject of an article needs to be described from the standpoint of a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Opposing points of view can be included in a subsection dealing with criticism. Arion (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Look at intelligent design for an article that has been widely acknowledged to be a balanced, NPOV article (except by those trying to promote intelligent design). Look in a mainstream accepted scientific theory like evolution, another article thought to be among the best on Wikipedia and NPOV; how much in there do you see about creationism and intelligent design and the controversy, which is immense in the United States? Almost nothing, because creationism and intelligent design are WP:FRINGE theories. These should be viewed as models for homeopathy. Try to understand first before you throw mud. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why I don't participate on talk pages. You get frustrating discussions like this. We have an editor that does not understand anything about how articles are written. The fact is there is precious little (I'm being nice, because there is really none) that support Homeopathy. It has been described as a pseudoscience. It is a fringe theory of medicine which harms people. And the science is lacking. It is funny, but there is no difference between the argument of Creationism and this so-called Alternative medicine. Claim science is wrong, doesn't work for them, whatever. And believe in faith. Amusing. By the way Arion, you're potentially misinterpreting NPOV. Opposing POV (which it is not) does not have to be represented in an article if it cannot be verified, etc. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again I am accosted with charges that I "do not understand how Wikipedia works" and that I am someone who "does not understand anything about how articles are written".

• I am here to inform you that I do understand how Wikipedia works and that I do understand how articles are written.

• It appears that both of you forgot the Wikepedia guidelines listed at the top of this very page: Be polite. Assume good faith. No personal attacks. Be welcoming. No original research. Neutral point of view. Verifiability.

• As for verifiability, that does not mean that someone may appoint themselves as spokeman for scientific truth, and a judge of what is "pseudoscience", and have the right to proclaim that bias in the text of the article. Verifiable in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. When an encyclopedia entry is about a particular therapy such as homeopathy, verifiability refers to getting the facts correct as to what that therapeutic approach consists of, its history, and a separate section on criticism, with reliable sources cited. However the article itself may not take sides. Otherwise the article is no longer an encyclopedia entry on homeopathy, but is an anti-homeopathy article that clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Arion (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Make some actionable suggestions. Antelan ^talk 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, pretend I am from Missouri.--Filll (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Missouri eh? Hey Fill, how 'yall soya co'mn awn? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned?

Should it be mentioned that Homeopathic remedies can be shown to be helpful for treating dehydration? --Puellanivis (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume your point is that they're (nearly) pure water? It seems a bit silly, even by the standards of homeopathy, but if you have a reliable source that makes the case go ahead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they would supply enough water to be useful at standard doses. Plus this would be prohibitively expensive (unless of course you diluted the remedies in water). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In most cases of dehydration severe enough to require treatment, water would be a poor choice of therapy, and electrolytes are needed. So even in this case, homeopathic remedies are too dilute to be effective. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points over all... Thinking about it now seriously, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even do that. Although, the homeopathic remedy for dehydration would have to be something that "causes dehydration", like perhaps... salt. If it's reasonably concentrated then it would be a reasonable homoepathic remedy... although they'd probably go overboard with the dilution. Plus, again, the cost of doing all that dilution, etc, would likely make it much more expensive than buying a Gatorade. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking that they would take water and dilute it serially with water until there was no water left, and only the karmic life-energy waves of the water were left in the water. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Here are my suggestions to improve the article:

(1) The second introductory paragraph of this article has a sentence that gives an incorrect description of why homeopathic remedies are prepared in the way that they are.

The sentence states:

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.

It should say:

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe transfers into the dilutant characteristics from the original substance that act as a catalyst to evoke a healing response in the patient - even where no molecules of the original substance remain.

(2) The third introductory paragraph should be placed in the section "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism"

(3) The language of that third introductory paragraph needs to be corrected to Wikipedia standards of NPOV. Here is my suggestion for slightly modifying the wording so that it does not appear that it is the article or Wikipedia that is making the criticism:

Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. They conclude that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies. Lack of evidence supporting its efficacy has caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. A recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of a placebo. Medical critics also accuse homeopaths of giving "false hope" to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs and prefer to use homeopathic remedies in their place.

(4) The placing of the Category:Fraud on this article needs to be removed.

(5) The wording in the "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism" section could be modified in this way in order to convey the same information from a neutral POV:

Critics state that homeopathy has not been supported by modern scientific research. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient (no atoms, ions or molecules) in the final product. The idea that any biological effects could be produced by these preparations is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. The proposed rationale for these extreme dilutions - that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient - is also counter to the currently accepted laws of chemistry and physics. Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect, where the patients subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the power of suggestion, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. Critics cite the lack of viable scientific studies for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies as evidence that they are not effective and that any positive effects are due to the placebo effect. Critics also contend that homeopathy is inherently dangerous because it deters patients from getting conventional medical treatment.

"High dilutions"

The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy have been a major point of criticism. Homeopaths believe that the methodical dilution of a substance, beginning with a 10% or lower solution and working downwards, with shaking after each dilution, produces a therapeutically active "remedy", in contrast to therapeutically inert water. However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy. Since even the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds, critics have concluded that any effect that might have been present from the original substance can no longer exist.

Homeopathy contends that higher dilutions (fewer potential molecules in each dose), combined with forceful shaking, result in stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body. This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in thousands of experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats and humans.

I would request the comments of the other editors so that we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Arion (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point #2, the purpose of the intro is to summarize, so that's not going to fly. We've discussed this and point #3 already. With regards to #4, categorization is not the same as labeling for the label's sake. #5 requires a more thorough reading so I'll take time before commenting on that. Antelan ^talk 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

#5 has a strong bias towards presuming that science is about to be overturned by homeopathy, and #1 doesn't seem to match the sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The correction in the wording for #1 as to what reason is given for serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, is the correct one. After studying homeopathy since the 1960s, I clearly understand homeopathic principles and practice. Arion (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first is a paraphrase og Hahnemann. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but POV suggestions. BTW, critics suggest nothing, Scientists state that homeopathy is nothing but junk science. The rest of it, just POV. Let's move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arion in general. It is more neutral. --Orion4 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The critics are those so-called scientists who have one opinion against homeopathy. There are numerous research studies by other scientists that validate various aspects of homeopathy. Arion (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these already cited in the article? If not do you have the citations? With regard to the critics, are they criticising homeopathy or are they criticising the fact that "extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient". I thnk it is safe to say scientists if the latter, homeopathy itself is incidental to such criticism. David D. (Talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

pov

Summarizing: Parts of the article are seriously biased intentionally or unintentionally. All meta analyses state that the results in homeopathy are promising or positive but not convincing and/ or sufficient. Only the last meta analysis states that homeopathy effects are placebo effects which has been criticized in debates (natural history museum, articles in major or notable publications, BBC.)

All the above and basic Homeopathies principles and objections on evaluation methods (even external links with debates on homeopathy organized by organizations like the natural history museum) have been REMOVED or excluded using facetious excuses. Including the basic homeopathic ideas, which really need just one paragraph to be presented in the lead and in the body in an article ABOUT homeopathy, is an obvious obligation of a sensitive and objective editor. There is not excuse for not doing that.

None of the above as I said is included in the article or the lead. Some of the editors (more or less) intend to include only information that “shows” that homeopathy is just a pseudoscience. Since the sources don’t support exactly that, they have changed its conclusions when they sources phrasing don’t comply with their ideas. Again look at the studies

There are studies showing positive results which are not even reported (and of course properly criticized ).

I intend to put the under dispute flag.

If there is any objective administrator ( I have noticed that they do exist ) watching he/she will recognize that there 2 opinions in this forum. Therefore he will protect the article AND the under dispute flag until a consensus can be reached.

This is the only fair and effective way to discuss.

The discussion does not lead anywhere that way - I assure you. --Orion4 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV disputes must be over whether the article adequately presents authoritative viewpoints with appropriate emphasis, not over whether the article reflects opinions in this forum. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not exist here. Please read above why.--74.66.227.35 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to login. Not doing so gives the impression that there is more support for your viewpoint than there really is. If you are actually an anonymous editor, disregard this. Antelan ^talk 02:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

Regarding the often controversial clinical studies homeopaths argue that "Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect." They believe that "the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology." has been reverted twice. First by Orangemarlin who used the wrong reasons for reverting it, secondly by Antelan, whose reasons hold more water. But how, I ask you, is the wording misleading? Where is it factually wrong? Is this not a standard understanding amongst homeopaths? Does it not deserve a place in the article? You might argue that the wording is poorly constructed, uses style to less effect, but that is an issue of copyediting. Comments? docboat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the phrasing is misleading. It suggests that orthodox medicine is somehow incapable of giving remedies for the totalities of a patient's symptoms. It is untrue, and overly sympathetic to a fringe viewpoint. Hence, misleading. Antelan ^talk 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That homeopathy "is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology" is quite simply irrelevant to the issue of whether double blind studies can assess its effectiveness. It's handwaving, not a logical objection.- Nunh-huh 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see your point, but the issue has been addressed earlier. Take 1000 cases of sore throat to be a randomised double blind etc etc trial. That is a valid trial of - say - a pastille to treat sore throats. But a homeopath would see 1000 sore throats as 1000 different illnesses, not one. There may be 100 different remedies for these patients. The trial is not valid. docboat (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That trial is not valid, but a double-blind study in which homeopaths prescribe their different remedies for each patient is valid. Individualized remedies are, quite simply, subject to valid scientific testing, and to suggest otherwise is deceptive. - Nunh-huh 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see where you are coming from, Antelan. But you are actually wrong. Let me explain. As a medical doctor, I am trained to elicit symptoms - these fit into a pattern (diagnosis, more like a list of differential diagnoses) which are then treated. Say "common cold" with sore throat, cough and runny nose. Then you get medication to contain the symptoms (or suppress them, as a homeopath would say) such as NSAID, pseudoephedrine and cough mixture. A classical homeopath would look to the very explicit symptoms of the totality of this illness experience, and search out that ONE remedy. Now, the differential diagnosis list for a sore throat and cold might include leukaemia. (Not an exaggeration, just very uncommon for people presenting with a sore throat) A medical doctor would notice something was wrong later on, say after a blood film. So then we get to the (the one and only) diagnosis, and treatment can begin again. A homeopath has gne down that road much earlier, because of the need to "individualise" the case. Of course, I am not saying you should treat leukaemia with hoeopathy, BUT the statement reverted above is quite accurate. It makes no reference to allopathic medicine, and is completely NPOV. Comments? docboat (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes explicit reference to "conventional medicine," it is written from a homeopathic POV, I think your comments regarding leukemia are very telling, and I disagree with your view of what you claim is your profession. When you prescribe antibiotics, you are treating the underlying condition, which then resolves all symptoms. Antelan ^talk 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, you really need to get things in perspective on this. BTW I am an allopathic doctor and not a homeopath, and have been a medical doctor for 28 years. So, while I can understand your difficulty in understanding things from my perspective, you need to take a step back from claiming to understand medicine more than I do. My comments regarding leukaemia - and your inability to understand what I wrote about it - is also very revealing. As a matter of fact, I have come across leukaemia masquerading as a sore throat, so again, take a step back. I - unlike yourself, I suspect - am at the coalface in medicine, and deal with these issues in a practical manner with living people - not in theory, as many of the contributors here. Now as for your statement about using antibiotics to treat the underlying condition. Beep. False. Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria, or stop them growing. The underlying condition for an infection is NOT the bacteria, but the condition which allowed the bacteria to proliferate in the first place. It is, in fact, a question of immune competence, including social factors, financial status, housing conditions, presence of intercurrent illness or other conditions - but why I am teaching you microbiology 101? Back to the issue. Re-read what I wrote, and think about it a while. docboat (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

you have to include homeopathys point of view in an article about homeopathy. Thats basic. YOu could add crtitism. but you cannot exclude it otherwhise the article is POV biased and incomplete. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)thats was orion4 Iforgot to log in--Orion4 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The homeopathic view of epidemiology & statistics, which is a multidisciplinary field used and accepted by most walks of science, may be notable. But I've already asked for a source that demonstrates homeopathy's view of clinical trials. Someone provided us with a source that demonstrated that homeopaths indeed do accept and even reference favorable trials. This is a spurious request. Antelan ^talk 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully. I provided everyithing several times yesterday. --Orion4 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and those sources support my statement above. None of the sources you provided suggest that major homeopathic organizations believe that homeopathy cannot be studied with clinical trials, and indeed one of the sources discusses homeopathic trials. Antelan ^talk 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself: here are the citations http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm, - - BBC is good enough as I said. Vithoulkas is a valid source thats why it is included in the article. --Orion4 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These senteces are taken from the above sources. Read , please --Orion4 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These principles are documented and they are basic. The first info an objective editor learns about homeooathy is this. Basic. Really. Any administrator to modarete?--Orion4 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the objective administrators are not here today. Point made.--Orion4 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's, perhaps, a little hard for me to be neutral about Vitholkas, given he organised a campaign of meatpuppets to attack Wikipedia and me early on in my involvement with this subject. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate my point, the BBC article quotes someone from a homeopathic organiziation claiming that studies show homeopathy is more effective than placebo. In other words, homeopaths accept the notion that their field can be studied with scientific trials. The same person went on to say that they don't think double blind studies work for homeopathy. Again, if the field really doesn't believe that the most highly valued aspects of evidence-based research apply to their field, that's probably notable. Wording it appropriately is, of course, important. Antelan ^talk 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's change to lead

His edit summary was "...Trim this sentence to the parts that don't read like an advertisements. everthing "advancing" and "popular""

He then removed the following text:

"His early work was advanced by later homeopaths such as James Tyler Kent, but Hahnemann's most famous textbook" [16]

I want a better explanation for this than the edit summary above, which I disagree with. Where is popular even mentioned and why is it not possible to mention other pioneers in the art of homeopathy? Of course they were advancing homoeopathy whether you disagree with homeopathy or not. Let's not let this lead slip back into the anit-hoemopathy mess it was before. David D. (Talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when he said "popular" he meant "most famous", which is not an unreasonable mistake to make. "Advanced" is a slanted term, and alternative rewordings could have been chosen. Antelan ^talk 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's no justification for removing the whole sentence. David D. (Talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to think of why talk about Kent and such is relevant in the lead, which is, after all, a summary. It seemed a diverson from the main point, that Hahnemann was the founder, and his work is still considered important. Given how much Hahnemann is quoted and cited, that's the key fact. (and, yes, famous, not popular). Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, both are clear. I think you need to readjust your POV meter. David D. (Talk) 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, well. I do trust your judgement, so do what you think best. Just seemed a bit WP:PEACOCKy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rewrite it to be less peacocky rather than deleting the info. See what you think when I've done it. I don't have time righ now. David D. (Talk) 13:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph

The "system of similars" emphasized in homeopathy was first described by doctors of the vitalist school of medicine, including the controversial Renaissance physician Paracelsus. Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced medicine based on beliefs resembling those of Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

This is, simply, an unreadable mess, and the article's better without it until we can fix it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fewer clauses would be good, but this, if true, would be useful in the history section. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying the information shouldn't be there, just that it was the first paragraph after the lead, and it is a mess of clauses. It's probably more useful to the reader to let him know that most of the article is readable, than to have this information in, but lose 95% of our readers immediately after the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence is readable, but not perfect. If you wish to remove items of importance because of style and grammar, you might as well remove the whole article. It also assumes you feel that readers of Wikipedia are incapable of reading at an adult level. I would be careful about these assumptions, and feel you should re-insert the material. Unless, of course, you have even better reasons for removing them? docboat (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The vitalist school of medicine, cites the "system of similars". Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced medicine based on beliefs resembling those of Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Would this work better? docboat (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: Prior to the development of homeopathy, Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown practiced based on the vitalist school of medicine. Samuel Hahnemann, who is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, practiced based on similar beliefs. Antelan ^talk 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit like trivia when phrased like that. Can we get an introductory sentence of some sort, or suggest where it would go? Also "credited with the creation of modern homeopathy" seems a very strange way of describing someone almost universally referred to as the founder of homeopathy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All good points. I'll try once more, keeping the trivia but rearranging so that it flows more naturally (Introduce homeopathy, and then mention that it does have a precursor). How about:

Samuel Hahnemann is credited with the creation of modern homeopathy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. His practice was based on beliefs similar to those of the vitalist school of medicine, as practiced by Austrian physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown. Antelan ^talk 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we should mention Paracelsus? I don't know, I'll have a look after tomorrow's exam. It certainly reads better now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference bunching in introduction

So this keeps getting reverted, apparently because Orangemarlin thinks I'm pro-homeopathy. This isn't the case; introductions are summaries of the article, and we should be actively working to remove unique references in the intro and push them into the article body. There's no real requirement for <ref> tags in the intro at all. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To be completely fair to OM, I think you're actually accusing the wrong guy. It was wikidudeman wayback who insisted on having refs in the lead. Peter morrell 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe OM previously agreed with me that there shouldn't be refs there; the problem here is that somewhere down the line it's been assumed that I'm removing the duplicate tags for the sake of hiding the information, which isn't the case. Anyway, the point is that if we're going to discuss the issue it needs to be clear to everyone that there's no ideological conflict here. The series of reverts indicates a bit of a siege mentality at the moment. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying. Am not sure precisely what you mean by 'siege mentality' but there do seem to have recently been many small edits and then big reverts every single night. This becomes a bit defeating after a time and must, I would guess, deter a lot of people from making any edits at all, or even contributing to talk. How can this be resolved into a more desirably, friendly and good faith atmosphere? do you think? thanks Peter morrell 11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By "siege mentality" I mean that there's a very defensive attitude about the article at the moment, and too much reverting based on the perception of POV on behalf of contributors. A large part of the problem is that the talk page:

1. is incredibly fast-moving;
2. is huge (for that reason); and
3. constantly returns to large-scale ideology wars.

I'm trying to correct this myself by rapidly archiving spats of unproductive conversation when it runs out of steam (to prevent new editors from reawakening unproductive threads). I hope to archive another chunk soon, which will hopefully bring this down to a rational length for the first time in a while. The onus is on individual contributors to try to keep the scope of individual comment threads manageable. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for stating your view of this problem. There is a defensive attitude but the article is no nearer to NPOV, and there is no consensus, and there is a hostile atmosphere: what you call ideology wars. I disagree however FWIW that this has much to do with the length of the talk page or that it is fast moving. I do not see cause and effect in what you say. My perception of the problem is that there is nothing happening for a time then sudden big changes (usually deletions) and then edit war until a sort of stability resumes. This has been the dominant pattern since about September. Most what you might call 'pro-homeopathy folks' have abandoned the article long ago as they have been scared off (?) by all the reverting going on. This reverting gives the strong impression that the 'anti-homeopathy folks' own and control this article. How you reach a more neutral and less hostile ground I just don't know, but there is my ten penn'orth FWIW Peter morrell 12:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually raised the exact same issue three weeks ago and it generated only a single response from another editor prior to archival yesterday (which is part of the reason I've had to raise it again) while being buried under other threads. That's why I think the nature of current discussion is partially to blame. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you researched the issue a little, you would realize the reason the talk page moves very fast is because of 2 or 3 pro-homeopathy "trolls" who are extremely angry and combative. I suspect they might even be socks of previously banned editors who did the same thing and were banned for it. The real authors and contributors do not bother to do much to the article or to contribute much to the talk page since the POV warriors are on the talk page raving and ranting and attacking the article. They basically "OWN" the article and its talk page and they engage in ideological warfare and writing angry senseless tracts ignoring all the principles and rules of WP, although so far we have managed to keep the article from changing too drastically. If you read the text of these POV warriors, you will see they do not want ANY material against homeopathy in the article. Period. They do not want the medical opinion or the scientific view. But this is against WP guidelines. So their efforts get reverted, as we try to keep the article which was a careful compromise from being destroyed and turned into advertising.

In contentious and controversial articles, almost every word has to be referenced. Sometimes multiple times. Even in the LEAD. Take a look at intelligent design if you want another example. It might look ugly, but this is reality on controversial articles on Wikipedia, and homeopathy is certainly a controversial subject. If you do not overcite and over reference the article, the article will not survive. Without these sorts of references, we might as well put the article up for AfD right now and be done with this nonsense. I do not think you have any experience dealing with controversial issues here on Wikipedia. If you did, you would understand why these reference cites in the LEAD are necessary and even vital.--Filll (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the comments on my character, WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section says that cites in the lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure whether your comment about "almost every word" having to be referenced was hyperbole or not (honestly, I'm having a difficult time telling where hyperbole stops when it comes to this article), but that would seem to be a pretty extreme interpretation of said rule and I only wanted to discuss it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The citations are necessary to attribute and support the statements, this is one of the few ways of bringing at least some stability to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But all of them? A three-paragraph lead with sixteen or seventeen <ref> tags? We're not meant to be writing exclusively for the sake of people who don't read past the intro. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is on such a controversial subject it probably needs to have 50 references cited in the LEAD. This is not the place to fight this battle. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. (for that matter, I disagree that homeopathy is any more "controversial" than astrology at this point in time, but that's another matter.) It's certainly worth further discussion, as opposed to simple repetition of the supposed fact that the article will suffer a Terrible Unspecified Fate if it doesn't[1][2][3][4][5] have[6][7] this kind[7][8][9] of referencing spamming[10][11][12] the lead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fraud" category is inappropriate for this article

I removed the inappropriate "Fraud" category at the bottom of the Homeopathy article. This was reverted by OrangeMarlin. Placing this article into such a category not justified by any standards of fairness or neutrality. Arion (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on this when you made a note about it above. You didn't reply to my comment above. Antelan ^talk 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate "Fraud" category at the bottom of the Homeopathy article. Placing this article into such a category is contrary to all standards of fairness or neutrality. The mind set that placed this category here is symptomatic of the anti-homeopathy bias that is being forced on this article by those who think they have ownership of this article. (see WP:OWN) Arion (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Consumer fraud might be better, since this already contains things like water-to-gasoline pills. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but to be a fraud, do the people perpetrating it have to know it is fake?--Filll (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. However, I don't think this category does apply, since the OED defines fraud as "Criminal deception; the using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage or to injure the rights or interests of another." Since homeopathy isn't criminal, I don't think it can be classified as a simple fraud. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is hard to prove homeopathy is a fraud. What about the conmen ministers? For example, Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, does their existence mean that the article Christianity should be labelled fraud? David D. (Talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With regards to categories, I was initially in support of keeping the "fraud" tag because WP:Categorization tells us that Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. On the other hand, the guideline also tells us "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article." At this point, I don't think that the Category:Fraud tag is best for this article. Antelan ^talk 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecxe^(pi*i))Arion's incessant soapboxing aside, Category:Fraud may not be a good choice for this article. Who was it that said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity"? I'm willing to assume a modicum of good faith with respect to the founding fathers of homeopathy, due to the horrific state of conventional medicine at the time, but the modern practitioners do verge into fraud territory IMO. Maybe something more nuanced is called for. I bet we can, however, find some good sources that will allow us to use Category:Consumer fraud instead. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also often rely on Hanlon's razor.--Filll (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Steps to restore NPOV to the Homeopathy article

1. The article should not make unsourced biased statements against homeopathy within the main text of the article. Criticisms can be cited, with proper references, within a section titled "Medical and scientific criticism"
2. The article should have a section titled "Medical and scientific support", where support for homeopathy can be cited, with proper references.

If you read the text of those who want this to be a biased anti-homeopathy article, you will see they do not want ANY material supporting homeopathy in the article. They only want the medical opinion or the scientific view that supports their bias. They do not want the medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy. This is clearly against WP:NPOV guidelines. Arion (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that people who believe it works will give strong testimonials. But cause and effect of the actual remedies are not well established, at least in the objective literature i have read (by objective i mean throw out the outliers from both extremes). This explains why the weight of the argument is against homeopathy in the medical/science sections. What do you consider the most convincing evidence that the diluted remedies are the direct cause of homepathies success? David D. (Talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first thing that needs to be understood is that homeopathic remedies are not simply diluted substances. They are produced through a series of steps, along with the dilution, involving "succusion" or a forceful shaking / agitation process. Simply diluting a substance does not produce a homeopathic remedy.

• No one is advocating placing "testimonials" as a counter to medical opinions or the scientific views. The medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy needs to be be represented in this article in a separate section, just as the views opposing homeopathy need to be in their separate section. That is how an article is written according to NPOV. This is not a website for promoting a biased view for or against any particular therapeutic method. Arion (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good articles are not written as "he-said-she-said" points and counterpoints. Nor are good arguments based on vague rhetoric. Any inclusion of such "views" must be accompanied, nay, preceeded by acceptable, reliable sources. So go find some sources rather than arguing based on some vague sense of "fairness" which isn't supported by policy. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does deal with the "succusion" that is done. However, you will note that in the scientific sections, it states that 1) because of the dilution, regardless of how much it is aggitated, it would be an extremely rare chance that even one molecule of the original material would remain, and 2) that any structures created by water dissappate in picoseconds, thus water cannot hold any properties caused by or from the original material from a scientific standpoint. From a bottom up approach, there's nothing that homeopathy could be, but simply diluted water. If you find studies that support that homeopathy does work statistically better than a known placebo, then you will still be faced with explaining how those results are consistent with reality. It would require definitely something entirely outside of science to make it work. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho, hum. Another person mistaking Neutral Point of View for Sympathetic Point Of View. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral Point of View" means exactly what the words mean. It is neither "Sympathetic Point Of View" nor "Biased Point of View". It is that simple. It appears WP:NPOV needs to be read by some of the people writing comments on this page. Arion (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely unconvincing and uncompelling. WP is not about fairness. It follows its principles. If you want something different, change the principles.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you may want to reread the Wikipedia:NPOV policy specifically WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Because there's a part right here:

Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

NPOV doesn't mean that we have to ignore reality, and present viewpoints based on a science that is not credible or verifiable. NPOV is there to ensure that contraversial topics get treated fairly, not as a club with which to beat people to promote your viewpoint. On the other hand, there's always the WP:IAR argument. I apologize for this comment, I never intended it to be public, because I realized that it is inflammatory. Quirks of technology, and unintended events do now absolve me of my words. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) Wikipedia policy is not a vague sense of "fairness" (as someone commented above) - it is very clear and precise neutrality. Anyone who has worked on general reference works, such as encyclopedias other than Wikipedia, knows that the article has to be written from a point of view that does not reveal the personal bias or belief of the writer.

The repeated arguing against neutrality in this article is revealing. We should be working on reaching a consensus, as I attempted to do a few days ago, instead of arguing to maintain this article as an anti-homeopathy article. Arion (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confused. It is neutral. It is not an anti-homeopathy article. Last I checked, it was 60% pro-homeopathy. That is more than half. And by the rules of WP, it can even be 90% or even 99% antihomeopathy since homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE part of medicine and science. So try to learn a bit about Wikipedia and its principles. There are many other wikis which have other rules. Try Conservapedia or Wikinfo. If you want more suggestions, I will be glad to give them to you. You can write the positive article possible about homeopathy and put it on those wikis. But Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of article. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the issue is one of reliable sources. One side has them in such an abundance that the references section, even in three columns, is over a page long. The other is dependent on talk page rhetoric. The latter is of little value on WP without the former. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. Demeaning comments from Filll like "You are confused." and "So try to learn a bit about Wikipedia and its principles." have no place in discussions among editors. You only expose your apparent lack of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules. Also, labeling homeopathy "fringe" or a "pseudoscience" will not exempt you from the requirement to follow the WP:NPOV rules. Sorry.

The comment by Chris Cunningham that those advocating neutrality in the article are "dependent on talk page rhetoric" is not helpful, since I have spent a large amount of time reviewing what has been going on with this article in the past. I have seen changes that were meant to improve the quality of the article immediately reverted. A few days ago, I suggested very specific changes to the non-neutral language used in the third leading paragraph, and to the non-neutral language in other parts of the article.

As for scientific studies, Chris Cunningham wrote that "One side has them in such an abundance . . . " - and that is my very point. There is no balanced presentation of the scientific studies supporting homeopathy. The medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy needs to be be represented in this article in a separate section, just as the views opposing homeopathy need to be in their separate section. Arion (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The post starts with an admonition to stop with the personal attacks, but then it transitions to making some against Filll... You may want to reword that for credibility's sake. Now regarding some other points: the reason that people reference homeopathy's fringe status is not that they think this exempts them from NPOV; it's quit the opposite. NPOV has specific guidelines for dealing with fringe subjects. Let me also offer you this advice: if you want to make changes that are met with resistance, provide not only a reasoning that the changes should be made, but also a reliable source that says what you want to say. This puts you in the best position for negotiating edits that you prefer. Antelan ^talk 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I made no personal attack against Filll. I pointed out his personal attacks against me "have no place in discussions among editors." Continuing to use these attacks - and attacks against homeopathy as "fringe" & "pseudoscience" - is an unacceptable way of trying to avoid the very clear Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV.

Again, best to just quote your own words: "You only expose your apparent lack of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules." --Puellanivis (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now let's get on with improving this article from the current anti-homeopathy tone to a neutral un-biased article according to Wikipedia and generally agreed upon academic standards for a reference encyclopedia.

And after we do that, we get on with improving the flat earth article from its current anti-flat earth tone to a neutral un-biased article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparing "fringe" nonsense with the science of homeopathy is not helpful in our effort to improve the quality of this article. Arion (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to gently suggest that implying that

my statements

"You are confused." and "So try to learn a bit about Wikipedia and its principles."

are evidence of personal attacks against someone here on this page are a violation of WP:AGF. Please, I mean no offense. I just want you to educate yourself so you can function here effectively on this talk page and not run afoul of the rules.--Filll (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Insulting another editor by calling him "confused" and less aware of Wikipedia principles that you are is offensive, and would be offensive to any other editor posting on this page. Arion (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to just quote your exact words. "It appears WP:NPOV needs to be read by some of the people writing comments on this page. Arion (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)" --Puellanivis (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

For starters, as I pointed out several days ago, the second paragraph gives an incorrect explanation as to why homeopathic remedies are prepared in the way that they are - from the homeopathic profession's perspective. Any homeopathic textbook will explain this, yet I was immediately resisted in making my suggested correction. Arion (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, I believe it's a paraphrase of Hahnemann. Provide a reference, don't expect others to do it for you. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what is 'wrong' with the second para? It was written carefully sometime back and seems adequate to me. It can be tweaked slightly like most things, but in broad terms it seems correct. Part of it is indeed a paraphrase of Hahnemann as Adam says. Please specify how you want it improved? thanks Peter morrell 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised second paragraph: Homeopathic remedies are derived from substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat.[5] Remedies are prepared by taking substances through a series of dilutions with shaking after each.[6] Homeopaths believe that the combination of dilution and shaking removes side-effects while activating therapeutic powers, even past the point where, mathematically, no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain. According to Hahnemann, homeopathy "develops for its use, to a hitherto unheard-of degree, the spirit-like medicinal powers of the crude substances... whereby they all become penetratingly efficacious and remedial, even those that in the crude state give no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body."[7] The therapeutic applications of the remedies used in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, and practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores both the physical and psychological state of the patient. is that better or acceptable? any comments? Peter morrell 09:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes can be seen in this diff. This looks like an improved version look to me. David D. (Talk) 10:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A few minor quibbles - I think it's easier to understand if we say something like "the substances then undergo a series of dilutions, with shaking after eah, which homeopaths believe removes side-effects while retaining their therapeutic powers, even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. I think the word 'succussion' should appear in it somewhere. I have revised the para above accordingly. see if you think it is now any better. Peter morrell 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I tweeked a bit more. David D. (Talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also tweaked. I think it's probably best to save succussion for later - parenthetical comments are frowned upon.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem is it is not the 'shaking' that reduces the side-effects, it is the diluting. When it settles into a good shape, please feel free to implement it. thanks Peter morrell 18:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that makes perfect sense, so, in brief, what is the role of the shaking? Should that be mentioned? I tweeked a bit more above referring to combination since I'm assuming they are both important for the whole. David D. (Talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK here is what Dudgeon says: "By trituration and succussion, he says, the medicinal power of medicines may be increased almost to an infinite degree. Hence we are warned against succussing our succussive dilutions over-much." [Robert E Dudgeon, 1853, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, London, p.346]

"Whilst in the earlier periods of the growth of his system he merely tells us to shake the bottle, to shake it strongly - to shake it for a minute or longer - he afterwards tells us that much shaking increases the power of the medicine to a dangerous extent, and therefore only two shakes must be used for each dilution. Latterly, however, he again loses his dread of shaking, and after once more appointing ten shakes for each dilution as the standard, he becomes more liberal and allows twenty, fifty, or more shakes, and half a dozen shakes to the bottle before each dose of the medicinal solution. Again, whereas in one place he says that the shaking is the only agent in the dynamization...in another he alleges that dilution is essential to the dynamizing effect of succussion, and that all the rubbing and shaking in the world will not dynamize an undiluted substance." [Dudgeon, pp.349-50] As I said, implement the revised version when agreement has been reached. Peter morrell 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, speaking as a skeptic of homeopathy (ok, outright disbeliever) the sentence providing the quote could be taken to be a "so-called" quote instead of an actual quote. Particularly because we move from talking about the realm of reality, and switch to the spirit world at the same time as the quote begins. We could lengthen the quote, or something... but the reality -> spirit world split shouldn't be marked by quotes... again, as a disbeliever I feel that it speaks directly the same way that I feel, and I can honestly say that it doesn't appear to be a quote to me, but rather a "so-called" quote. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the "so called quote" term you use. Surely, if it's in quotation marks and cites his book it is a quote. Can you give an example of a so-called quote. Sorry for being dumb here. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not bad to be confused, it's perfectly normal. :) You just ask for clarification just like you did. I mean "so-called" quotes, in the way that they're used in this sentence: Then I looked at his "car", it didn't even have any wheels! Um.. you know on second thought, I think wikipedia can explain it better: Quotation mark#Irony and Quotation mark#Signaling_unusual_usage are probably way better discriptions than I could provide. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand, that thought had not even passed my mind due to the context. Isn't that usage more reserved for conversational type passages. This is encyclopedic and I agree with Tim below, misinterpretation seems unlikely in this context. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a real quote. Here is the full quote: "The homoeopathic system of medicine develops for its use, to a hitherto unheard-of degree, the spirit-like medicinal powers of the crude substances by means of a process peculiar to it and which has hitherto never been tried, whereby only they all become penetratingly efficacious and remedial, even those that in the crude state give no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body." Hahnemann Organon 5th edition, section 269 Peter morrell 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't doubt that it's a real quote. I was just saying that the presentation of the quote could be perceived as biased by viewing the quotes as ironic, rather than used for quotation. I think giving the full quote allows one to more effectively see Hahnemann's position without potentially presenting a colored version of the quote out of context. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't find ironic "quotation marks" in the introductions of encyclopaedia articles. Your concern that this might be misinterpreted seems a bit far-fetched. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You might just be surprised, Jakob Maria Mierscheid a Bundestag member is quoted as: "The Bundestag official web site carries an ostensibly serious 'biography'." In this case biography is ironic, because there is no such person, and the biography is a humorous fabrication. Yes, this example is being taken from a hoax, but many people on the extreme disbelief side may see Homeopathy as simply a "hoax". Then the context of ironic usage would be appropriate, because according to their beliefs, there is no "spirit-like" medicinal powers held within any drug.

Misinterpretation _did_ occur, as it happened to me. Also, if someone quotes this outside of wikipedia, especially if they are not providing references, then the context of "it's an encyclopedia, and they don't use ironic quotes" won't be there. As well, there are people who do not consider Wikipedia any sort of reliable encyclopedia, and would likely question if ironic quotes might not occur in the introduction of a topic.

(1) There have been good improvements to the wording of the second paragraph thanks to Peter morrell and David D.. However the primary problem that I pointed out days ago still remains. There remains the incorrect concept that the preparation of the remedies by a serial dilution and shaking process is to only remove side effects. That would only be true for a few substances, such as arsenic (Arsenicum album) and lead (Plumbum metallicum). The vast majority of the thousands of types of substances that are used, such as calcium carbonate (Calcarea carbonica) and red coral (Corallium) are not toxic and essentially inert in the body.

Here's my suggested wording for that sentence in order to clarify this (with citation as to the reference quoted):

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects from those that may be toxic, "adds to their power to stimulate a response", and "develops the special properties of the remedy" - even in those that are chemically inert or past the point where any molecules of the original substance remain.

(2) I agree with Puellanivis that giving the full Hahnemann quote on his belief that there was greater absorption and penetration of the remedy ("penetratingly efficacious") would better give the context of what otherwise sounds like very odd phrasing in the out of context extract about "spirit-like medicinal powers". Arion (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We "agree" for different reasons. I see it as simply an unfair presentation, and you presume it to be an intentional bias, or anti-homeopathy statement. I ascribe oversight as the problem, you ascribe intentional, and direct human action for the specific purpose of defaming Homeopathy. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment about the inclusion of the entire sentence had nothing to do with my ascribing "an intentional bias" or "intentional, and direct human action for the specific purpose of defaming Homeopathy." I never implied that, nor thought that.

I simply agreed that the out of context extract was difficult to understand without the entire sentence showing Hahnemann's belief that there was a "deeper" penetration of the remedy. Arion (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, best to just quote you: "If you read the text of those who want this to be a biased anti-homeopathy article, you will see they do not want ANY material supporting homeopathy in the article." --Puellanivis (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please just implement the revised para Adam and then we can leave the convoluted navel-contemplation to another time or fine-tune the para later. Does that sound reasonable? the ambiguity re inert substances vs. toxic is a non-starter. What Hahnemann claimed to show empirically was that any truly medicinal substance has the innate power to elicit symptoms in a healthy person regardless of its conventional 'toxicity' (that is what provings are all about) and as Paracelsus mysteriously said, to paraphrase him: 'poison is just in the dose; everything is poison and nothing is poison.' What Hahnemann purported to show was that a truly medicinal substance is its power to create predictable disorder in the human system and therein lies its healing power through the law of similars. There is no ambiguity except that the term spirit-like can be interpreted both/either as spiritual and/or as immaterial. I reckon Hahnemann probably meant both. Peter morrell 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about how something spiritual can be seperate from immaterial? As far as the meaning of the word, there is no need to guess what "spirit-like" means, because its available in the original German. He says that it is literally something that is similar to a spirit, as a noun, as well as ghost-like; "Geist" is the same word used for "Holy Spirit". As for making non-medicinal substances therapeutic, well, ambiguous. He simply says that the medical powers are internal, and spiritual. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

It is time to archive most of the discussions on this page I think.--Filll (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahnemann's original German quote

Ok, so since the original is in German, and I speak German fluently, I wanted to see what it said for myself. At http://www.mickler.de/org-rtf.zip you can download the organon sixth edition, with the quote in question at §269: "Die homöopathische Heilkunst entwickelt zu ihrem besondern Berufe die innern, geistartigen Arzneikräfte der rohen Substanzen, mittels einer ihr eigenthümlichen, bis zu meiner Zeit unversuchten Behandlung, zu einem, früher unerhörten Grade, wodurch sie sämmtlich erst recht sehr, ja unermeßlich - durchdringend wirksam und hülfreich werden."

Upon getting this translation a few things immediately popped out at me, where the English translation provided is incredibly inaccurate. "unermeßlich" means "immeasurable", yet that occurs nowhere in the English quote, no less, the English quote has information that is not in the German quote. If you want to read the real quote, updated to modern language, and as absolutely literal as possible translated:

"The homeopathic healing art develops for its specific purpose, the intrinsic spiritual medical-powers of raw substances, by means of a peculiar handling-untried until my time-to a grade unheard of before, by which they all become more than ever very immeasurably penetrating and helpful." -- Hahnemann

This quote differs significantly from the original quote given, beyond explanation of progression of language. (Namely I'm not count effacious -> effective) The meaning of the English Quote given is reasonably different from the original to call it a dubious translation. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an impressive find, and it certainly complicates how we should be editing the paragraph where we (incorrectly, apparently) quote Hahnemann. Antelan ^talk 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's a quote from an earlier edition that didn't get updated, or that the translation combines a later sentence for clarity? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hate to seem skeptical, but... ... are there good reasons for me to think User:Orion4 is not a sock-puppet of User:Arion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Is it possible you mean Aburesz (talk · contribs)? You could ask for a check user, but it would not surprise me if those supportive of homeopathy only edit on homeopathy related pages. Is there a reason other than similar contributions? David D. (Talk) 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Well, i just looked at the contributions and they don't seem particularly similar. This does not seem like a good place to bring this up. It will inevitably poison any discussions in the near future. David D. (Talk) 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry to disappoint you guys. I am not anybody's "puppet" (sock or otherwise)! Arion (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewording of the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph

There remains the incorrect concept that homeopaths believe that the preparation of the remedies by a serial dilution and shaking process is to only remove side effects. That would only be true for a few substances, such as arsenic (Arsenicum album) and lead (Plumbum metallicum). The vast majority of the thousands of types of substances that are used, such as calcium carbonate (Calcarea carbonica) and red coral (Corallium) are not toxic and essentially inert in the body.

Here's my suggested wording for that sentence in order to clarify this (with citation as to the reference quoted):

These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects from those that may be toxic, "adds to their power to stimulate a response", and "develops the special properties of the remedy" - even in those that are chemically inert or past the point where any molecules of the original substance remain.

Do I have your agreement to make that change? Arion (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; all of the revised para 2 can now be implemented except the Hahnemann 5th Organon (1833) quote which is still seemingly in dispute by some. Its corresponding 6th Organon (1842) para 269 is a hideously long-winded exposition expanding on each term he uses. In the 6th he drops the word 'spiritual.' Maybe our linguistic friend here can make a suggestion re that? However the phrase 'spirit-like medicinal powers' is not in dispute. And that is all we use in the 2nd para. thanks Peter morrell 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the 6th Organon he uses the phrase 'inner medicinal powers' rather than 'spirit-like medicinal powers' is that any better? I shall insert the uncontested rest of the revised para. thanks Peter morrell 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful demonstration of how poor the English translations are. He uses both in the 6th Organon in German. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My translation was actually from Hahnemann's 6th Organon in German. And the word "geistartig" (spirit-like) yet remains in the wording, but also there is the word "innate", "inner" has kind of a different meaning than "innate". An "inner power" is something that can be developed, and "created", while "innate power" means that the power is there no matter what. It cannot be removed, it cannot be separated, as it at least partially defines the object with that power. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahnemann's original German quote

Ok, so since the original is in German, and I speak German fluently, I wanted to see what it said for myself. At http://www.mickler.de/org-rtf.zip you can download the organon sixth edition, with the quote in question at §269: "Die homöopathische Heilkunst entwickelt zu ihrem besondern Berufe die innern, geistartigen Arzneikräfte der rohen Substanzen, mittels einer ihr eigenthümlichen, bis zu meiner Zeit unversuchten Behandlung, zu einem, früher unerhörten Grade, wodurch sie sämmtlich erst recht sehr, ja unermeßlich - durchdringend wirksam und hülfreich werden."

Upon getting this translation a few things immediately popped out at me, where the English translation provided is incredibly inaccurate. "unermeßlich" means "immeasurable", yet that occurs nowhere in the English quote, no less, the English quote has information that is not in the German quote. If you want to read the real quote, updated to modern language, and as absolutely literal as possible translated:

"The homeopathic healing art develops for its specific purpose, the intrinsic spiritual medical-powers of raw substances, by means of a peculiar handling-untried until my time-to a grade unheard of before, by which they all become more than ever very immeasurably penetrating and helpful." -- Hahnemann

This quote differs significantly from the original quote given, beyond explanation of progression of language. (Namely I'm not count effacious -> effective) The meaning of the English Quote given is reasonably different from the original to call it a dubious translation. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an impressive find, and it certainly complicates how we should be editing the paragraph where we (incorrectly, apparently) quote Hahnemann. Antelan ^talk 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's a quote from an earlier edition that didn't get updated, or that the translation combines a later sentence for clarity? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the fololowing words in the German Organon are essentially filler, but as I took the most pro-homeopathic translation to modern English possible, I doubt you could find anything that would clarify it more in their favor. The reason to use the most pro-homeopathic but correct translation is because Hahnemann himself is writing pro-homeopathy in this instance, and to translate it in anyway that might misrepresent his words is just bad form. :( --Puellanivis (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh... we're not incorrectly quoting Hahnemann, the translator to the English version of the Organon misinterpreted him. If he translated it himself, then he certainly changed the meaning but the English version would then be a valid quote, and representation of his words. It kind of depends on finding out who wrote/translated the English Organon.

It wasn't really much of anything, a search on Google for the German form of Homeopathy, and "Organon", and voila, or rather "seh da". The problem was ensuring that the translation had accurate words, because some of them could be pretty embarassing to use, like "ghost-like"... eh, that doesn't fit the context. So I generally took the most pro-homeopathic wording available that is also correct in meaning. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion was inappropriately archived before and response could be given. Returning it from the archives in a manner that is appropriate to comment on.

Improvement to the article

Is this article about "Homeopathy" or should it be retitled "Criticisms of homeopathy"? Here are my suggestions to improve the article to NPOV:

(1) There is no balanced presentation of the scientific studies that support homeopathy. The medical opinion or the scientific view that supports homeopathy needs to be be represented in this article in a separate section, just as the views opposing homeopathy need to be in their separate section.

(2) The language of that third introductory paragraph needs to be corrected to Wikipedia standards of NPOV. Here is my suggestion for slightly modifying the wording so that it does not appear that it is the article or Wikipedia that is making the criticism:

Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. They conclude that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies. Lack of evidence supporting its efficacy has caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. A recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of a placebo. Medical critics also accuse homeopaths of giving "false hope" to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs and prefer to use homeopathic remedies in their place.

I request comments from the other editors so that we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Arion (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposed revision is grotesquely POV, plainly violates WP:WEIGHT, and as such is a non-starter. And how on earth can loaded, inflammatory language like "critics insist..." even be suggested? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree this third paragraph is a non-starter. It should outline the scientific case, as the first two outline homeopathy, the counter points should be in the body of the article. What are the bits you object to most in the third paragraph? David D. (Talk) 05:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require us to give "equal validity":

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

If you have specific claims that the article is worded such that it appears that Wikipedia is personally of the position that Homeopathy is wrong/bad/fake, then we will address those, however, the overwhelming majority of verifiable medical, and scientific world pretty much consistently agree that homeopathy cannot possibly work better than placebo as it is currently practiced. We do not have to give homeopathy "equal validity", because the overwhelming professional opinion is that its bogus. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. But that should not be the issue, rather that the topic on wikipedia is about "homeopathy", not "anti-homeopathy". From that standpoint, we should deal with the topic first, and then present the opposing views. Thoughts? docboat (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To humor you, I read the text as shown currently. All statements of fact are fact. it is scientifically implausible (not impossible, but nearly so), as well, it does conflict with modern pharmaceutical knowledge. If you're honestly of the belief that it works at a level beyond current scientific knowledge, why would you be upset with such a statement? Because it would entirely align with your beliefs. "Modern pharmaceutical knowledge conflicts with homeopathy, but homeopathy does not claim to work off of modern medicine, but by spiritual medical powers." If you're upset that the article has a lot of material that is quite damaging to homeopathy, that's because the scientific evidence against it, is that strong. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this debate seems to revolve mostly around fundamentally flawed understanding of "NPOV". While I don't see anything particularly "inflammatory" about "critics insist", the simple fact is that if homeopathy is considered to have no merit in mainstream opinion, no amount of campaigning is going to change this, or Wikipedia reporting on it. Wikipedia is built to reflect mainstream academia. If prevalent opinion is that homeopathy is quackery, Wikipedia will report homeopathy as a topic of quackery, with a minor "other views" coverage of dissenting opinions. Please don't try to get your way just by persistence and filibustering. If you have a fair case, present it. If you don't, accept it and settle for appropriate WP:WEIGHT. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I read this it is a LEAD issue not an article complaint. I think the idea is that criticim should be retricted to a criticism section. David D. (Talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The manner in which this criticism is presented as a leading section issue is a problem. A false premise is created in which the reader is erroneously led to believe that scientific data ONLY dismisses homeopathey is utter "nonsense" (or relying on "spiritual medical powers' as a belief system - almost like a religion). Scientific criticism should be retricted to a criticism section, while scientific support for homeopathy should be in its separate section. The leading section can reference the discussion of BOTH scientific points of view (POV) in their respective sections.

Remember, terms such as "validity", "plausible" and "pseudoscientific theory" are all subjective judgments, not objective measurements.

How anyone can object to my suggestion for changing "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" to "Critics insist that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" to help change this article to NPOV standards is unbelievable! Arion (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just best to quote Hahnemann: "geistartigen Arzneikräfte". Again, this means "spiritual medical powers". To quote the English Organon: "the spirit-like medicinal powers". --Puellanivis (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well "validity" means that it's valid, how is it valid? well, it's valid if it's assertions and/or beliefs are consistent with what actually happens.

"Plausible" well ok, we can change that to "probable", and by giving a statistical model of how likely it is that anything at all remained in the water, or that a structure was formed in the water as a "memory" like effect. Weighing all that in, for Oscillococcinum, we have 1:10^400. By any and all definitions of statistics, that's "improbable". Oh, what about the chance that it's doing something that science hasn't discovered yet? Pretty low... if there existed such a thing as "water memory" we'd have something relatively mainstream that uses this process, not just for healing as in Homeopathy, but for any other of a number of purposes, such as industrial work, etching of steel, etc.

There is no need to put in "Critics insist" to the statement "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically improbable." Just like you don't need to say "Proponents say that 2 and 2 equals 4." There is an actual proof that can be given to show that this statement is true, see above paragraph. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Plausibilty

Is there a science of plausibility, or it is subjective? If the former, please support with references. If the latter, then all claims of plausibilty / implausibility need to be qualified with the subject who expressed the subjective opinion.

In any case, I fail to see how making the article more specific as to precisely who believes what makes it worse. Curious Blue (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a link to the Wiktionary definintion of plausible. It seems that the plausible is defined in terms of how something seems to someone, which imo make the whole argument about whether to use "are" or "seems" nearly moot; due to the way plausibility is defined, the meaning is the same regardless of which word is used, but to use seem appears to be more accurate and honest. Curious Blue (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Plausability is defined in science as something which is probable. Homeopathy is considered implausible in part because of the very low probability of the solute actually being in the solution. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be definition 5 then, which uses the work possibilty rather probabilty, "A possibility in reason or thought experiment, but which may as a matter of fact be true or false, the truth of which is yet unknown to the thinker." This is clearly not any kind of absolute and the use of absolute semantics by means of the use of "are" is clearly intended to be misleading and pushing a POV. Curious Blue (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no absolutes, but we're stuck with a language that cannot handle nuance at the levels of near certainty. So we need to be plain in our descriptions which is what we will continue to do regarding the implausibility of homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious, in your edit your wrote "The ideas of homeopathy are considered by some researchers to be scientifically implausible" but this would not be right. If you want to go that route it would have to be "most scientists". David D. (Talk) 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with "most modern scientists" provided that there is some sort of citation to a general survey of scientific opinion which shows this. I doubt there is one, so how about "many modern scientists"? I think modern or some other qualifier is necessary, as views of science change, and historically science has been more empirical and less insistent on double-blind tests, and has been less rejecting of homeopathy and other even less plausible ideas. Or if you don't like modern, maybe contemporary. Clearly there are scientists who support homeopathy, so to present this as an absolute rather than a majority opinion has clearly been bothering some editors on the other side of the issue. Curious Blue (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. A better choice would be "most scientists" and not "some researchers".

The subjective use of the word "implausible" by ScienceApologist appears related to his statement that there is a "very low probability of the solute actually being in the solution". This shows a lack of understanding as to what basic homeopathic principles are. In MOST homeopathic remedies that are utilized in homeopathic medical practice, those that are above 12X and 12C in potency, there are no molecules remaining of the original substance that was used to prepare the remedy. The theory is that there is a transfer of the substance's characteristics to the diluent. What the exact nature is of that "transfer" has been the subject of homeopathic research. Arion (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic principles of water memory are irrelevant because they aren't scientific. The statement is about science, not pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) study showed that all twenty-three different Homeopathic Remedies and Potencies tested had distinctive readings of submolecular activithy, while the placebos did not. This suggests there is some type of energetic activity that unlies homeopathic remedy effects. Sacks A. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies. Journal of Holistic Medicine, 5 (Fall-Winter 1983): 172-175; Boericke GW and Smith RB. Changes caused by succession on NMR patterns and bioassay of Bradykinin Triacetate (BKTA) successions and dilution. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 61 (November-December 1968): 197-212.

This was not a "water memory" study. The use of the term "pseudoscience" is a derogatory subjective term that is inappropriate. Arion (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, but NMR doesn't really work that way... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arion, could you clairfy your point? Are you asserting that "most scientists" *don't* find the purported mechanism implausible? Or, that *most scientists* are incorrect in rejecting the theory of 'energetic signatures'? Naturezak (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is entirely appropriate; Feynmann's term cargo cult science applies as well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But can the data from those types of experiments be reproduced? There are many cases where they are not, PMID 11212083 PMID 11212090, and that is why scientists reject these data sets. David D. (Talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if water memory did exist (which it doesn't) this would still leave homeopathic remedies prepared by grinding solids with no plausible mechanism. Unless we also hypothesise "sugar memory". :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is probably worth noting. From the sources I have read about trituration, they dilute with lactose by grinding successively to very very low concentrations, much as the potentization methods work. Interesting...--Filll (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Products labeled homeopathic

Are all products sold as homeopathic actually examples of homeopathy? I get the impression (at least from advertizing) that a lot of these are just various "natural remedies" using a marketable term. But I may be entirely wrong on this, as I'm not terribly familiar with the alternative medicine business. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is more than homeopathy, so I suspect you are not looking at homeopathic remedies when you see them in a concentrated form. But i should probably not comment since I never look at the alternative medicine aisle, or any medicine aisle for that matter. David D. (Talk) 08:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If termed "homeopathic" then the product should contain substances prepared as "homeopathic potencies". Homeopathic medicines have been regulated since the 1930’s separately from pharmaceutical drugs by a Board that governs the US Homeopathic Pharmacopea. Most homeopathic medicines are designated as over-the-counter preparations, though many pharmacies restrict the sale of higher potencies to homeopathic practitioners. Arion (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh...my....gosh...--Filll (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Folding

Out of courtesy I am informing the other editors that I am folding due to this action and taking Homeopathy off my watchlist. This is not the kind of gaming and drama I want to get involved with. Curious Blue (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What has been done to Curious Blue, and the vicious harrassment that I personally have been subjected to in the last several days, should be a wake-up call to the Wikipedia community. A number of anti-homeopahty editors are determined to maintain this article as a biased anti-homeopathy article and willing to use any tactics they can think of.

An encyclopedia article on homeopathy or any other subject should not be turned into a battleground of special interests seeking to have their own biased version prevail. As I have said before, this article must not be either a pro or anti homeopathy article, but a neutrally presented exposition of the subject, with opposing and supporting scientific data presented in their own respective sections. It is also not the role of any editor here to PASS JUDGMENT on which research data passes their personal litmus test to qualify for inclusion in this article. Arion (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

An article can be subject to interest by several competing interest groups and still end up neutrally written. A neutral article doesn't need to give equal weight to claims of unequal status. Antelan ^talk 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "biased" version going on here. Physics, mathematics, and chemistry all say that homeopathy is EXTREMELY improbable, and if it were as easy to do as homeopaths present it to be, then chemists and certainly alchemists (you know, the crazy guys that handled raw mercury) would have hit upon it much sooner. They were trying to change lead into gold... We now know that a lot of Alchemy was based on flawed ideas that people had at the time, because of a lack of knowledge that we have now. But, in the same way Alchemy (magic) brought us Chemistry (science), Homeopathy (spiritual) brought us Pharmacology (science). --Puellanivis (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to us to pass judgement. We just report on what the science community and medical community say about homeopathy. And they say it is nonsense. So that is what we have to report. Get it? This is NOT the place to promote fruitcake theories. We can describe them, but we are not to promote them. And we are to describe the mainstream view of them. And the positive and negative views should be in the rough proportion that they are in the relevant mainstream field. So instead of being 60 percent pro homeopathy, which is what it was last time I checked, it really should be about 99 per cent anti homeopathy. Get the message? --Filll (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Filll], you are quite right in your assessment of the mainstream thinking, but what you and others do not get is this major point: this article should be about "homeopathy" and as such, it needs to be about homeopathy first and foremost. At the present, this is a very good article about anti-homeopathy, and it belongs appropriately under the title "anti-homeopathy" and it is a FA candidate under that title. For this article to be about homeopathy, it needs to present the "what is homeopathy" side as an article about homeopathy, and then (after the information about homeopathy) we need a section on "controversy" when any and all positions of mainstream medicine and science can be presented in structured order. That is plainly not the case at present. Now all arguments about efficacy or fraud to one side, this is the basic flaw of this page. For someone to seek information about homeopathy from Wikipedia at present, they are not going to get what hoemopathy "is" unless they first distill out the POV scientific criticism. And that is not good enough for an encyclopaedia. Comments? docboat (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, that is a great idea. It just is not something that is supported at Wikipedia under Wikipedia principles and policies, which have been repeated ad infinitum here on this talk page (like WP:NPOV for starters). Sorry. It just is against WP policy. If you want to go to a place where what you suggest is policy, go to wikinfo. But it is not policy at Wikipedia. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoah - I have to digest this Filll. AFAICT the encyclopaedia is about dissemination of information first and foremost. Accurate, peer-reviewed and evidence-based information. The WP:NPOV has been invoked here often to maintain POV, and I note the basic rule of "ignore all rules" provided the ignoring of the rule improves Wikipedia. Now here, while there is accurate scientific information openly displayed, it is being used to produce an article which is the opposite of the title. Agree with homeopathy or disagree with it, if the aim of the majority of editors WP:CONCENSUS is to produce an article which does not reflect the title, then the encyclopaedia has a problem. That is my basic premise. So either we change the article as suggested above (which is well in accordance with the WP guidelines as I have noted) or we change the title. It seems to make sense. docboat (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not anti-homeopathy. It's just accurate and specific. One of the most notable aspects of the subject is that it's quackery. Demoting that aspect to later in the article in order to seem more "neutral" is just silly. You can't write an unbiased article about homeopathy without mentioning early in the article that any reliable source in the scientific community agrees that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Making it a section called "Controversy" would make it seem like there is some kind of disagreement among reliable sources as to homeopathy's efficacy, and there just isn't a disagreement about this. Rray (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, but for those for whom homeopathy is just excellent - and there are many of them - it is not "quackery" That is your POV, and you are entitled to hold it. What you are not entitled to do with an encyclopaedia is to enshrine your POV and clothe it as "fact". The facts of homeopathy are that it holds to a certain rationale and many people agree to that, find it beneficial, and prefer it to classical school medicine. This is homeopathy. What the detractors say about homeopathy is not "homeopathy" but anti-homeopathy. It is merited, it needs a place, but we should not move people to accept our POV as gospel. Our job is to put down the facts. Would you not agree? docboat (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that our job is to include facts. I disagree with everything else you wrote though. You and I might be better off just agreeing to disagree though. Rray (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! :) docboat (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Our NPOV policies discourage separating POVs out by article structure (ie, creating a criticism section) and that is what is being proposed. If there was a broad anti-homeopathy movement it might be deserving of an independent article. This article mostly weaves the criticism into the text, as it should. That the criticism is damning to anyone looking for a "scientific" basis for homeopathy is not an NPOV problem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Reorganization of the lead

I've reorganized the lead by moving the stuff about legal status and extent of usage to the end of the lead. By doing this, the structure of the lead is now basic definition -> principles of the method -> scientific perspective -> legal status and extent of usage, which I think is a more logical progression. I didn't any substantive points, only the order. Please comment as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works. docboat (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy/Antihomeopathy

I'd like to understand the arguments about anti-homepathy. Docboat, can you give me a list of like 3 things you think would be in a "homeopathy" article, and 3 things you think are in this article that wouldn't belong in such an article but instead an "anti-homepathy" article? I want to better understand what you've got in mind, because I'm not familiar with your terms yet. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Antelan ^talk. I think that all of the information in the article as it stands is good. Of course we could add more, there are studies to be added etc, but as it stands all is good. I think it needs to be re-arranged, as Raymond just showed. It is - IMHO - about producing an article which deals with the topic, without bias. Facts laid out in a way which enlightens people. What we see here is a striving to lay out facts in a way which moves people in the direction preferred by the editor of the moment, and that is not good. What would I do? For an article on "homeopathy" I would introduce the basic premise of what is homeopathy. As in the lead, but from a purely homeopathic standpoint. That is, after all, what homeopathy claims to be. Then I would introduce the proofs - one section for "pro" and one section for "anti". History to follow etc or as the editors see fit. For an "anti-homeopathy" article, I would let Orangemarlin et al edit the topic freely. Actually, truth be told, it is not that far off an ideal as it is now. I would love for all editors to take a step back and look at the editing from the other POV, just to get more of a perspective, chill a bit, and see what merit there is in the opposing argument. Now if we could get that done, then we have a damned good article. Does that go some way to answering, without answering the specific question? docboat (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that goes some way towards an answer, thank you. I am interested in how you would suggest introducing homeopathy before getting into pro and con. I agree that to do so could be a good idea. I disagree that it should be from a homeopathic standpoint - I think it should be from a neutral standpoint, simply describing what is done, not why or for what purpose something is done. Then, we can get into the homeopathic perspective on why/how it works, and the hard-science on why homeopathy is thought to work purely through a placebo effect. Does this seem unreasonable? Antelan ^talk 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds very reasonable to me. docboat (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. What do others participating in creating this page think? Antelan ^talk 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as markedly different from what we have now. The present organization could be improved. For example, I think the "history" section gets in the way. Give the principles of the method first, then the historical details can be fleshed out in a later section. However the material is organized, we have to be careful that the scientific/medical perspective isn't shunted off into a "criticism" ghetto. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns make sense. Weighting of material must follow WP guidelines. I think your suggestion to reorganize is also wise, especially from a reader's perspective. If homeopathy were, say, a dead language, the history might be what a reader cares about most. Since it's an active part of alternative medicine that is not universally understood, explaining what homeopathy actually consists of is probably more relevant. Shall we bump down the History section? I actually think that Development of remedies should probably be the first major section, since Philosophy is largely told from the Homeopathic standpoint of for what purpose something is done and should therefore come later. What do you think? Antelan ^talk 05:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I definitely agree that this article needs to take a neutral stance and only report, and not force a point of view. The known empirical reality that we are in says that Homeopathy is extremely improbable. Given the definition given by Google Define for "quackery": medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings. This certainly gives a nice succinct statement of what Homeopathy is. While the advice and practices are based on empirical findings, and experiences (testimonials), they ignore the scientific fact that the likelihood of obtaining anything but water in a homeopathic remedy is improbable. It's scientific fact that water taken in small quantities is a placebo, with no medicinal effect upon the body. Given that information, homeopathy is inconsistent with empirical reality, but says nothing about if it "works" or not. In some cases it may be beneficial by anyone's standards. One person I knew allowed his wife to get homeopathy for her migraines, despite him believing all of it is quackery; simply because it was the cheapest, and easiest solution available. To present homeopathy as anything but contradictory with scientific empirical fact, is a misrepresentation of homeopathy. Some proponents of Homeopathy (in particular Hahnemann) dismiss contradiction with scientific fact, and say that the healing process comes from "spiritual medical powers", which is then outside of the realm of science to say it can't work. As long as it's being insisted that Homeopathy be treated like any other type of medicine, then it is subject to the scientific empirical facts that all scientific attempts to describe how the efficacy of homeopathy is produced contradict known scientific law. Some doctors may also support this treatment because they would get in trouble for prescribing Obecalp to a patient, but prescribing them homeopathy will give the same results, and the person won't sue the doctor for giving them a placebo. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why I think we should begin the article (not the lead, but the beginning of the body) with a section that just describes what homeopathic remedies are. What do they contain? How are they made? Once we let the reader know what we're talking about, then let's get into the competing claims, all the while respecting WP:UNDUE and avoiding a ghettoization of the views of either scientists or homeopaths.

Let the reader know what precisely these remedies contain, and then once we've done that we can give the reader a taste of both the homeopathic belief in water memory and the empirical scientific evidence against this. Antelan ^talk 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a good idea. Simply state the process, and what the homeopathic remedy physically contains, those parts that are all in agreement between homeopaths and current empirical reality. Then bring in the debate about homeopathy where both sides are intermingled neutrally to present a case for homeopathy and against homeopathy. A reader more strongly interested in scientific evidence would scoff and call it quackery, and a reader with spiritual beliefs would consider that Homeopathy works by a spiritual mechanism, while scientific proponents of homeopathy would consider that Homeopathy works via a different science. Lastly, a skeptic of wondering of what homeopathy is, will read the cases and be able to weigh the respective parts as personally appropriate and make their own decision. Again, recall that any statement in favor of homeopathy really needs to state that current scientific fact does not apply to the mechanism whereby homeopathy works, if either side depends upon current scientific fact to prove itself, then it's going to be contradictory. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from some of those who think that this article is too anti-homeopathy. Do these suggested procedures make sense and seem fair? I want to get started rearranging and rewriting as necessary, but first it'd be good to get more feedback from the involved parties. Antelan ^talk 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Antelan ^talk 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry Antelan, real life taking over for a moment here! Changes seem to make sense to me. From my POV, there is not much to be gained from being too strident about the anti-homeopathic slant on this page - it is really not too bad, does reflect the anti-homeopathic viewpoint well, and will be altered over time with concensus. These changes will be helpful. docboat (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)\

I don't think this is about closed minds, scientists usually view the weight of all the evidence. That is where homeopathy falls. David D. (Talk) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta-science

Oh yeah, I just thought of another route that could be use. If Homeopathy were based on a meta-science that we are currently unable to detect or test with our modern science. This again makes the statement unfalsifyable, against which science cannot therefore make claims. However, a basis on meta-science would need to be presented in such a way of giving a presumption of how the process works, rather than an indicative statement stating that it is known how it works. If it is known how to work physically, then science can test it, and potentially falsify it. Only so long as it's given as a presumption of method of action, which requires a science beyond what we have today, can not be contradictory to scientific fact. A good example of this is quark confinement, that a quark can not occur alone. We make this presumption because we've never been able to find free quarks, however it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be that way, we just don't have the ability to falsify the theory right now, and every attempt at falsification so far only produces strong empirical evidence in its support. However, as with any logic, it only takes one counterexample by empirical reality to change that, no matter how much evidence has been amassed to support it. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>An amazing attitude. It must be wonderful to live in a fantasy world. Wow.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree... however either would make their argument not subject to scientific criticism. Faith Healing seems to be doing fine, despite it being entirely debunked. People with faith still exist and make much of this world turn. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Puellanivis, if there is any literature that suggests that is the mechanism by which homeopathy works, it might merit inclusion, but frankly it sounds like if someone has made that case, they are probably on the fringes of homeopathy itself. I think we need to keep this simpler and keep more emphasis on WP:UNDUE, but your argument does make sense. Antelan ^talk 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just best to quote Hahnemann again: "geistartigen Arzneikräfte". Which means "spiritual medical powers". To quote the English Organon: "the spirit-like medicinal powers". --Puellanivis (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's incredibly poor choice of "mainstream" homeopaths to attempt to claim a modern scientific answer for why Homeopathy works. In fact, "water memory" is exactly what I describe above, based on a meta-science. Current physics, and chemistry says there's no way that it could be there, but homeopaths continue to insist that it is. To attempt to state that homeopathy can be validated with current scientific law, is pretty much self-contradictory. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that homeopathy is based on a meta-science, that is, a *different* science. But there aren't any alternative sciences, higher, lower, parallel, or otherwise situated in relation to 'science'. The full, non-contradictory integration of data and explanatory theory is one of the primary characterizations of science. To make my point more clearly: you can't make up a term "meta-science" and postulate that the purported mechanism for homeopathy operates within it, no matter what we dim, low-level thinkers believe here in the ground-floor realm of *mere* science. It's all rather silly. Naturezak (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that Newton thought he had all the answers as well. Likewise did physicists when we got down to Baryons and Hadrons. People with all certainty described lightning with various religious and supernatural explanations. Now, we know it's just static electricity, of a bunch of electrons passing from the ground up to the clouds. Nothing religious or supernatural about it... simply science has come to a point where we can explain it. "Water memory" may possibly exist (that's why the statement is highly improbable, not definitely impossible) but we certainly can gauge it right now, nor measure it, nor in any way verify that there is anything like "water memory" in existence, and clinical trials definitely continue to show that homeopathy has no better than placebo effects. Regardless of all of that, one can make a statement that homeopathy is dependent upon a scientific principle that we currently do not know, and we're not even aware that we're unaware that we don't know it. Such a science however is para-scientific at this time, as science cannot falsify it. If a person insists that the workings of their method fit within current scientific principles, simply just with the addition of some principles that we cannot yet observe, then science cannot prove them wrong, in fact precisely for the reason that we cannot prove religious/spiritual stuff wrong... we can not objectively observe the events claimed to occur. If you were to go back to the time when Baryons and Hadrons were thought to be the smallest objects, and you stood up, and explained to them that beta decay was the transition of one smaller part of the Neutron, into a different smaller part that then made the Proton, they would laugh your butt and relegate you to pseudoscience. "Pff... something smaller than a Bayron/Hadron, right..." You would certainly have no proof to prove your theory, or that would even suggest it's possible. It's only by 20/20 hindsight that we see that such an argument would be part of science, but as long as it's a kooky theory that you can't test, it's para-science/meta-science.

"Science" is not a term inclusive of all correct answers and laws. It only consists of those theories that we have proven to be the best possible model to explain what we observe at this point in time. Science will grow, and it will expand and include more and more stuff. Every day "science" is bigger than "science" was yesterday. Todays "meta-science" may be "science" a year, or two or five from now. Although in all the cases described above, Homeopathy fails to demonstrate even one shred of possibility, so the only thing that makes this not impossible, is that it relies upon something that we cannot observe objectively with science at this time. As our science grows, this possibility is likely to continue to shrink, until it gets REALLY REALLY small, but it can never become outright "impossible." --Puellanivis (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that this article should make clear that homeopathy is not supported by the modern scientific understanding of the world? Naturezak (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, 100%. That's why I'm saying they should ditch the "it can be explained with science" and stick to sutff that science can't disprove if they want to continue their faith. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think meta-science is the same as pseudoscience.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism & Support

Since we have a section titled "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism", I propose that there be a section titled "Medical and scientific analysis and support". Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we could implement such a change, you'd need to identify even one article the provides evidentiary support for the purported effects of homeopathic medicine. There aren't any. Naturezak (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you a practicing homeopath? Naturezak (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for 27 years. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the endorsement implied by your practice of this controversial methodology undermines the appearance of NPOV in the authoring of this article? Naturezak (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are looking for, I think is the conflict of interest guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are 4 examples of research suggesting homeopathy is not a mere placebo effect:

• British Medical Journal. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23. [17]

Clinical trials of homoeopathy. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G., Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

• Complement Ther Med. 2006 Dec;14(4):237-46. Epub 2006 Oct 13. [18]

Homeopathic arnica therapy in patients receiving knee surgery: results of three randomised double-blind trials. Brinkhaus B, Wilkens JM, Lüdtke R, Hunger J, Witt CM, Willich SN. Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

• Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):17-21. [19]

Homeopathic Arnica montana for post-tonsillectomy analgesia: a randomised placebo control trial. Robertson A, Suryanarayanan R, Banerjee A. ENT Department, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

• Homeopathy. 2003 Oct;92(4):187-9. [20]

Effect of Arnica D30 in marathon runners. Pooled results from two double-blind placebo controlled studies. Tveiten D, Bruset S. Baerumsveien 451, 1346 Gjettum, Norway.

These are a mere 4 out of many others. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you must have gone through in order to produce these sources. However, they aren't very useful, unless you give an explanation of what conclusion the research behind each paper supports. Otherwise, it is just a list of titles. I happen to have three of these at hand, and would be very ready to discuss those in detail as long as you are. To be clear, I would assert that none of the four papers you've presented provide evidentiary support for either the non-placebo efficacy of homeopathy, or the mechanisms claimed in the theory. Naturezak (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 4 examples of research suggesting homeopathy is not a mere placebo effect:

• British Medical Journal. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23. [21]

"Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found."

• Complement Ther Med. 2006 Dec;14(4):237-46. Epub 2006 Oct 13. [22]

"In all three trials, patients receiving homeopathic arnica showed a trend towards less postoperative swelling compared to patients receiving placebo. However, a significant difference in favour of homeopathic arnica was only found in the CLR trial."

• Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):17-21. [23]

"The results of this trial suggest that Arnica montana given after tonsillectomy provides a small, but statistically significant, decrease in pain scores compared to placebo."

• Homeopathy. 2003 Oct;92(4):187-9. [24]

"These pooled results suggest that Arnica D30 has a positive effect on muscle soreness after marathon running, but not on cell damage measured by enzymes."

There are also complicating elements in homeopathy that will impact homeopathic research and need to be considered:

• • There is the well-known principle (among homeopaths) that unless the homeopathic remedy (and the "potency" level) is specifically chosen on the basis of the totality of the patient's psychological and physical symptom presentation, then it will simply have no effect.
  • With that said, there are "polycrests" (remedies that affect more specific simple symptoms, without the need to get into psychological considerations). A simple example that I utilize many times daily is in regard with patients in my clinic is low back pain. If Rhus tox. was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. If Bryonia alba was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. But if you administer Rhus tox. to those whose symptomatology is worse when sitting and on first getting up (and better with walking), then almost all will improve. If you administer Bryonia alba to those whose symptomatology is better on resting and no movement, then almost all will improve. These are my clinical observations.
  • The skill and experience of the one administering the remedies is an extremely important factor. I would consider my skills have been much better in the last seven years than in the first twenty years of practice.

Incidently, language describing homeopathy as "a lot of the crap in here is so hysterically inane that only sadly desperate individual would endeavor to utilize this 'therapy'." is not constructive. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to critique your reference sources, but the only one that is truly peer-reviewed by real scientists and researchers, BMJ, I'm almost certain you missed the conclusion, which states: CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. So yeah, it is hysterically inane. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could look at a 1991 BMJ study, but it is a bit old now (16 years). We could also look at the 2005 Lancet study (PMID 16125589) whose conclusion included the statement, "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." (Update: If you read the entirety of the article, you can see that the clinical effects of homeopathy are compatible with placebo effects because the odds-ratio of random-vs-nonrandom effects crosses 1. That is, the authors found no statistically significant difference, in the large, well-controlled homeopathy trials, between the effects of placebo and the effects of homeopathic treatment. I thought I'd add this to clarify exactly 'why' the authors came to the conclusion that they came to.) Antelan ^talk 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am writing to concur with Orange and Antelan; your characterization of those studies is incorrect... they do not provide evidentiary support for the medical claims of homeopathy. Your personal experience is 1) original research, and therefore unusable as being against WP policy; 2) anecdotal, and therefore empirically uninteresting; and 3) ad hoc. For those reasons, I suggest you try to substiante your claims with other arguments, as these are for all practical purposes invalid.

Also, the fact that you are a practicing homeopath makes it somewhat difficult for this article to maintain the appearance of impartiality. How have you addressed this? Naturezak (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, consider the input of practising homeopaths to be invaluable for this article. I wish we had more of them. The prerequisite, of course, is that they follow the rules of the game, but that applies to all of us. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on, Naturezak - The studies do provide evidentiary evidence, merely not to high enough standards. His personal experience accords with the experience of all homeopathic practitioners and many of their clients. The reporting of those anecdotal records has been documented sufficiently in the appropriate homeopathic publications, but not to the "gold" standard of double blind placebo etc etc. They are most certainly empirically interesting to all who wish to keep an open mind, and examine all evidence. Those with closed minds (never a good feature in a scientist) will agree with your point though. docboat (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether you consider their input valuable is rather irrelevant to the point that the encyclopedic nature of WP precludes the involvement of advocates of fringe science. Will you address the issue of NPOV?

Where did you get that idea? We all have our own POV, but that does not preclude any of us from editing the article to have a NPOV. In particular I would like to draw your attention to these statements from WP:COI.

• Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest.
• However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

If you believe that Arion 3x3 is making POV edits, then specify which edits you are referring to, and why you think they are not neutral. Otherwise, assume good faith and do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, Art. I had meant to make the point that the involvement of a practicing homeopath undermines the appearance of NPOV; I see that what I wrote came off as altogether more accusatory. I have no edits to refer to at this moment, but will continue to be vigiliant against the use of neutral, or negative-effect, studies as if they provided evidentiatry support for homeopathic theory. Starting with the assumption of good faith, and the seeing that Arion continues to argue for the inappropriate use of studies, is what leads me to ask whether his personal investment in homeopathy is working against the objectivity needed here. Naturezak (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point about the evidentiary support provided by the cited studies is incorrect; the authors themselves are careful to make this point. I encourage you to read them thoroughly before attempting to characterize their evidentiary weight.

The experience of homeopathic practitioners does not constitute verification of homeopathic theory; as much as the experience of TM practitioners does not verify the theory of yogic flying. Anecdotal evidence is not a a reliable source; especially when provided by an individual whose career is invested in the verification of the theory in question. Naturezak (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Medical Analysis and Criticism Subhead

Orange reports that there had been a consensus that this wording represents a NPOV; I wasn't objecting to the POV, but rather to the superfluity of the clause "and criticism" as a section heading. "Medican Analysis" does the job, as the critical aspect of that analysis is implied and manifest within the text. Naturezak (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I like most of your edits. Don't get so defensive about one of them. This article was a total POV mess a few months ago, when several us tackled it. I still think it's POV, but a lot of the crap in here is so hysterically inane that only sadly desperate individual would endeavor to utilize this "therapy." Unfortunately, there are lot of desperate individuals, so I worry that they think using a piece of the Berlin Wall (I'm not sure if the reference is still in the article, but it was hilarious) cures whatever it was supposed to cure. Anyways, here we are today, a mostly NPOV article, and criticism needs to be stated very clearly. 99.999999% of Medical science (give or take .000000378%) has shown that homeopathy does not work. That's a criticism. The word should stay, but it got their through consensus wars. It's really not worth much effort right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Orange. I stick to the point, though, and I'll observe that you haven't addressed it: the phrase "and criticism" is superfluous, and partial, as a section heading. That the sum of the medical analysis counters the claims of homeopaths does not mean that the medical researchers are themselves critics. It really should go. Naturezak (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Naturezak.

As an aside, the regular editors here appear to be far too defensive about this article. There seems to be a knee jerk response to ALL changes. In my view, suggestions such as above represent positive contributions to this article and should not be treated with disdain. I understand you guys are completely fed up with editors coming in and trying to push an agenda but please save the defensiveness for the real POV edits. You cannot pigeon hole new editors and then disregard ALL their comments/suggestions just because you think some of their edits are too POV. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I have observed. There are probably 7-10 regular editors of this article, some who support homeopathy, some who think it's a load of hooey (myself included), and some truly neutral individuals, but only in the sense that they know it's a load of hooey, put in edits and references that show it's a load of hooey, but aren't as bombastic as I am. Every day, there are some new editors (usually anonymous, but usually new to the article) who jump in, claim one side or another is full of crap, and make bad edits. Several of us who watch this article just instinctively review the diffs, note anything that sounds bad, and revert (or if it sounds fine, don't revert). I watched Naturezak's edits carefully (and he's a new editor to the article, as best as I can tell)--I disagreed with the criticism change. I do not believe it is superfluous, but I'm certainly NOT going to get in a revert war over it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a very good thing that editors make this sort of investment, take a kind of ownership, in articles that are particularly vulnerable to idiotization. But I continue to disagree with you on this point. This section is sufficiently clearly titled by the heading "Scientific analysis" -- or perhaps better, "Scientific study." Since homeopathy is not a reality-based methodology, we should not be surprised to find that no analyses conclude that homeopathic remedies cure what ails ya, and that the scientific opinion is, in effect, a criticism of the theory of homeopathy. But to inform the reader, at the start, that the discussion of medical studies that follows is a 'criticism', is uneccesary, and unneccesarily biased. It adopts a tone of skepticism which is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Since I am a powerfully unlikeable skeptic, I am somewhat surprised to find myself saying this.

I appreciate your statement that 'you won't get into an edit war'. I'm explaining myself because I want you to agree, or so that you can point out the weakness in my position. I don't mind taking the time to talk about even a small change like this; this kind of deliberation is good exercise for the brain, I think. So if you continue to disagree with the change, will you explain in what way this 'and criticism' clause is *not* superfluous? I'd like to make the change, but I'd like more to see consensus among the good-faith, reality-using editors around here. Naturezak (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be supportive of Scientific analysis. But I don't want it weakened. However, we should get more of a consensus from Tim Vickers, WDM and few others. BTW, ownership of articles is not a good thing! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that and criticism is unnecessary because (1) its denotation here is roughly redundant with that of analysis, and (2) it makes it seem that negative judgment is an immutable, preordained outcome. It's really not - it's an organic result of a priori neutral scientific analysis. Antelan ^talk 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The word analysis is fine by me. Peter morrell 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Criticisms should stay, as they are criticisms and the reader will understand the content of the section quicker. If there is any scientific support then the criticisms header should go, but it should be made clear that subsections are pro or critical. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The section has scientific analyses, not criticism. That the results of the analyses fail to support the claims of homeopathy does not constitute an intentional criticism. You say that it should be made clear that the section is either pro-homeopathy, or anti-homeopathy... but this sort of segregation of opinion doesn't align with NPOV. Given the preponderance of support, and the absence of a more rigorous disagreement than a neutral desire not to 'weaken' the section, I'll make this change. Naturezak (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed with orangemarlin. CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Using chemical notation

I just recovered this discussion from the archives, i believe it was archived prematurely. See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_26#Using_chemical_notation David D. (Talk) 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"

I think that that number should be changed to 10⁶⁰. --200.69.215.69 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. That comment was by me. --W2bh (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exponentiaal notation, but I think it's better to spell it out - most people won't realise how big 10⁶⁰ is Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you spell it out like that, is just reads like a bunch of zeroes, and it doesn't make any sense. You don't have a meaningful relation laymen can understand. On the other hand, "This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth" does provide an understandable relation. --W2bh (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even spelling it out does not help. An analogy is far better. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you give it in numerals and covert molecules of water to a volume or mass of water then the numbers will become a bit more understandable. Metric tonnes might be the best option for units. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lessee. 1 kilogram of water = 1 litre, so ... 10^60 molecules / (6.022 * 10^23) molecules per mole * 18 grams per mole * 1 kg /1000 g * 1 L / 1 kg = 2.98904019 × 10³⁴ litres of water. That's a lot. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's supposedly a direct quote from Park. If we're going to quote him, we should quote him accurately, even if we think a different way of expressing his thoughts would be better. Otherwise we need to replace the quote with a paraphrase. Can someone find the source of the quote? I'm guessing it's his book Voodoo Science but don't have that handy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should express it in solar masses? 10³⁴kg = 10 decillion kg, and 10 decillion kg = 5000 solar masses (suns). Roughly speaking, if you had 5000 suns worth of water, you'd find one molecule of active substance within one of those suns. Unless I did my math wrong, which becomes more probable the later it gets. Antelan ^talk 07:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Text between the lines below was transfered from Nunh-huh talk page

---

So where was this discussion? David D. (Talk) 12:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It was on the talk page when I mentioned it; I see you've rescued it from its archival. - Nunh-huh 13:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I thought there might have been an older one. That hasn't really reached a consensus yet, which is why I rescued it. Prior to me rescusing it I thought it was leaning to using an analogy to augment scientific notation rather than the huge number. David D. (Talk) 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

However it goes, it's use the quote, or use something else (or use both). We can't alter quotations. - Nunh-huh 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If its a quote then we might want to just rewrite the section. I don't see how all the zeros making it any more accessible. David D. (Talk) 13:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite clearly, people find numbers with a lot of zeros impressive. They may not be able to "name that number" - indeed, being able to name it is pretty much beside the point - but they know that a number with a lot of zeros is really, really big. It impresses them, in a way that scientific notation (which they may not even be able to understand) doesn't. - Nunh-huh 13:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With an anlogy no number is needed at all. The point here is to give a realtive quantity, i.e. how much is the dilution. Numbers this big don't help much, except to look impressive, but what does it mean? At least the scientifc notation is small and useless as opposed to big and useless. David D. (Talk) 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, looking impressive is the very reason numbers are used. Looking unimpressive is the reason scientific notation is inappropriate. And the vast dilution factor will be conveyed best to some people by a number with a lot of zeros, and to others by a striking analogy. Seems like an argument to use both. - Nunh-huh 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Text between the lines above was transfered from Nunh-huh talk page

I'd argue that looking impressive is not that useful if it does not have an relative meaning. I expect most people will see that large number and underestimate the dilution. i.e. it may actually have the opposite of the desired effect. In that vain it may also cause readers to glaze over and we'll lose their interest. David D. (Talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to rethink the wheel here. Such numbers have clearly been found useful by people who explain things to the lay public - that's why their quotes include them. - Nunh-huh 14:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

<indent> But is it well known that large numbers foster any kind of understanding? To paraphrase one example of analogy I like: "A king once asked how long is eternity. His wisest advisor responded: Once every thousand years, a little bird sharpens his beak on a mountain made of diamond. When this activity has worn the mountain into a pebble, the first second of eternity will be over." He could have used numbers but would the king have been any wiser? David D. (Talk) 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly prefer the number to a fable. Though there is no need to chose one and omit the other. Carl Sagan used analogy, and used "billions and billions". (I believe the latter was more useful.). - Nunh-huh 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree a fable is not much use but it's an illustration of how an analogy can have more meaning than trying to write infinity as a number. My only point is that we need to make sure this dilution factor has more meaning that just a bunch of zero's which has no meaning to most people other than "that's a big number". Most will have no idea how big. Coming to homeopathy fresh I would not know what 30C was but I would understand the scientific notation. Scientist and layman alike would not know what 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 represents with out actually counting the digits. David D. (Talk) 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The number isn't there for precision, it's there to give an idea of the size of the dilution. And it does that best by using zeros. You're getting hung up on its precise value; the point is not the specific number, but that the number is incredibly huge. For that matter, there's nothing wrong with giving 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, the same number in scientific notation, and an appropriate analogy. There's no "either/or" here. Nunh-huh 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the precise number as getting across a true understanding of what the number means. But I also think it would be useful to know what 30C realy does mean. Consequently my preference is for an analogy and scientific notation. Both have meaning. A big number is just wow factor but if thats what we need then I'd be fine to have all three. David D. (Talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason we don't give the reader both a large number and an analogy? Antelan ^talk 16:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is preferable to a number alone. David D. (Talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted comment

BTW please do not delete my comments agreed with orangemarlin. 'CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions' because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.

thanks.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it but moved it the section above where it has the correct context. David D. (Talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry I did not see it.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

please comment and dont delete or revert edits without discussion

what was wrong with my last edit and I should be blocked ? (according to user orangemarlin) This is NOPV edit and supported by the already cited references. Who disagrees?

Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, reported positive results, which were regarded as inconclusive and/or unconvincing, because they faced difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The major problem is that the statement is not in agreement with the sources we have. The most recent meta-analyses in the big journals failed to show positive results. Antelan ^talk 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.

I see that the previous editor changed the sentence referring to the previous meta analyses t which are already included in the article. The statement referring to the recent metanalsyses was not changed.

This is the current version. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design.[13][14] However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo.[6]

And the proposed version.

Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, reported positive results, which were regarded as inconclusive and/or unconvincing, because they faced difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo.[6]

Dont you think that the above is more consistent with the source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.35 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, literally, above on this talk page I quoted from a recent meta-analysis in the Lancet, a major medical journal, that found that homeopathy's effects are consistent with placebo effects. This is why your version is incorrect, or at least ignorant (your version, not you) of the major recent meta-analysis on the topic. Antelan ^talk 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

no one changed that - this is the last sentence. "However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo.[6]'

Again the change concerns the reference to the previous meta analyses not the last one (lancet 2005) .The sentence supposes to summarize this :'CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions' because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.[25]

OK, thanks, I see what you're saying. Let me work on rewording that sentence a bit. Be right back. Antelan ^talk 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: Various publications using meta-analysis, a common approach to pooling the results of many studies, reported positive results from the use of homeopathy. Facing difficulty in controlling for publication bias and the flawed designs of the studies they analyzed, these reports were regarded as inconclusive and unconvincing. A 2005 meta-analysis published in the Lancet comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicine demonstrated that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from that of a placebo.[6] Antelan ^talk 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Of course. Thats a correct reading of the previous metanalyses. But perhaps it should be clear that these conclusions belong to the writers? Jsut a thought maybe it is OK the way it is.

Now: you could edit the article and add it.

Actually I did it. Thanks for your nice editing. Best.

Great, thanks. Are you (or others) sure that so much detail on meta-analysis belongs in the intro, though? I was thinking this might go better in the body... Antelan ^talk 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont know about the others. I think it is Ok the way it is. The lead could be up to 4 paragraphes. There is space for more info if you wish.

Also: Lackof regulation in homeopathy in some ocuntries allows to quacks to fool patients and this is an issue it should be included in the lead. At least when a MD or a well trained proffesional practices homeopathy hopefully has the training to comprehend the limits of homeopathy and will not let someone put his/her life in danger by avoiding the correct convetional medication. --74.73.146.22 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this page have its own rules now?

I thought WP:Be_bold was a policy that applied to all pages, but apparently people who want to push quackery and suppress a factually correct article on the homoeopathy fraud get to create their own rules for this page only, like "don't make any edits whatsoever without posting them on the talk page to be pilloried by people who believe in magic first." Did I miss the announcement of this rule change? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

as you see here it is not a factually correct article. Please read the sources first and comment. best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind registering a username? It's tough to keep track of your contributions when your IP changes so frequently. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

will do later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know when you get around to it and I'll work with you on making the changes you've suggested above. Antelan ^talk 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is someone going to answer my question? Is this page part of Wikipedia and subject to the stated rules of Wikipedia, or have the homeopaths seceded from Wikipedia and started running this page as a fiefdom where they make whatever rules are beneficial to their pro-magic beliefs? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Any examples of what you talking about? Given most pro homeopathic changes to the article are reverted within hours if not minutes I'm not sure what you have seen to give you this opinion. David D. (Talk) 11:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The only edit Randy Blackamoor ever made to this article was [26], calling homeopathy a fraud in the lead sentence. The definition of fraud involves deliberate deception. As wrong as I believe homeopathy to be, I am also convinced that almost all of its supporters sincerely believe it to be true. An edit like that certainly requires discussion on the talk page under the rules of Wikipedia. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edit history. David D. (Talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I drop in on this page every once in a while, and it's striking to me how much the anti-homeopathic crowd insist on proclaiming once and for all that their view should be accepted as objective fact. There is so much opposition to homeopathy from entirely credible sources that it should suffice to explicitly state the references, but this doesn't seem adequate. All these shrill denunciasions, and the one from "Randy Blackamoor" almost seem comical. --Leifern (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost? David D. (Talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SPOV/NPOV

Sigh.

• First of all, there is no provision in WP:NPOV that says NPOV doesn't apply to articles related to science. The SPOV and NPOV dispute has been argued and settled. NPOV is one of only a few policies in Wikipedia and should therefore be adhered to.
• Second, without getting into the depths of the philosophy of science, it is very difficult to decide what is science and what isn't on topics such as these. It's not up to one editor or a group of editors to define and delineate what they consider science and what falls outside of science.
• Third, the scientific method is nothing if not aware of its own limitations in general, and real scientistics within medical and biological sciences specifically usually have as their starting point the primitive state of the art within their field. In short, there are far more questions than answers, far more that remains unexplained than explained.
• Fourth, there are plenty of credible voices who express healthy skepticism toward homeopathy that it shouldn't be necessary to express the supposed failings of homeopathy as an objective certainty rather than a widely held position.

--Leifern (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since the lancet in 1998 ( and other notable sources ) publish meta analyses stating that Homeopathy cannot be explained only as a placebo effect and more or less theay say about positive or promising results is not fringe anymore - like timecube ot whatever.

Minority yes. But since scinetists study it for a long time ( suggest more studies ) and mainly cocnclude that the results are positive but insufficient/ or not convicing ( besides the last one ) then it is not like astrology or like time cube or flat earth. Not fringe. Thats obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Without taking a stand on the particular edit in question, I want to say that I concur with Leifern's reading of Wikipedia policy. There is nothing in the policy referenced by Adam that suggests that the NPOV should ever be abandoned in favor of a SPOV. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. You can't get much clearer than that. If you think that SPOV is NPOV in a particular case, then you can make your argument using the terms of NPOV. If you think it is different, then you shouldn't be using it. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lancet has (to its credit) published several contradictory articles on homeopathy through the years, and it's safe to say that there is considerable uncertainty. Skepticism is certainly warranted, and proponents of homeopathy have to answer a number of questions. It is not our job at Wikipedia to resolve the issue whether homeopathy clearly is pseudoscience, and the section you're referring to says that there has to be unanimity that this is pseudoscience. This does not exist for homeopathy, or there wouldn't be serious articles and metastudies to examine the evidence. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute has been resolved. --Leifern (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV FAQ doesn't say there must be unanimity, it says theories which have a following but are generally considered pseudoscience can be described as such. I can't see how homeopathy wouldn't fall under this description, given the sources provided and the statements by major medical organizations. I think the article does quite a good job of including views that describe homeopathy and its tenets, that describe the current state of scientific analysis, and that describe the evolution of homeopathy as a cultural phenomenon.--Trystan (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Arbcom ruling. When even "questionable" science can't be considered pseudoscience, then it's pretty clear that homeopathy - which is being studied by serious scientists - does not fall into pseudoscience. As I've pointed out, it isn't for us to determine whether homeopathy has some, much, or little validity. It's our job to present the controversy where there is one. It is also considered bad form to remove NPOV tags without engaging in a serious discussion about it. I made a number of clearly good faith edits that were reverted without discussion, and rather than engage in a revert war, I am tagging it appropriately. --Leifern (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Trystan, could you remind me which major medical organization has stated homeopathy to be pseudoscience? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point in time, there has been little progress in getting this article into a neutral article on a controversial subject. My position has been very clear. This article should not be promoting homeopathy, but it should also not present homeopathy as "inane" nonsense. There are numerous research studies that suggest that homeopathic effects are not merely attributable to placebo effects. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Trystan above. You haven't justified why this article warrants a tag. If you think it does add references to back up your argument, don't just say it has some effect or say the article calls homeopathy inane - you need evidence. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It warrants a tag for the simple reason that disputed assertions are presented as objective facts, and because editors have explicitly they are basing this on SPOV rather than NPOV standards, in clear defiance of NPOV policy.--Leifern (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from the article that there have been studies supportive of homeopathy. To portray the dozens or hundreds of individual study results with any sort of neutrality, rigourous meta-analysis is required. Is there some specific way you think that the meta-analyses are being misrepresented?--Trystan (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

why dont you read the talk page? It is all there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The most recent article - that I'm aware of - in Lancet cites a metastudy of several trials involving homeopathic remedy. The conclusions of this meta-study is that higher quality studies tend to reject the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies are efficacious, thereby lending support to the null hypothesis that homeopathy is no better than a placebo. Several medical doctors fear that an overreliance on homeopathy may lead individuals to neglect conventional treatments, to their detriment. Meanwhile, homeopathic practitioners claim that a) their clinical experience certainly supports the use of homeopathy; b) they have always relied on scientifically valid "proofs" to test remedies; c) double-blind clinical trials of very high quality and beyond the means of homeopathic practitioners, as there are no intellectual property laws protecting the manufacture or marketing of homeopathic remedies; and d) those that have been performed on the whole tend to support homeopathy. To which skeptics say that it is difficult to falsify a treatment that is so dependent on individual characteristics; and that since they can't understand how homeopathy works, what with dilution and so forth, it seems implausible. All this is covered in the article, but it's worth nothing that this is not a field where research has been exhausted. --Leifern (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Origins

This article is missing information about Hahnemann's development of homeopathic methods. Unless he drew it whole out of the ether, some further explanation is needed on this issue. What theoretical precursors helped him develop the system? Clarification here might provide a firmer footer for theoretical explanations of the system that, as stated now, seem unsupportable within known science. Naturezak (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This would inevitably be a long and complicated story; are you really sure you want this adding to the article? why is it necessary? If so, I will try and compose a short-ish paragraph. BTW it is not mysterious. thanks Peter morrell 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the present article did a nice job of summarizing the history. Now, if people are interested, we can have a daughter article that gives a more extensive history. But at least as far as I am concerned, I think the present treatment in this article is pretty good.--Filll (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I shall compose and present here later a short para detailing the path Hahnemann took between 1783 and the first provings of 1790 and show his thinking and his methods and from which the 'homeopathic system' sprang forth. Peter morrell 07:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter, that sounds like a fine idea. The article now gives short shrift to the sources and precursors Hahnemann used. The history as given here implies that he conceived of the system out of the whole cloth after responding to Cullen's treatise. He however had many sources, and was not himself the original source the theory of medical similiars. An obvious place to start would be with the sources indicated in Emmans Dean, Michael (2001). "Homeopathy and "the progress of science"". History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching 39 (125 Pt 3): 255–83.:

Although Hahnemann’s sources are identified in everything he wrote, they have not been dealt with adequately by historians outside the homeopathic profession. For sources and precursors of the fundamental homeopathic principle, see Linn J. Boyd, A study of the simile in medicine (Philadelphia, 1936). For Hahnemann’s system as a whole, see: Harris Coulter, Divided legacy (II): The origins of modern Western medicine: J. B. Van Helmont to Claude Bernard (Washington, DC, 1977), 304–430. For an examination of the origins of Hahnemann’s research methods, pharmacology and disease theories, see: Michael E. Dean, “Homeopathy and alchemy: (1) A pharmacological gold standard”, The homeopath, no. 79 (2000), 22–27, and “Homeopathy and alchemy: (2) Contagion from miasms”, ibid., no. 80 (2001), 26–33. For subsequent influence on medicine, see: Harris Coulter, “Homoeopathic influences in nineteenth century allopathic therapeutics: A historical and philosophical study”, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, lxv (1972), 139–81, 207–44; Phillip A. Nicholls, Homoeopathy and the medical profession (London, 1988); John S. Haller, “Aconite: A case study in doctrinal conflict and the meaning of scientific medicine”, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, lx (1984), 888–904; W. B. Fye, “Vasodilator therapy for angina pectoris: The intersection of homeopathy and scientific medicine”, Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, xlv (1990), 317–40. For Hahnemann’s use of within-patient placebo controls, see: Michael E. Dean, “A homeopathic origin for placebo controls: ‘An invaluable gift of God’”, Alternative therapies in health and medicine, vi (2000), 58–66, and subsequent debate: Michael E. Dean and Ted J. Kaptchuk, “Debate over the history of placebos in medicine”, Alternative therapies in health and medicine, vi (2000), 18–20.

The omission of these sources contributes to a non-NPOV perception that Hahnemann 'made it all up'. For that reason, I think a bit of information about his theoretical precursors would be helpful to the end of ensuring readers are not misled. Naturezak (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold on there, Bald Eagle! Yes it would all be fine and good to include all that stuff, but do you realise how long that would be? It would be a whole article in itself. I have so far written about 5 paragraphs about the origins of homeopathy, with little about his alleged precursors. It is not yet sourced and it only goes up to 1790. There is much left to add and then it needs sourcing. Perhaps you ask for too much. BTW some of those sources you mention are not ones I would use. I do not buy all that is written about his alleged precursors. Much of it is invented; dots joined up eagerly by non-historians on flimsy or non-existent evidence are hardly dots worth joining. If you follow. Hahnemann truly was a pioneer; there was little he had to go on. If he had so many so-called leads, then why did it take him about 20 years (c.1783-1801) to put it all together? Such a view simply doesn't stack up. More later on this forsure. Peter morrell 13:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's please no more with the "bald eagle" business.

It is my estimate that no more than 100 words would be needed to properly situate Hahnemann's system in relation to its theoretical precursors. I'll work on one myself, if you prefer not to. Naturezak (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality tag needs to be up until this article is NPOV

I just put back the NPOV tag indicating that this article has a problem with neutrality. Within minutes, this was reverted with a comment "please engage in specific, constructive discussion instead of tagging". The problem is that I have been attempting to engage on this talk page since 6 December 2007 in specific, constructive discussion. I have given specific, constructive suggestions only to have homeopathy insulted as "inane" and specific research studies that I pointed to be mis-characterized as having conclusions that were not the very consclusions of the research that I quoted from the studies. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the proposed articles was considered by other editors and the prevailing opinion was not to include them. Reading the discussion, I see no reason to think they were acting improperly or violating NPOV. The article addresses studies through meta-analyses. Specifically highlighting favourable ones would give them undue weight.

The article does present scientific consensus as fact, but this is done in many articles, and isn't elsewhere considered to be a violation of NPOV.--Trystan (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article currently specifically highlights unfavourable studies, thus giving them undue weight. The neutrality tag specifically states not to remove it until consensus has been reached.

As I pointed out before, the article states: "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" as a statement of fact. I and other editors contend that NPOV standards require the statement to state: "Most scientists currently believe that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible". That is one example that I have pointed to that could easily be changed from POV to NPOV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The current studies are offered as representative examples of the conclusions of the meta-analysis that leads the "Research on medical effectiveness" section, or otherwise generally have notable qualities to add to the discussion. What specifically about the studies you mentioned warrant their inclusion?

Representing a scientific consensus as "Most scientists believe..." is not neutral. The article accurately reflects the views of homeopaths as well as the views of the scientific community.--Trystan (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "Most scientists believe..." is not neutral. Look at any other encyclopedia for examples how articles are written from a NPOV, with no indication in those articles what the personal opinions or beliefs of the editors of those articles are. That is how Wikipedia articles should be written, according to WP:NPOV.

As for the 1997 meta-analysis in Lancet, there is a very significant statement:

Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43. [27] Linde and colleagues analysed 89 trials and found a mean odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 2.05–2.93), in favor of homeopathy. When considering just those trials of “high quality” and after correcting for publication bias, the findings actually remained statistically significant. The main conclusion was that the results "were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo." Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confused I am afraid. First, Wikipedia is not the same as other encyclopediae. Second, neutrality of other encyclopediae is not the same as WP:NPOV. Read these policies. They state, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." That is, in the medical and scientific fields, what fraction of the practitioners subscribe to homeopathy? A teeny tiny fraction, from my observations. I can estimate it for you if you like, but I would wager it is quite small. Now, we have to present homeopathy in proportion to the prominence of both the homeopathy supporters, and the detractors. That means, the article should be 99% against homeopathy. Instead, it is 60% for homeopathy. So please stop complaining and move on to something else.--Filll (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining is a fun activity. But you failed to read carefully. They stated in conclusion: However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. In other words, though the data didn't quite confirm a placebo effect (as a hypothesis), it clearly disproved the hypothesis that homeopathy was efficacious for any clinical condition. So, unless you want to quote mine further, my job is completely done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

@Filll: I dispute both your numbers and their application. In Germany if I don't watch out, I am likely to be prescribed those sugar pills by my general practitioner. My perception is that at least a sizeable minority of the medical profession here thinks that homeopathy has something going for it. Every pharmacy advertizes that they provide "homeopathy and allopathy". But regardless of the numbers, I think it is wrong to add up sentences "for" and "against" homeopathy. The entire article should be neutral.

@Orangemarlin: Please remember that "insufficient evidence" is not the same as "clearly disproven". Even if everyone could agree (which they can't) on exactly what homeopathy is and how it can be tested, you can never prove that it has no effect. The best you can do is decide how big the effect would have to be to be clinically relevant and show that it is below this level.

--Art Carlson (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been my experience, having been involved in numerous contentious debates especially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that the predominant view on issues generally carry more weight when their source is clearly stated than when they are asserted as fact. Bald assertions about controversial subjects discredit the views. It's harder to write NPOV, but we so what? Homeopathy as it is practiced today relies on a conceptual foundation, a defined set of practices, and a huge compilation of literature. Clearly, all these things are disputed. But I think it would be to overstate the state of the controversy by characterizing all these controversies as finally settled. Art Carlson's quotes are telling - the journals that are examining the efficacy of homeopathy are very careful about phrasing what has been proven, disproven, etc. Why should we subscribe to a lower standard? And I agree with Arion 3x3, it is telling that the "anti" homeopathic crowd is clearly more militant than anyone else here. As a matter of personal disclosure, I don't know if homeopathy works or not, and I think the field should be subject to skeptical scrutiny, like everything else. But I have also found that medical science in general understands far less than they understand, so I prefer to maintain an open, but skeptical mind about everything I hear. --Leifern (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just an issue of medicine. It's also an issue of physics and chemistry. When homeopathy was invented, atomic theory was still fairly controversial. Today we understand that most homeopathic remedies contain no solute and that the physical interaction of molecules is all that makes a solution (there is no magical dissolving genie or water memory). Homeopathy contradicts these basic facts of science. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two questions are being discussed here. One is the question of scientific plausibility. I would object to saying homeopathy is "scientifically impossible", but "scientifically implausible" seems fair. Even if a few scientists believe they can identify (to them) promising potential mechanisms, and even if it turns out in the end to really be true, it just doesn't fit in with the current scientific view of the world, i.e. it is implausible. The other question is "Leaving aside the plausibility of the mechanism, what is the evidence for and against clinical efficacy?" I feel there is a tendency of the "anti's" to read more into the studies than is actually claimed there. You can legitimately argue, When the mechanism is implausible and the clinical evidence is shaky, then there is very likely nothing there. The formulations chosen by several editors is more like, Whether the mechanism is plausible or not, the clinical studies have proven that there is nothing there. I think it is more accurate to just leave it at "shaky". --Art Carlson (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are being admirably fair, Art, scrupulously fair, I would say. Maybe folks should read this [28] new item a response to the 'homeophobes' like Ben Goldacre who never tires of disputing homeopathy at every turn on theoretical grounds. It might throw some new stuff to the surface for folks to chew at! Peter morrell 16:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the emotionally charged and morally repugnant word "homeophobia" out of this. To compare being skeptical of and criticising alt. med. to hateful homophobia is low, disgusting, and trivialises real homophobia. Unprovoked (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever disgusting or trivial here. It has nothing to do with homophobia; if you actually read the article above you will see what homeophobes means. It is their name NOT mine. It is a perfectly valid term & etymologically correct. Peter morrell 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a perfectly valid word for this phenomenon: scepticism. The use of the word "homeophobia" is intentionally designed to unfavourably compare sceptics with homophobics. That is lowering the level of the debate. I didn't mean to imply that you thought of the word, I was trying to make you aware of it's full context. It is a non-word. Unprovoked (talk)

After reviewing some of the Lancert articles and letters, I think Art is right on the money. One letter in particular, by the researchers of the 1997 meta-analysis cited by Arion above, says makes three interesting points:

• They agree that homeopathy is implausible.
• They regret that their meta-analysis has been taken by homeopaths as an endorsement of the practice, rather than an indication that more rigourous study is required.
• They find fault with the methodology of the 2005 meta-analysis, and conclude that homeopathy has still not been rigourously proven to be no greater than placebo effect.

So I agree it's fair to say that the principles of homeopathy are scientifically implausible, since there does seem to be a genuine consensus on that point. But the article should indicate some debate about whether its effects have been rigourously proven to be no greater than placebo effect. Some researchers feel the 2005 meta-analysis was sound, some feel it was flawed and that more study is required to reach a definitive conclusion.--Trystan (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, "more study required" is not the same as definitely disproven, and if serious scientists believe that homeopathy - at least theoretically - can be proven or disproven, then it can't be pseudoscience. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that homeopaths simply assert the dilution increases potency, and they posit possible (though admittedly to my mind implausible) explanations for this. There are many observable natural phenomena that we can't explain, so this shouldn't alarm us - the question remains whether the reported effects of homeopathy are real in a controlled setting, and that's what the Lancet series and other studies seek to ascertain. As I said, this article should without any question make the skeptics' case, but it shouldn't overstate it. --Leifern (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for a NPOV tag here. Lobojo (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is for constructive discussion, not voting. --Leifern (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not voting, I am merely announcing that this is now on my watchlist, and will object to NPOV tags and assorted boxen-spam from aggrieved editors. I read the article and it seems fair, it gives fair homeopathy a fair hearing, but rightly makes it clear that it is not science, not falsifiable and is indeed unproven and unprovable. It is pseudoscience by even the strictest definition of the term. Homeopaths quoted in the article even "defend" it by saying that science just isn't designed to fairly evaluate homeopathy - what more can anyone add. It is pseudoscience. Lobojo (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason we need to decide if "pseudoscience" applies is to determine whether that category is appropriate. I think it clearly meets this criterion: "subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another (Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community.)" As you yourself point out above, homeopaths tend to reject the standard, scientific double-blind method.

As I said, the article should acknowledge some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether homeopathy has been rigorously proven to be no more effective than placebo. At the same time, we must be careful not to represent the results of the meta-analyses as concluding that it is efficacious, since that wasn't the conclusion of any of the researchers.--Trystan (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if this were the case, which it isn't it would still be in the category since by all scientific accounts the rationale behind it is bogus and silly. Lobojo (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if what weren't the case? Which part of my post are you referring to there? I agreed that it is appropriately categorized as pseudoscience.--Trystan (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was agreeing with you, but adding that ever 'twer you wrong on that point, I would still argree in general. Lobojo (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

administators please explain -The Neutrality tag needs to be up ?

I would like an administator to explain when the under dispute tag needs to be up. For example, now it needs to be up since there is a dispute going about the N point of view of the article or not? Please explain. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

Well, maybe administrators are out for dinner. I know it is an annoying question. Whenever you come back please answer - I dont want to participate in the discussion -just curiosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are supposed to avoid content disputes in their roles as admins (as editors they are of course free to engage in them). The use of the tag is very clear, and it even states clearly that it is not to be removed until and unless the dispute is resolved. Meanwhile, I've been threatened with a 3RR block for trying to keep up with policy on this. I guess there are editors who simply can't bring themselves to actually discuss matters and would rather bully those they disagree with. --Leifern (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dont they assign an administrator who is not involved in this to moderate ? msurprised thereis no administators for this discussion available. Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators aren't gods. We aren't any more objective than other editors, we just have a few extra buttons on our toolbars. We definitely aren't in a position to adjudicate content disputes. Have you considered a Request for Mediation, instead?

Speaking solely for myself, I also think it would be good for all the parties here to stop shouting at each other over whether or not there ought to be a tag on the article (or worse, edit warring over it) and get back to talking about whatever issues still need resolution. Pardon my bluntness, but fighting over a tag is just lame. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding .The question is very clear: according to wiki rules the tag should bethere or not? A neutral administrator should be able to answer this. It seems easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that arguing over a tag is unproductive. We ought to be working on the article, so that there's no question about whether or not it needs a tag. Focus, people! The easy road is saying "I've made sure there's a label on the dispute" the hard road is saying "I'm going to assume that everyone here wants to improve the encyclopedia; let's work to resolve this dispute". There's an old Chinese proverb, When a wise man points at the Moon, it is the fool who looks at his finger.

Quit looking at the finger, everyone; you're missing the point. Figure out exactly where the dispute – if any – lies. Is it the lede? Any particular section? Individual words or phrases? The tone of particular paragraphs? Talk it out. Describe clearly and specifically what points of view are being omitted or granted undue weight. Don't fiddle with the tags on the article – at all – for a period of time. Give it a week or two, at least. Battling over tags is a pointless and sterile exercise and does nothing to advance any sort of dispute resolution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is obviously no: The tag should be not be up. Even if I agree with what you say about dialogue, the rules state that yes the tag should be up for the reasons you see below ( explained well by User:Leifern|Leifern). Of course, the majority of the administrators could decide to not apply the rules or to apply them selectively.It is becoming very difficult to argue though, that the moderation of the discussion in this talk page is sound, according to the wikipedia rules and it does not try to preserve the current POV.Very difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

I think it's entirely possible to work out the differences on the actual text. {{NPOV}} tags are intended as a service to our readers, so that they understand when reading the article that there is controversy about the article that hasn't been resolved. These tags are supposed to be "sticky" in the sense that they should stay - as the tag clearly indicates - until the controversy is resolved or reached some level of stasis. Without the tag, readers may be misled into thinking that there is consensus about how we characterize the controversy over the topic, and that's doing our readers a disservice. I can't recall ever having removed this kind of tag until I felt comfortable the issues had been resolved, no matter how comfortable I was with one particular version. --Leifern (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite everyone to read from WP:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F: Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct.Agreed. Hopefully some administrators or supervisors ( do they exist ? I dontknow ) will decide to take a look at this talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

100% Neutrality

We have had the assertion on this page that "the article should be 99% against homeopathy" and that is absolutely wrong. It should be 100% neutral, presenting both sides of the controversy without bias. I gave an example of 3 specific studies that indicated results that could not be attributed to placebo effects. The response that I received was that the results of the studies were not as I stated. Yet I copied and pasted directly from the abstracts of those studies. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand the rules of WP are not a good sign. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. And according to WP policy, the article can be 99% anti homeopathy. So try to learn first. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would simplify things if we steer clear of cherry picking on both sides by removing the existing references to specific clinical trial results and focus on accurately describing the meta-analyses.--Trystan (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's basically the point behind Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. There are more than a few studies, some of them of apparently high quality in reputable journals, reporting a positive effect of homeopathy. But it is not our job here to summarize the hundreds of individual studies, i.e. the primary sources. The ideal in Wikipedia is to use secondary sources, in this case meta-analyses. There are only a handful of these, so we should endeaver to fairly present their conclusions. We probably shouldn't discuss any individual studies at all (though that is not an absolute rule). The point about being 100% neutral is one I also made above. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you apply this rule then all the negative studies showing negative they should be removed.I think that they should be included though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 100% neutral and I agree with undue weight too but i don't think the point of all this is to have it 99% negative towards homeopathy. First, any description of homeopathy itself should not judge. Second, how would it even be possible for describe what homeopaths think in 1% of the article. I interpret undue weight as purely a guide to ensuring there is not a preponderance of opinion against the conventional view, i.e. we need some balance that reflects reality, however it's not quantifiable. David D. (Talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some proposed principles and premises to get out of the impasse

Some premises I think we should agree on:

• Homeopathy is a controversial subject, and the article should give the reader a good introduction to the controversy. This includes a bit of writing for the enemy on both/all sides of the issue.
• It should be clear that dominant view in the medical mainstream community ranges from skeptical to rejectionist. But we have to be careful not project on them all outright hostility.
• Proposed explanations for the way homeopathy work defy known and established laws of physics, and it's therefore safe to say that such explanations ring implausible.
• There are not many golden standard clinical trials available. This is partly due to the protocol for indicating homeopathic remedies; and partly due to the fact that such trials are difficult to finance unless there's intellectual property at stake.
• Those trials that have been completed fall short of a golden standard but show mixed results.
• Several meta studies have been conducted; the most recent ones suggest that a) more study is needed, and b) findings suggest that the effects of homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable for a placebo effect.
• Homeopathic practitioners defend their positions by arguing that...
• Skeptics, on the other hand, argue that...

--Leifern (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that those sounds good on the whole. The only qualifications I would add are that any discussion about the quality of clinical trials, their findings, or the reasons for the lack of them should be dealt with by reference to the meta-analyses that have been done. Trying to synthesize conclusions about the research field ventures into original research, and is beyond our capacity here anyway.--Trystan (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientific research supporting homeopathy

By ignoring studies, some of them of apparently of high quality in reputable journals, reporting a positive effect of homeopathy, we are simply perpetuating the wrong impression that "science" has not found anything positive about homeopathy. Here is just one example of a scientific research study supporting homeopathy :

A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilisation of arsenic in the rat Cazin, M., Gaborit, J., Chaoui, A., Boiron, J., Belon, P., Cherruault, Y., Papapanayotou, C. Human Toxicology. 1987; 6: 315-320

Abstract: Having developed a pharmacokinetic method for studying the fate of orally administered arsenious anhydride by a radioactive tracer method, the influence of Hahnemannian dilutions of arsenicum album on the elimination and retention of this toxin in the rat was then investigated. The effects of centesimal (cH) and decimal (dH) dilutions were studied.All the dilutions studied were found to be active. The strongest effects were observed after the administration of dilutions corresponding to a concentration of 10-14 (14dH and 7cH). Overall, the decimal dilutions augmented the elimination of arsenic more than the centesimals.The observed results were submitted to mathematical analysis. A mathematical model, which confirms that Hahnemannian dilutions have biological effects which are a direct function of the degree of dilution, was developed.

It's about time to stop claiming that there are no scientific research studies supporting homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Restarting the same discussion every time it shows signs of progress isn't helping. The article doesn't say that there are no studies supporting homeopathy. It says just the opposite: "Various publications using meta-analysis... reported positive results from the use of homeopathy."--Trystan (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Life Science foundation seems to conduct and publish research for and about homeopathic treatments. For example, they are investigating spin coupling of electrons. We laugh now, but breakthroughs may result. Sounds like voodoo science to me, but if I were alive at the time of Darwin, who would have thunk my cousin's a monkey? If they are part of the Life Science Research Foundation, they are doing peer reviewed research.[29]. Ra2007 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And, while this stuff is beyond my little brain, it looks like the University of Minnesota has a bunch of Ph.D.s and others working on homeopathy. I hope this helps make the article better by providing additional sources and/or leads. Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources do you propose including from this institution?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs)

Here are 5 more research studies suggesting that homeopathy is not simply a "placebo effect":

• Rheumatoid Arthritis study 1980. Gibson et al. J. Clin. Pharm. 1980. 9. p 453

Gibson and colleagues in Glasgow performed a double blind controlled trial of homeopathic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients with careful assessment of progress. There were only 23 patients in each group, both had full homeopathic interviews but one treated group received placebo instead of remedy. 19 showed improvement in the treatment group compared to 5 in the placebo group. p=0.001.

• Stillbirth in Pigs. Day C. Veterinary Recorder. 1984. 9114. p 216

This problem was reduced using homeopathic Caulophyllum compared with placebo. Veterinary experiments carry much dramatic effect as the placebo effect is considered less operative. A QED BBC TV Documentary program showed one half of a herd of cows being protected against mastitis by the addition of a few drops of Phytolacca 30c to their drinking trough while the other half of the herd using a non-treated trough continued to have the problem.

• Hay-fever study 1986. Reilly et al. Lancet. 1986. p 365

A study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow set out to determine whether they could find any evidence to support the hypothesis that placebo response fully explains the clinical response to homeopathy. They couldn't. The study was a double blind controlled trial of 30c homeopathic potencies of mixed grasses and pollens compared to placebo. The improvement was significant for the treated group who even exhibited an initial aggravation of symptoms as might be expected for a homeopathic response. The trial was well conducted and to a high standard.

• Fibrositis study 1989. Fisher et al. B M J. 1989. p 365

Fisher and colleagues found a significant improvement in fibrositis cases in a rheumatology clinic using 6c potencies of Rhus tox. when those patients had the well known modalities of being worse when cold and better with continued movement. Previous studies had failed to show any difference but hadn't taken care to use the homeopathic indications for Rhus tox.

• Asthma study using house dust mite 1994. Reilly et al. Lancet. 1994. p 1601

A follow-up study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow to the hayfever study of 1986. The study was a double blind controlled trial of a 30c homeopathic potency of house dust mite compared to placebo. Of the 28 patients used 77% showed an improvement compared to only 33% showing an improvement with placebo. p=0.08. The trial was very well conducted and to a very high standard. The study was supervised by a consultant respiratory physician who recruited the patients for the study.

If you think I just happened to find these, and there are no others, I will be happy to provide you with dozens more. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A meta-analysis looks at the clinical studies that have been done in an area, evaluates their methodology, and compiles their findings. It aims to determine what conclusions can be drawn from the body of research as a whole by applying rigorous scientific analysis. Individual studies showing positive results, regardless of how many you provide, are not conclusive. The number of studies showing negative results must also be considered. Their methodology must be examined. Selecting only the positive results is called "cherry picking."

Synthesizing and evaluating the complete body of research into homeopathy is both original research and far beyond the capability of a wikipedia article. The only approach that we can use to deal with the results of the research in a neutral manner is to accurately report the results of the meta-analyses.--Trystan (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why some editors feel that this article is not NPOV

I will try and help organize people's thoughts into one concise play. If you think this article doesn't meet the rigors of WP:NPOV, please state why below in succinct, clear language and - if at all possible - please provide a suggestion as to how we can improve the article to meet the NPOV guidelines. In all statements, please be a specific as possible, providing quotes and references whenever possible. If we keep our thoughts organized and clear, I am sure we can work our way through removing the NPOV tag. Remember, per WP:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F, the tag should remain in tact until there is a consensus here to remove it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The rules state that yes the tag should be up for the reasons you see below ( explained well by User:Leifern|Leifern). Of course, the administrators could decide to not apply the rules

.It is becoming very difficult to argue though, that the moderation of the discussion in this talk page is sound, according to the wikipedia rules and it does not try to preserve the current POV.Very difficult. Administrator Kurykh shouldn't you protect the under dispute tag as well?

Otherwhise you could be considered that you are taking the side of the current POV on Homeopathy. Justify please --74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My protection was based on a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. My sentiments, or lack thereof, are indicated by the protection notice tag itself: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." My protection of any version will be m:The Wrong Version, and hence you would be better off trying to resolve the dispute at hand rather than erroneously speculate about my nonexistent inclinations. —Kurykh 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No speculation was intended. I might miss something and you might be right. If more than 2 editors think that the article is not neutral the under dispute tag -according to rules- should be there or not ? Just asking.I masking this all day but there is no responce.

thanks--74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As was explained above, administrators don't fill the adjudicative role you are requesting of them. You could file a request for comment on whether the tag should be included, but as has been mentioned by both admins, dropping the issue and actually discussing underlying concern would be far more productive.--Trystan (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed . yes. discussion.

Just I had a quastion on why a wiki rule is not applied and wanted a clear answer. I thought administrators would be able to explain why but I was wrong. Or the rule has changed and I m not aware of it. Well. Whoever follows the discsussion can come to his/her own conclusion.

So do you think that the controversy ( appeared in major sourses ) in the 2005 lancet metanalyses should be presented in the article? yes or no? thanks

And for the actual reasons please

Okay, I don't care which version is protected. What I do want is for editors who think there is a need for the tag to please list specific examples from the existing article where they feel NPOV is being violated. If no specific and reasonable examples can be given, then I too agree that there is no need for the NPOV tag. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The controversy which the lancet 2005 studies have caused is not presented. All the sourses and references are in the talk page.

• Is it an off-wiki controversy or are you talking about a controversy here at talk? If it is off-wiki and you have a reliable source describing said controversy please provide it here with how and where you would like to see it used in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

2. There are metanalyses published showing positive for homeopathy which are not included and individual studies as well. Individual studies are included in the article but only these showing negative. Positive individual studies have been excluded since they are not ............metanalyses.( For the negatives this excuse does not apply.)

• Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the article, I find only one individual study specifically mentioned, the mustard gas study, and that is only briefly referred to for historical reasons. All the rest seem to be meta-analyses. I may have overlooked the ones you are referring to. Could you remind me where "Individual studies are included in the article but only these showing negative."? Thanks. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs under "Research on medical effectiveness" are examples of cherry picking to make homeopathy appear ineffective. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Proposals for edits in bold, questions for Arion in italics. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 5 ("Since homeopathic remedies ...") seems to be moving from direct studies of the effect on the course of an illness to in vivo studies of effects that are objectively quantifiable. This should be made clearer in the text. Both positive and negative individual studies are cited. Reviews and meta-analyses do not seem to be available. I think this might be a case where it is acceptable to use primary sources. Do you (Arion) agree? The last sentence seems to be an individual study of effects on an illness and thus should probably be deleted. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 6 ("Systematic reviews ...") cites several (negative) reviews. For the structure of the article, paragraphs 5 and 6 should be exchanged. Do you (Arion) know of any systematic reviews of the use of homeopathy for specific conditions that report positive results? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 7 ("In 1987, ...") covers Benveniste. This is a complex story that is hard to do justice to in the short space available in an overview of homeopathy. I think it might be better to shorten this section and link to the details in the article on Benveniste. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs 5, 6, & 7 contain specific references to research that had results that were negative. If this is to be allowed, then specific references to research that had results that were positive toward homeopathy should be included. I listed eight research studies that specifically confirm homeopathic remedy activity just in the last several days. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

??? 5 already cites both positive and negative studies. 6 deals only with systematic reviews of efficacy for specific conditions, and as far as we know, there are no such studies with positive results. 7 does not cite any studies at all (although it obviously should cite Benveniste's Nature paper), but only opinions about Benveniste's work. I don't know what you want to change. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

One more point. I think the material in the lead makes it adequately clear that the results of individual studies are mixed, e.g. "Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies." (Emphasis added.) The material in the main text, however, is rather more dogmatic: "Homeopathy is unsupported by modern scientific research.", suggesting that no studies have reported results in favor of homeopathy. I propose, at a minimum, to add the phrase "by the collected weight ..." to the second spot. Actually I find the formulation a bit strange and would prefer something along the lines of "Scientific and clinical studies, taken as a whole, do not provide any clear support for the claims of homeopathy." --Art Carlson (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that better wording would be: "Skeptics maintain that the majority of scientific and clinical studies have not provided any clear support for the claims of homeopathy."

Since there is a considerable amount of homeopathic research that has been carried out in France and Germany, and most has not been translated into English, the facts may actually be quite different than this article currently portrays. There may actually be a majority of scientific and clinical studies that provide clear support for the claims of homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is false that only skeptics claim that the majority of studies have not provided evidentiary support for homeopathy. Are you asserting that some other party to the discussion claims that it is untrue that the majority of scientific and clinical studies have failed to provided support for the claims of homeopathy? Naturezak (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Resaerch on the memory of water not even mentioned ( besides beneviste) - again from reliable sources.Look above.

• Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact mentioned near the beginning of the section on Medical and scientific analysis, although only very briefly. I don't know if this article needs to go into more detail (Make a suggestion!), but in any case there should be a link to Water memory. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Basic Homeopathic opinions about metanalyses have been excluded.

• Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

all the sourses available to the curious editors who will look at the talk page above.

I understand that this may be repetitious, but if perhaps you can just say succinctly above exactly what you would like to change/add to the article to make it satisfy NPOV in your eyes, I think having it all in one place will greatly help this project along. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Levine2112's request for specific suggestions: Since 6 December 2007 I have given specific examples where the article, and by extensin Wikipedia, appears to be making critical POV statements against homeopathy. I have given specific examples how, by changing the language to neutral language and citing a source for a statement, this article could be much improved into an unbiased article that does not take a position for or against homeopathy.

• For those insisting that homeopathy is "unscientific" and "implausible", read on:

Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy. Domenico Mastrangelo Med Sci Monit. 2006 Dec 18;13 (1):SR1-8 17179919 [30]

According to the western medical establishment, homeopathy is both "unscientific" and "implausible". A short overview of its history and the methods it uses, however, easily reveals that homeopathy is a true science, fully grounded on the scientific method and on principles, such as, among others, the Arndt-Schultz law, hormesis, and epitaxy, whose plausibility has been clearly and definitely demonstrated in a number of scientific publications and reports. Through a review of the scientific literature, an explanation of the basic principles of homeopathy is proposed based on arguments and evidence of mainstream science to demonstrate that, in spite of the claims of conventional medicine, homeopathy is both scientific and plausible and that there is no reasonable justification for its rejection by the western medical establishment. Hopefully, this hurdle will be overcome by opening academic institutions to homeopathy to enlarge the horizons of medical practice, recover the value of the human relationship with the patient, and through all this, offer the sick a real alternative and the concrete perspective of an improved quality of life.

I hope what I have shared is helpful, and my very specific suggestions will be considered. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Levine2112, and second the request that Arion propose the changes he'd like to implement rather than only directing the discussion to information outside WP. Naturezak (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First suggestion (let's go one at a time):

The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

would be better phrased:

Mainstream science considers the ideas of homeopathy to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to current pharmaceutical knowledge.

Since I've offered numerous suggestions before, let's see if doing one sentence at a time will be more productive. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than engage in circumspec editing feel free to add your thoughts here. Shot info (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth pointing out that 74.73.146.241 is User:Sm565 evading his block? The connection is quite clear per this diff.[31] FWIW, I can't participate in any dispute resolution until 1) any and all sockpuppetry stops, and 2) specific suggestions on fixing the article are put forth (though I think Arion's section above could be a good start). Skinwalker (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arion 3x3, for a concrete suggestion to work with. Plausibility is by its nature a judgment call. What else could possibly be meant by "X is scientifically implausible" other than "Mainstream science considers X to be scientifically implausible"? I have no particular objection to your proposal, other than that it is wordier, but I also don't think it adds any information or clarity. I could also live with either "modern pharmaceutical knowledge" or "current pharmaceutical knowledge", but I think "modern" is better. What distinction are you trying to make? Presumably that "current" sounds like a fashion which is bound to change next year. While that is in principle possible, science generally builds on what has gone before, so I think "modern" is a better choice. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should express notable views rather than the views of Wikipedia users, so "considers" is definitely preferable to "is". Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are very important reasons for the choice of the words:

(1) The current wording makes it appear as an absolute statement of fact, and makes it appear as if the article, and by extensin Wikipedia, is making critical POV statements against homeopathy. By clarifying who is making the statement, that changes it from a biased POV sentence to a NPOV sentence that is merely reporting on current mainstream scientific opinion.

(2) The use of "current" rather than "modern" makes it more of a statement of what the knowledge is, rather than subtlely implying that homeopathy belongs in the realm of "outdated" (not-modern) knowledge. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "oppose" implies agent opposition, which is not the case. "Modern" is denotationally and connotationally correct; "current" is not. I propose: "The hypothesized mechanism of homeopathy is scientifically implausible and contradicts modern pharmaceutical knowledge." Naturezak (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Naturezak (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no single "hypothesized mechanism of homeopathy" (unless you want to explicitely single out water memory). In fact, all the ideas that have been put forth in the direction of a mechansim fall short of being falsifiable hypotheses. I prefer something like "No mechanism that has been suggested is scientifically plausible" or else the simpler original wording. I am also bothered by both "is directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" and "contradicts modern pharmaceutical knowledge". How about "is not consistent with ..." or "cannot be accomodated with the framework of ..."? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Art. The idea that homeopathic mechanisms are "hypotheses" rings like a POV-claim. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Every article on a scientific topic I've read has stated mainstream scientific opinion as fact; e.g. dogs are mammals of the Canidae family; an atom's nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons. The difference in connotation between "current" vs. "modern" also doesn't strike me as signficant. I view the proposed wording as equivalent to the existing one, so I don't have any problem with the change.--Trystan (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: "The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and are inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge."--Trystan (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This last one by Trystan (talk · contribs) sounds good to me. I am assuming that the sources are reliable and fairly characterized. Ra2007 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The version by Trystan for the sentence is an improvement over that which is currently in the article. However, I suggest that the second verb ("are") in the sentence be removed:

"The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge." Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Even better Arion3x3. Ra2007 (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are scientifically implausible[2] and incompatible with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[42]" presents the scientific consesus appropriately assertively. Naturezak (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

So let's recap some of the suggestions and everyone say which one they support. Feel free to support more than one. Let's just add supports and no opposes. If I am missing a version which you would like to add, please do so. This is not a vote, but merely a straw poll to see which versions we should be focusing our energies on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are scientifically implausible and incompatible with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

• support Naturezak (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• support Art Carlson (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• support Unprovoked (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• support Peter morrell 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

• support Art Carlson (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• support Peter morrell 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• support Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and are inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

• The hypothesized mechanism of homeopathy is scientifically implausible and contradicts modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

• Mainstream science considers the ideas of homeopathy to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to current pharmaceutical knowledge.

• support Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• By the beginning of the 21st century, most scientists considered the validity of homeopathy to be implausible.

• support Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not sure why incompatibility with pharmaceutics would be at all relevant. Such a compatibility is not claimed, after all. The first half of the statement seems sufficient. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have another suggestion for phrasing, please add it above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference cited at the end of the mention of "pharmaceutical", Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? [32] states:

(1) "The supposed implausibility of homeopathy, which is based on the argument that very dilute substances (diluted beyond Avogadro's number) cannot have biological activity, has been investigated by a number of scientists. Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed."

(2) "high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems"

(3) "In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo. However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo."

Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article states "[Homeopathy] is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories." which is exactly the idea being cited.--Trystan (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I concede that I missed that sentence in the "Pharmacy Practice" article, and I have moved my support to the sentence that includes that concept. I hope everyone did not miss the 3 important points that article made about homeopathy, especially the real story about that 2005 Lancet study. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The authors of the study addressed those criticisms in an addendum/letter to the editor. They provided the information as soon as it was asked for and claimed it was an unintentional mistake to leave it out Unprovoked (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

'Opposed to' doe not necessarily imply incompatibility. Pharmacology concerns itself with the medical effects of substances, while homeopathy concerns itself with the medical effects of imprints. These are opposites, but could in theory be complementary. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What is an imprint? Naturezak (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A technical term for spirit-like essence. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A technical term in what field? And how are you defining "spirit"? Naturezak (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

“In proportion to the prominence of each”

I hope we are not heading towards a completely confused, obfuscated piece of crud. It appears to me that is what is going on. Also, we are introducing more and more material claiming that homeopathy has some substantial scientific backing, when it fact it has none. No reliable studies of efficacy. No theory behind it that makes any sense. And we seem to be removing real science. This I find extremely troubling, on a GA article. I have avoiding battling infinitely here on this article, but I really find this disturbing. So many people are just here to push a POV, which is at odds with the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia was designed to frame topics according to the mainstream. And how does mainstream science and medicine regard homeopathy? Use your heads people, or this article will be delisted, and degrade into a disaster.

Or maybe we should just revert to the version 6 or 10 months ago? Would you jokers prefer that? Or maybe just delete it completely? Good heavens...use some common sense. Wikipedia has rules. It is not here to promote your personal pet project or your personal career or business.--Filll (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you, Filll. If proposed new material is not from reliable sources, then it will not be included. If there are reliable sources saying homeopathy has some scientific backing, how can you claim it has absolutely none? And what "real science" has been suggested for removal? Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "frame according to the mainstream". It sounds like you think the article should be written from a scientific point of view, but that would be against Wikipedia policy, so I'm sure it's a simple misunderstanding. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not quite understanding my point. The policy of WP is: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

There were reported to be 3000 homeopaths in the US in 1996 [33]. This compares with about 1,000,000 physicians, dentists, veterinarians, optometrists etc [34][35] (about 900,000 of these are physicians). So by this measure, homeopaths represent about 0.3% of the medical community. There are about 2,000,000 scientists in the US., and this implies that the number of homeopaths compared to the science and the medical community is tiny. Homeopathy, which purports to be a medical technique, and have some scientific basis, is therefore a minority position. Homeopathy, by any reasonable measure, is not prominent in the scientific community or in the medical profession.

So if Homeopathy is to be represented according to its prominence, it is less than a 1% position.

And if you talk about the positive evidence for homeopathy, this is produced only by cherry picking, as near as I can tell, after having looked at dozens and dozens of these "studies". I have not seen any objective evaluation let alone a scientific evaluation demonstrating any evidence for its efficacy at all. So if you can find some, sure it might be cited. But where is it?--Filll (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• You quoted from WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Your arguments are the reason that homeopathy is not mentioned at all in the article on medicine. The bit that is more relevant here is farther down in the same section:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

"great detail" for the subject of the article. "appropriate reference" for the majority view.

• You seem to agree with me that we should not be in the business of evaluating individual studies. Let's stick to meta-analyses and reviews. These sometimes have a more positive tilt and sometimes more negative, but they are all very cautious in framing their conclusions. Not a single one uses language like "there is no evidence at all for the efficacy of homeopathy".
• I still don't know where you think anyone is proposing to remove "real science".

--Art Carlson (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of astronauts is even smaller, from which it clearly follows that Wikipdia should not concern itself with spacefaring, let alone suggest that one can walk on the Moon. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a large cadre of anti-astronauts, well-backed with government programs and money, and very prominent in the culture. I was not aware that the engineering and scientific peer-reviewed literature was full of studies and papers demonstrating that travel to the moon was impossible or unreasonable. Please direct me to this. I must have missed something.--Filll (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so these would be necessary, after all, it's not really about numbers of people in the profession, and your rant was uncalled for. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it seems your biases will not allow you to understand the policy or to be able to address the question in a rational fashion. I would have expected nothing less, I am sorry to say. Too bad. You are just going to have to bang your head on a brick wall pointlessly I guess.--Filll (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive that you can already see people's biases from you own expectations alone. Would that not be at odds with WP:AGF, I wonder? Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything negative about you. It is just an observation that you seem unable or unwilling to understand the policies that Wikipedia operates under currently, for your own personal reasons. And although I continue to WP:AGF, I will note that one is not required to do once someone has exhibited behavior and attitudes antithetical to this. Again, WP policy. Better learn it if you want to play here, and engage in WP:DE and argumentation in the face of policy and evidence.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making this easy. From now on, I will consider your talk contributions as, well, fill. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Including Homeoapathic views in the homeopathy article ? + wiki policy

1.“In proportion to the prominence of each” doesn’t mean or even imply that the supporter’s views ( of the described subject for example, homeopathy ) should not be fully and accurately stated (using notable sources) This could be equal to censoship and could make the article incomplete. The example of the flat earth does not apply here.

This is an article on Homeopathy not on Medicine of which homeopathy could ( or not ) be a branch.The analogue is different.

In an article on Homeopathy the editors must state homeopaths views and then criticize them.Obvious. The editors could use even more space to include the skeptical view but they should not exclude homeopathic views (the way they do now) using the excuse that the article should have a skeptical tone. Nobody can seriously argue that views recorded in notable major sources should be excluded in order to give to the article a skeptical tone ( which is by definition violates the NPOV).

Arguing all the time that homeopathic views recorded on notable sources should be excluded in an article on Homeopathy weakens and discredits the skeptical view which is needed in order to make the article balanced, complete. and finally interesting. Sceptics have many good points -so work on fully presenting and even expanding them in the article. Nobody will disagree with with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

2. I thought Art Carlson's comment was helpful in clarifying Wiki policies: Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. "great detail" for the subject of the article. "appropriate reference" for the majority view--74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Since you want to change Wikipedia policy, as near as I can determine, you are clearly on the wrong talk page.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable studies of efficacy

(1) A great example of how an article about homeopathy can present both sides of the controversy without taking sides is the excellent NPOV article "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?" [36]

(2) There was an inaccurate claim made by Filll that there were no reliable studies of efficacy for homeopathy.

He asked for "objective evaluation" and "a scientific evaluation demonstrating any evidence for its efficacy" - so here it is.

• Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.

• Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.

• Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.

• Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/936

These are positive results confirming the efficacy of homeopathy. As the saying goes: "Nobody is as blind as the one who does not want to see." Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

and more

This study which was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG)[37] within the framework of the 'Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’ Peter F. Matthiessen, (Chair of Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke (Germany).

[38]

Forsch Komplement Med (2006). 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26.ealth technology assessment. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF.

Chair in Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Germany

CONCLUSION: Taking internal and external validity criteria into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe. Reliable statements of cost-effectiveness are not available at the moment. External and model validity will have to be taken more strongly into consideration in future studies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the most recent, best-controlled trials are not in agreement, this makes sense. Antelan ^talk 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which "recent, best-controlled trials"? Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition(s) of a "good" study -let alone the "best"- has been controversial. I don't suggest that the Lancet 2005 Metanalyses should not be mentioned. I see though that they are the only ones which clearly state that homeopathy effect = placebo.Furhtermore they have been critisized for being biased and generally were regarded as controversial. This critisism and controversy -as I read- can be found in mainstream sources (BBC etc ). Its critics say that the writers did not mentioned what studies were included in the final analysis and other things but I m not really qualified to say if they have a point. Critisism and the study itself should be included though since they are so notable. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be tough to evaluate which trials are "the best." Fortunately, I don't have to perform any WP:OR to try to figure this out. Authors published in The Lancet have already done this for us. It's been referenced, repeatedly, above. If we want to mention that there is pop cultural criticism of this study, fine, but you would have to produce some scientific criticism for it to be particularly meritorious.Antelan ^talk 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet has a specific weight as a source thats why it should be mentioned. Its critisism should also be mentioned since it also has some weight and notable sources refer to it. Do you agree? BTW it is not a "pop cultural criticism" look below.

[39] [40] [41] The last one is a very interesting dialogue.--74.73.146.241 (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the article Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? [42] clearly states:

"In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo. However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo." Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these authors left out those 102 studies because they were methodologically flawed. However, if you keep the flawed studies in the mix, things look better for homeopathy. Why is this surprising? Antelan ^talk 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(because it was claimed in the press that the meta-analyses "proved" that Homeopathy = placebo based on 110 trials not just 8. I suppose. There are points made by Dr. Fisher as well who argues why he thinks the whole study was biased.)

My main point is though that editor's job here is not to judge the meta analyses themselves but to report what notable sources say about them. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly the bbc and any other news source is completely unauthorative on science topics so they should stay out but lets take a look at that Johnson article shall we. From the article: "A second, extremely rigorous, meta-analysis was conducted in 1997 by Linde et al in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo effects...After controlling for publication bias, and quality of evidence, their results showed that homeopathy performed significantly better (combined odds ratio was 2.45 in favour of homeopathy) than placebo, with a confidence interval of 95%." Now for the sake of comparison lets see what Linde et al. actually concluded "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." I think they are being at least a tiny bit selective in what they choose to report. Don't you?

Lets keep going. From the article "Additional scrutiny, including methodological revisions by the authors themselves in a subsequent paper, confirmed these findings." Again they cited another paper by Linde et al. Lets see what Linde et al said in one of those cited papers "We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results." Honestly, if I was Linde, I would not be happy about my research being used in this way. Linde et al clearly makes the case that study quality is an important factor and the inclusion of lower quality studies may lead to more positive (and less accurate) results, yet the author uses Linde et al's research to make the point that all 110 studies should have been kept in the Lancet analysis. When an author pretends that all their sources agree with them when they clearly don't that is a pretty good indication that the author is POV pushing. If this source is to be included in the homeopathy article some mention must be made of the fact that many of her sources actually seem to disagree with her statments. Also, it should be noted that pretty much everyone who has done a meta-analysis of homeopathy has excluded the majority of trials for poor methodology so the consenus within the scientific community seems to be that most homeopathy trials are of poor quality and warrant exclusion.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty simple: The editor's job here is not to judge the meta analyses themselves but to report them and also report what any notable sources say about them in case of a controversy.

To accomplish this we use the authors conclusions not ours conclusions for what they could have meant ( since this would be original research) To avoid interpetaions influced by our personal bias, we try to use their wording as much as we can. It is simple, effective, NOPV and it simplifies our digital life ( leaving more time for other healthy activities ).Right? --74.73.146.241 (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to do it like that why don't we report the critical article and then juxtapose them with quotes from all the articles that they cited. That way the readers themselves can see that the claims are completely baseless as the authors statements don't even correspond to the claims of their sources. By your own arguments there is no POV issue here as we would simply be listing both sets of authors POVs.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV consists of different POVs presented using notable sources. This applies to critisim no to the facts which are indisputable. Special reference to majority view should be made.

BBC is a good source - it falls into Wiki criteria thats why it is used in the current article. Of course, so far, it is used only when it reports something against homeopathy. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what BBC was cited for: "Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination,[15][16][17] and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs" It's fine to use them to support a quote that is of the form "Such and such says". The BBC, however, are not a scientific source and should not be treated as such. They therefore cannot offer scientific criticism. If you want to say that there is a political controversy over the efficacy of homeopathy and cite the BBC then fine but you cannot say there is a scientific controversy then cite the BBC. The BBC do not decide in matters of science. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Major press just certifies that there is notable controversy on Homeopathy. This fact is not reported in the current article - thats why is seriously biased. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Given all the above comments and new ideas, can we please now have a suggestion to vote on as to how the body text might be improved to accommodate these diverse views about trials and their interpretation? the wording does not have to be too radical but should ideally embrace all views. as before, can someone suggest 2 or 3 alternative wordings that we can all vote on and then we can implement the democratic changes chosen. thanks Peter morrell 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Before a vote takes place let me sum up the arguments, and the users arguing those points (apologies if I misrepresent anyone's arguments. I'll start with my arguments:

1. Articles simply criticising the Lancet article should stay out completely. All of the sources criticising the lancet are primary sources and POV. The meta-analyses, however, are secondary sources that some up a large body of research. Wikipedia should also not turn to the individual (and often low quality studies) when such meta-analyses are available. The meta-analyses already did the work of deciding which primary sources are and are not reliable. Placing any particular primary source in, especially one that did not conduct research only creates POV problems. WP:Primary sources seems to support this stance, although other's interpretations of this may differ. If another meta-analyses is to be included care should be taken to preserve the original authors opinion. Critical articles such as the one listed above do not accurately represent the opinions of the wider scientific community and the authors are often directly involved with homeopathy. As such adding them to balance the meta-analyses would be giving them undue weight. In fact, I am not aware of a single published meta-analyses of homeopoathy that did not both exclude a large number of trials and conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy for any particular treatment. I believe I have also covered the arguments of anyone else who is against the article inclusion
2. On the other side: whether homeopathy works or not is controversial and such controversy should be reported as there is no shortage of sources that believe the Lancet meta-analyses were poorly done.

Ok admittedly I gave more time to my own arguments here but I still believe my asseessment of the opposition's arguments is accurate. To be fair though, reading this page, the opposing view only seems to be held by Arion 3x3 and Leifern and 74.73.146.241 and of course since 74.73.146.241 is not logging in we do not know his user account name. Maybe I missed someone but that's all I see.

It seems to me that much of the discussion concerns whether opposing sources (to the Lancet review and other meta-analyses) should be included at all so I think no change will have to be included on the vote list. Perhaps a few possible options are:

1. No change
2. Add critical source that is not a meta-analysis and phrase it as that persons opinion
3. I would say add another meta-analysis but all of Linde's work seems to be there as is Shang's and just about every other meta-analysis so this doesn't seem like an option
4. Report a "political controversy" where we allow news sources such as the BBC to be used as support. I am ok with this provided it is phrased as a political controversy and not a scientific one.
5. Go into more detail about the Lancet study and perhaps other meta-analyses eg. We could say that the authors of the Lancet study excluded 108 studies, citing methdological weakness as the reason for exclusion. We should probably also note what they consider to be a methodological weakness too (eg not double blind, poor randomisation etc). This approach seems ok as long as we can accurately represent the author's reason for excluding the studies. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for 2, 4 and 5 but not for no change. Our primary aim here is to give greater balance. A balanced view has to say that yes these are the views of meta-analyses but the matter is still unresolved because individual studies and meta-analyses are interpreted differently by both sides: there seems to be cherry-picking and selectivity operating on both sides of the fence. How much that is a political or a scientific issue is open to debate but all of this should somehow get a mention in any rewording...IMHO thanks Peter morrell 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't formally give my vote. I'm content with 1, 4, 5 and strongly opposed to 2. 5 seems like the best option to me as it allows the study meta-analytic procedures to be detailed so readers can make up their own mind. We should probably get some more votes on different approaches and hear some ideas for other approaches not listed before we nail down a specific wording. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote for 2, 4 and 5 but not for no change. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph re trials that needs rewording

Just to be clear, this is the paragraph that needs rewording: Various publications using meta-analysis, a common approach to pooling the results of many studies, reported positive results from the use of homeopathy. Facing difficulty in controlling for publication bias and the flawed designs of the studies they analyzed, these reports were regarded as inconclusive and unconvincing.[13][14] A 2005 meta-analysis published in The Lancet comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicine demonstrated that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from those of a placebo.[6] When a few other folks have had their say, can someone please make some versions of the above for voting purposes? thanks

While we are at it, can I also point out that this sentence that follows the above has no supporting citation and maybe ? should be removed: Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Unless it can be sourced, then this reads like a POV claim. thank you Peter morrell 13:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a particularly vicious pov. Arrogant, too, since so often conventional treatments are ineffective or non-existent. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest:

(1) That both (a) extended discussion of the homeopathic criticism and (b) the homeopathic profession's position on the problems with the meta-analyses should be in the separate section on critism.

(2) Here is the homeopathic profession's position on one of the problems with the meta-analyses:

Homeopathic criticism of meta-analyses is that these face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. Only when investigators chose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies in which primarily one homeopathic medicine was prescribed to every patient without the usual need for individualization of treatment common to quality homeopathic care did the statistical significance from homeopathic treatment vanish. While it is true that a single homeopathic medicine can sometimes be effective in the treatment of specific conditions, as observed in the Oscillococcinum trials in the treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndrome or Kali bichromicum in the treatment of people with COPD, this result is an exception to the rule.

Both sides of the issues on homeopathy need to be clearly stated. Otherwise this is simply a synthesis of published material (WP:SYN) serving to advance a position - in this case that homeopathy is a worthless placebo effect. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, no one said that homeopathy's placebo effect is worthless. That's a straw man, but correct insofar as the mainstream scientific consensus is hat homeopathy is indeed a placebo. Secondly, and more to my point, there aren't two sides to this discussion. Unless I missed something, homeopaths claim that as as-yet-unknown mechanism, explicable by natural law, allows a solvent to retain properties of a solute even at infinitesimal dilutions. Since this is a claim made within the domain of science -- i.e., no one is suggesting magic is afoot -- then scientific standards are evaluating evidence are to be used. The efficacy of homeopathy as placebo has been demonstrated in clinical trials; the preponderance of evidence is amassed against claims of further efficacy. The purported mechanisms of homeopathy are either ad hoc or incompatible with science. These are facts that cannot reasonably be disputed. These, therefore, are the facts that must be relayed here under our encyclopedic rubric. Any other perspectives on the matter of homeopathy must be attributed to sources as ancillary to the central, factual nature of this pseudoscientific methodology. Further claims that one side or another is not being given due time on this article should be considered against this basic statement of fact. There is a lot of POV pushing on this talk page -- mainly manifest as evading direct questions of fact; misrepresentation of published research; and largely effective 'dogpiling' on discussions, taxing the patience of neutral editors who would otherwise have long ago rectified the weaknesses in the article if not for the vocal minority which seeks to avoid intellgent consensus. I hope other editors will continue to work here, in opposition to those who are seeking to defend their mistaken understanding of science and medicine by corrupting the standards of this Wikipedia, for so many readers a standard starting point in their own search for answers. Naturezak (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Arion, I'll explain why there is no way those criticisms, as they stand are going to be placed in the homeopathy article (btw I consider Naturezak's proposal below acceptable but maybe the exact ways those studies are flawed should be stated). Here are the problems with those criticisms. The investigators choose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies for a reason. Those were the only well designed studies. It would be very misleading to state this crticism without going over the principles of a meta-analysis and what makes a good science experiment. Clearly going into extensive detail about randomization procedures and double blinding is off topic so this doesn't really represent a satisfactory conclusion. If you want any comments about how the studies are "flawed in design" to get into the article please explain what these scientific flaws are with respect to the principles of science. Did blinding fail? Was the group allocation non-random? I will let any reliably sourced information detailing scientific flaws of the Lancet trials into the main article. I'll even place it there myself. All the homeopaths I have heard are just pointing to "flawed design" without ever specifiying with this means. Please point to one well designed study that the Lancet analysis excluded. I will reconsider my position if you can show me that the Lancet researchers were wrong to exclude any particular study. Please be specific. Consider all of the study's strengths, its sample size, p value, inclusion of intent-to-treat analysis, reporting of blinding success, details of randomization procedures, presence of placebo control group etc. Studies that allow for individualisation are also fine as long as they follow these above noted scientific procedures. Please present this information here so that the wikipedia community can review your finidngs. If you are unable or unwilling to complete this task, I will be forced to assume your criticisms are baseless and do not warrant inclusion in the article.JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggested rewording, in response to Peter Morrell's request for rewrites:

The authors of some meta-analyses report positive results from the use of homeopathy, but critics maintain that many of these studies are methodologically flawed.[13][14] A 2005 meta-analysis published in The Lancet, of clinical trials comparing homeopathic remedies to conventional treatment, indicates that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from those of a placebo.[6]

Of course, this is the sort of rewrite that should be happening in sandbox. Or shall we begin voting on even the smallest changes? Naturezak (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that seems fine to me. If you read further up, yes I know its a drag to do so, then you will see that small changes were requested for voting as a means to reach agreement. It seems a fine alternative to edit warring, don't you agree? Also, the idea was to split paragraphs down to sentences and reword them to the agreement of all. I can't see any big problem with such a genuinely democratic proposal. Regarding your comment about meta-analyses, again if you read above you will see that some studies were excluded from the meta-analyses so that it becomes a 'garbage in garbage out' scenario. Allegedly. Therefore, what was said is that the outcome of your meta-analysis is entirely dependent on what trials you put into it and the dispute concerns the trial ranges used by the two sides. One side claims that homeopathy shows above placebo responses and the other side shows no difference. For the sake of balance the proposal is to improve the wording of the paragraph to reflect these concerns. The proposal is NOT POV pushing or saying anything radical. It is designed to improve the text. I hope this clarifies. thank you Peter morrell 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily agree that voting is the best way to get things done. In fact, other does wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Consensus and a lot of the community voting is evil. As the situation stands, I feel the homeopathy proponents have failed to accurately state their complaints such as what specific problems there are with the Lancet analysis (something beyond it excluded a lot of studies without any mention of why they did this). Maybe one of the homeopathy proponents ie anyone who wants a large change can propose a specific wording of a change and the community can be given time to discuss it before we start any voting. Lets not forget about the perils of voting eg sockpuppetsJamesStewart7 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea Peter Morrell. This a good suggestion.I agree. I will post more later on. --Radames1 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page readability

I'm having quite a bit of trouble following this talk page.

• Comments are being inserted above earlier comments - even when replying to the same post.[43]
• Comments are being edited to say something completely different after having been replied to.[44]
• 74.73.146.241 hasn't been signing any of his posts since he stopped logging in.[45][46]

Given the rather heated and fast moving discussion, it makes it especially difficult to participate in a constructive way, as a lot of good points are getting lost and productive discussions getting muddled by later edits.--Trystan (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

since you went through the talk page looking for comments and good points and others things I think you will make it. Please feel free to make suggestions for the lead below - since it has to be a bit more neutral. This is an opportunity for a constructive suggestion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

People who refuse to sign their posts and just attack each other willy-nilly with no thought, turn this talk page into a nightmare. Look people, you will not get your way by doing this. You will just irritate everyone and possibly end up getting in trouble.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, there is only one person here who is irritating everyone: you, by repeatedly assuming bad faith with everyone who disagrees with you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Guido, do you feel better admitting that you're the only one irritating everyone. Ooops. You were engaging in an personal attack on Filll. Sorry that I misconstrued your rant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.73.146.241 has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation of User:Sm565/akaUser:Orion4 evading his indef block. Hopefully the signal-to-noise ratio will rise as a result. I agree with Trystan, the methods that pro-homeopathy editors are using to present their case is very difficult to follow, and isn't going to lead to a resolution. Posting walls of text is not a good way to solve a problem. Skinwalker (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rey study published in reputable Physica A

You might consider whether this WP:RS should be added to this article. Icy claim that water has memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see two problems. Firstly this has been done in the past. There have been previous claims that water has memory that have been debunked. I think an article was even published in nature as part of the debunking. This page goes over it: water memory. Here is an important quote "A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. Although everyone was confident that the outcome would be the same, reportedly including the Maddox-led team, the effect immediately disappeared." The article in question states this "This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did,". So in light of this evidence, I do not think the article should be included. If you want to include something in water memory, the Nature fiasco probably does warrant inclusion. Just presenting that one trial you mentioned would be misleading. It would be like presenting the Benveniste trial without the nature follows.

So I say that if this is to be included we should do one of two things; report the Beneviste trial and the follow ups and report these things only. This makes the most sense to me as these trials were quite famous, hence the most notable and homeopathy is fairly long as is. Otherwise we can report the Beneviste trial and the nature fiasco along with this trial and relevant follow up experiments, performed under blinded conditions. If there are no follow experiments in the 4 years since this one then no one thought the results warranted furhter research and hence they do not deserve inclusion in the homeopathy article of wikipedia.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the material on Beneviste, which was summarized in this article, has been removed. Clearly, the POV warriors here have been on a course of action to destroy this article. Very interesting. I think this is spurring me to take action. Since people cannot act in a reasonable rational function and behave according to the rules of Wikipedia and WP:NPOV, then we will have to have a response. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, frankly, to destroy a nice balanced article that was more than 50% pro-homeopathy, because you felt it was not pro enough. Sad, very sad...--Filll (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic criticism of meta-analyses

Homeopathic criticism of meta-analyses is that (a) these face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and (b) that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. Since JamesStewart7 has written "All the homeopaths I have heard are just pointing to "flawed design" without ever specifiying with this means." - I will again specify:

(1) Only when investigators chose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies in which primarily one homeopathic medicine was prescribed to every patient without the usual need for individualization of treatment common to quality homeopathic care did the statistical significance from homeopathic treatment vanish. While it is true that a single homeopathic medicine can sometimes be effective in the treatment of specific conditions, as observed in the Oscillococcinum trials in the treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndrome or Kali bichromicum in the treatment of people with COPD, this result is an exception to the rule.

(2) In this article's "Research on medical effectiveness" section there is the statement "'Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial" followed by links to specific studies such as "Homeopathy for chronic asthma" [47]. In that very article, there is the very significant statement: "Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised."

Unless JamesStewart7 and others understand that "common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised" means that there usually is no one specific homeopathic remedy that is used to treat a specific condition, then they will continue to miss the point. This key feature of homeopathy cannot be ignored in such trials, and those same flawed trials obviously cannot be used as an argument against homeopathic efficacy!

• There is the well-known principle (among homeopaths) that unless the homeopathic remedy (and the "potency" level) is specifically chosen on the basis of the totality of the patient's psychological and physical symptom presentation, then it will simply have no effect.
• With that said, there are "polycrests" (remedies that affect more specific simple symptoms, without the need to get into psychological considerations). A simple example that I utilize many times daily is in regard to patients in my clinic with low back pain. If Rhus tox. was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. If Bryonia alba was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. But if you administer Rhus tox. to those whose symptomatology is worse when sitting and on first getting up (and better with walking), then almost all will improve. If you administer Bryonia alba to those whose symptomatology is better on resting and no movement, then almost all will improve. These are my clinical observations.
• The skill and experience of the one administering the remedies is an extremely important factor. I would consider my skills have been much better in the last seven years than in the previous twenty years of practice. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand that Wikipedia is not here to satisfy the function you have in mind for it?--Filll (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on homeopathy or any other subject should not be turned into a battleground of special interests seeking to have their own biased version prevail. As I have said before, this article must not be either a pro or anti homeopathy article, but a neutrally presented exposition of the subject, with opposing and supporting data presented in their own respective sections. It is also not the role of any editor here to PASS JUDGMENT on which research data passes their personal litmus test to qualify for inclusion in this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the principles and policy of WP. WP:NPOV states that articles will be written with views in the proportion of their prominence. And therefore, as it was originally written at 60% pro-homeopathy, was more than fair.

But pro-homeopathy warriors were obviously unhappy with 60% and wanted 80% or 99% or something, and have been throwing up walls of nonsense text, and bringing up the same topics 50 or 100 times over and over after they were already dismissed. This must stop and I think we have to do something different here. The fact that Beneviste has been removed from the article now tells me we have to do something quite different. Perhaps pro-homeopathy editors should be blocked with much greater frequency. Perhaps the article should be locked for long periods. Perhaps pro-homeopathy editors should be dealt with far more harshly and with less equanimity, since they are clearly not interested in writing an encyclopedia according to the policies of Wikipedia and seem unable or unwilling to learn. I suspect this article and its pages are infected with hordes of sock puppets, meat puppets, and assorted trolls and has been for months. Perhaps because homeopaths view this as a way to promote their professions and make money. This makes me sick, but this must stop.--Filll (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you stop this silliness of adding up "pro" and "contra" lines? Wikipedia policy and editorial common sense say the whole article should be written from a neutral point of view with "great detail" for the subject of the article and "appropriate reference" for the majority view. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The majority view is that homeopathy is the purest crap, the biggest load of hooey on the planet and a vile cruel ugly dangerous hoax perpetuated by cranks, charlatans, crooks, and quacks. That is the majority view. By the rules of WP:NPOV, about 99% of the article should include material that supports this viewpoint. However, we were happy with 40% or so and allowed it to go through to GA. Now I see that POV warriors were not happy with their 60% and have attacked it and continue to attack it. Ok, so be it. The situation is clear and steps will have to be taken.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that homeopathy isn't open to scientific investigation (as has been stated in the above discussion) is woefully misinformed about the scientific method, or merely showing their bias. This article should put forward a definition of homeopathy, it's history and principles, etc, but it should also include the scientific and philosophical criticisms of the practice. Unfortunately for people pushing a homeopathic POV, the fact is that the scientific criticism is so damning it rather overshadows everything else on the page. However, in order to be a neutral article it needs to be there. We can't tone down the criticisms just to make it 50/50 or not hurt people's feelings. Merry Christmas all! 86.146.119.116 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)