Talk:Homeopathy

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's homeopathy article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made by newly arriving editors is that this article presents homeopathy from a non-neutral point of view, and that the extensive criticism of homeopathy violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". &WP:OR The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Homeopathy FAQ. Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of homeopathy. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of homeopathy or promote homeopathy please do so at google groups or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

How to choose from the 398 reviews and meta-analyses

User:Art Carlson has raised the important issue on which of the almost 400 reviews and meta-analyses should we use...I suggest that we use 3-5 that are the best that show positive effects from homeopathy and the same number that show negative results. That is what a good encyclopedia would do. DanaUllman^Talk 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

While there is a middle ground to be found here (I think it appropriate to acknowledge there are studies of possible merit that proponents point to in their arguments), I'm not convinced a 1:1 ratio of positive & negative studies is appropriate. Indeed, I'd say that reeks of the false PC crap the American media is so awful about (presenting fringe arguments counter to established scientific consensus--climate change, evolution, vaccine-autism, etc.--as if they're on equal footing).

What I'd suggest, actually, is that the proponents here find their 3 or 4 best cases in those reviews/meta-analyses and list them in a separate section below. We can then go through the actual sources and pull out relevant, context-appropriate claims. We can also find relevant, context-appropriate criticism of those claims that may need to be included as caveats. This could then be added to the research section in something of the form

Proponents point to reviews/meta-analyses that claim efficacy in treating condition1^[link] and condition2,^[link] and are not likely to be the result of placebo.^[link] These studies have been criticized for ___.^[link(s)]...

This could then effectively lead into the rest of the "Medical and scientific analysis" section. — Scientizzle 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, please response to the concern above about your quote about the 1997 Linde meta-analysis in which you conveniently left off the most important part of the sentence in which I mentioned above. My point here is that THIS meta-analysis was never "destroyed", and I hope that you will cross out your statement that it was. If and when you catch me saying something that is clearly wrong, I promise to do likewise. Let's be gentlemen and let's be as honest as we can. As for what to do from here, at the TOP of this section, I gave a proposal that meta-analyses that should be referenced and how they should be referenced. Let's start a new section with YOUR editing of my above proposal...is THAT reasonable? DanaUllman^Talk 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it is my opinion that Linde '97 has been destroyed (and I believe that it's clearly an opinion). I feel no need to retract an opinion, particularly one that I feel is supported by plenty of evidence (presented above). The point of my comment above was simply to recognize that we frame our interpretations of the same information differently. I don't consider your criticism of my partial quotation to be particularly substantial or important: Vandenbroucke waffles a lot in his commentary, but in the end states that "A randomised trial of “solvent only” versus “infinite dilutions” is a game of chance between two placebos" and uses the results of Linde '97 to argue effectively that, since homeopathy is unlikely working, the result may actually be indicative of a deficiency in randomised trials across the board. This is something Vandenbroucke has covered elsewhere in more detail.[1][2][3] As for your other points, I don't dismiss "letters to the editor" because they provide substantive criticisms. And I obviously disagree with your assertion that "homeopathic medicines have been proven efficacious for influenza-syndromes and for childhood diarrhea" and I'm not alone.

As for turning the tables--me editing your proposed text--I may play ball. However, I'm done editing for the day and probably the weekend, so it may be a while... — Scientizzle 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see three possibilities here:

1. We could try to find some review of the reviews that picks out the most important ones for us. I am sure there are a number of candidates for such a selection, but if they disagree among themselves, it is hard to define criteria by which we can choose among them. The fact that no one has presented such a list here also suggests that there is no obvious choice.
2. We could try to select the most important ones ourselves on the basis of citation indices of the articles and of the journals where they are published, giving an edge to more recent and bigger studies. This would a lot of work, which would probably amount to original research. The selection porcess is also complex enough that it is not obvious how to do it and we probably won't be able to agree among ourselves how to do it.
3. We could, following Dana's suggestion, simply select the 3 or 4 best reviews on each side and discuss these in detail. Some might object to giving "equal time" to the other side, but the opportunity to bring criticisms from reliable sources should take care of that. I think this proposal is feasible, is compatible with the rules of Wikipedia, and is not a bad way to evaluate a controversy. Ask each side for their "best shot", then look at these in detail. Rather than weighing the quantity of the studies, you are looking at the quality. If the quality of evidence against homeopathy is much better than the quality in favor (as I believe it to be), then that should become evident without anyone having to push a POV, do original research, or refuse the other side a forum.

--Art Carlson (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Barrett reference ("Ultimate Fake")

According to Google Scholar this article is from 2001 and has something to do with the "National Council Against Health Fraud". It seems that Stephen Barrett's qualification is being a practising psychiatrist. Apart from the online version on quackwatch.org there is also a PDF version hosted on an academic personal homepage. Is this really a reliable source? I was under the impression that we had higher standards for the homeopathy article. For comparison: How about the articles available from [4]? Is it OK to cite them? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_29#Quackwatch <-- Here is an archived discussion about using Quackwatch as a source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter is not an MD, Stephen Barrett is. Peter has not received commendation from recognized authorities in the medical field. Stephen has. Peter is decidedly fringe. Stephen is not. Need we go on? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment looks stupid now, but it wasn't when I made it. Currently this article is used as a reference in two places: The first is about what "critics contend". The second is a paragraph containing a literal quotation from Park, apparently taken from the article. I agree that so long as we have no reason to suppose the Park quotation (which doesn't seem to be contentious) is incorrect, the article is a reliable source for both passages.

I made the above comment when the article looked like this. There were two instances of this reference, one as #112 (used for the two passages described above) and one as #16. I was objecting to the use of this article as reference #16 for the following statement:

For example, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of natural science, chemistry, and modern medicine.

This sentence is contentious because it can be understood to claim it's inconceivable that in the future we will have an understanding of science consistent with efficacy of highly diluted doses. This is much stronger than saying "based on our current understanding of science it can't work" (which is obviously true). It is in no way surprising to me that such a sweeping, unscientific claim cannot be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal. Also most good scientists care too much for their reputation to make such claims. As far as I am concerned, the very presence of this sentence is part of a compromise. It makes our article look unprofessional, because it is a statement of opinion thinly veiled as science.

Part of the compromise is that the statement has been toned down from "fundamental principles" to "basic principles", which I consider much more inclusive. E.g. Newtons's laws and Maxwell's equations are basic principles but not fundamental principles. An example for a fundamental principle would be the principle that aspects of nature can be described in terms of mathematical models, or something like that. Someone would have to be at least as much a philosopher and a historian of science to meaningfully investigate the question whether an idea contradicts the fundamental principles of science.

But even with "fundamental principles" it's a relatively strong statement, and sourcing it to a psychiatrist, i.e. someone who presumably is not an expert on any of the special areas involved, is not adequate. The statement is now sourced to an NCAHF position paper. I can't say exactly why, but I feel it's slightly better that way, although that paper is clearly not even trying to use scientifically accurate language in this respect. Using it here seems to be a bit similar to citing the New York Times with a statement about cold fusion that we can't find in the scientific literature. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in no way surprising to me that such a sweeping, unscientific claim cannot be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal. -- Hmm. This is akin to saying that intelligent design isn't criticized by any mainstream peer-reviewed papers. While in point of fact true, it misses the issue. Pseudoscience like homeopathy, intelligent design, UFOlogy, etc. doesn't get criticized in peer-reviewed journals because that's not what peer-reviewed journals are for. To illustrate the outright inadequacies of these pseudosciences, we need only reference sources that match the claims. In this case, since the homeopathic claim that diluting a remedy to the point where it is pure water is an effective means of increasing potency are not ever mentioned in peer-reviewed sources, the criticisms do not need to be made in peer reviewed sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider this source, by itself, strong enough to support the statement that homeopathy is "in contradiction to basic principles of natural science, chemistry, and modern medicine", as opposed to a statement that some/many/most scientists consider it to be so? Which basic principles would you say this source sees as violated? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As an extremely partisan, non-peer reviewed website, Quackwatch (and its kin sites such as Homeowatch, etc.) should only be used to express the opinions of its authors and not be used to make broad statements about the general scientific community. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have full access to Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press (2000). Since it is published by a highly respected university press, it may be more generally considered reliable and less contentious than QuackWatch. If people would like information from that source, please let me know and I will provide some quotations, as I did for the source below. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the reviews of the book Voodoo Science at Amazon and it seems to be criticized for unbalanced agenda pushing. The best would be if we could find a highly respectable reference that reflect the view of mainstream science in a way that is not inflammatory. Perhaps Encyclopaedia Britannica or some paper based Science Encyclopaedia or reference work or textbook in medicine. MaxPont (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already cites polemical self-published material. I figured if material from that POV is included, as a notable portion of the published commentary on the topic, it would be better to source it to a university press published book. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to ScienceApologist (I didn't check my watchlist until now): You really got me into thinking there. The analogy is a good one and made me think whether I really like all the consequences of my way of reasoning, so I looked at the ID article. Its second paragraph is very clear and effective, so if there is no peer-reviewed criticism of ID it seems that it wasn't a problem other than (presumably) making it harder to get to a balanced article.

While I am absolutely sure that no gods exist outside the imaginations of people, I can see no way of "proving" their non-existence scientifically. And assuming their existence, for the sake of argument, I can see no way of "proving" that they are not messing with evolution. We can't prove such things, so we need to invoke Occam's razor to reach conclusions of this nature. Therefore the parallel statements would have no place in the ID article either, e.g.: "The ideas of intelligent design contradict basic principles of science." No, ID (and homeopathy) are in the residual waste of Occam's razor, no more, no less. This doesn't mean that they contradict something.

That said, I am relatively happy with the current version, anyway, and this thread was triggered only by what I consider risqué sourcing. But this has been fixed. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but we don’t need peer reviewed articles to support a claim that is obvious. Obvious claims are not discussed in science journals because the issue has already been settled. If we can find the claim in standard reference works, established textbooks for chemistry students or the like that is enough. MaxPont (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain which claim you think is obvious? There were many in my argument, on many levels, and with all those that I tried your statement seems to make no sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is obvious is that there is a consensus in mainstream science that homeopathy defies fundamental principles (above 12C dilutions) and has no demonstrable effect. For that it is enough to find references in for instance Encyclopedia Britannica (because standard reference works reflect mainstream consensus). MaxPont (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Encyclopedia Britannica would be a very good source. Can you provide us a quote from EB that homeopathy "defies fundamental principles" and/or "has no demonstrable effect"? --Art Carlson (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that comment but there is a big gulf between saying that high potencies are dismissed by mainstream science (which does indeed seems obvious) and from saying that homeopathy contradicts the fundamental laws of science and medicine. What fundamental laws and how are they infringed? Sorry to keep repeating the same point, but it has still not been answered after a week or two of asking. The simple fact is that we have no such RS source which states how homeopathy abrogates any physical or chemical laws whatsoever, except the high potency issue. It really is a very strong statement unsupported by an RS cite. That sums up the issue, I think. Peter morrell 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did start with the wording that "homeopathy defies fundamental laws of WESTERN science", but that rejected by the pro science camp. MaxPont (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting bits

Some interesting bits. I'll leave it to the editors here to incorporate them, or not.

(Material moved. See below.)

Just an interesting source I came across. Vassyana (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks for providing these quotes. I believe that, as this book was published by a university press, it meets the top tier of reliable sources, and so should be sufficient for some of the currently contentious claims in the article (such as how homeopathy contradicts the current understanding of science). Does anyone disagree? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Voodoo Science, which I mention above and also have full access to, may also be useful for replacing some of the contentious cites. If people are interested, I can provide some quotations from that source as well. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable as a potential source. — Scientizzle 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it is about time that some respect was shown for a profession and a therapy that has been so beneficial to so many. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my find was useful. :) I have pretty good library access, so I will see what I do to dig up a few more sources. If I find some good additional sources, I will place some quotes from the sources in a subpage to avoid cluttering the talk page itself too much. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I've made a sub-page to place quotes from various sources: /Sources001. Vassyana (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the original set of quotes to the subpage. I have also added quotations from two additional sources that may be useful material for the article. If anyone is looking for anything else in particular, or if anyone is looking for specific topics within the quoted sources, let me know and I will see what I can dig up. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Vassyana. Please note, however, there is a big difference between taking quotes from historians like Wharton who at least try to maintain a certain degree of NPOV as compared with taking quotes from Park (Voodoo Science) who has a very strong anti-homeopathy POV and who doesn't make an effort for NPOV. As for the quotes that you provided in the subpage, one of the quotes is quite weak...and I recommend that you consider deleting it. I'm refering to reference to "many homeopaths" in France who don't prescribe the high potency homeopathic medicines. Because 30-40% of French doctors use homeopathic medicines, the term "many" French doctors is totally vague and meaningless. That said, it is refreshing when a person with some experience in mediation comes to this page and makes an effort to bring us together. DanaUllman^Talk 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you write about some authors who "maintain a certain degree of NPOV" or "who [don't] make an effort for NPOV". That's a red herring. We are expected to actually use such sources all the time, and we do. Such authors and sources are totally legitimate here. It is unreasonable to require writers of opinions in the real world to conform to the special editing requirements that only apply to editors here. We constantly use very POV sources because that's what we need to show the variety of POV and the controversies that do exist. We document POV. That's our job. Sources with no POV are usable, but often uninteresting. Can we execute, embalm, and bury this repeated red herring once and for all? It reveals an awful lack of understanding of how we create articles here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They were simply quotes that I found interesting about the topic. I leave it to those more familiar with the topic and active in this article to reach a consensus about what to use or not. As I mention, if anyone needs something in particular or wants to know what one of the sources already provided says about something, I can dig through the sources available to me to see if I can help. Regarding NPOV, one cannot really say a source is NPOV or non-NPOV. It is not a measure of detachment or neutrality. Rather, NPOV is little more than ensuring that our presentation is approximately reflective of the body of reputable works as a whole. To oversimplify, imagine that 1/3 of the reputable sources state that homeopathy relies on placebo effect, 1/3 state that it show strong signs of effectiveness and 1/3 state there are mixed results & that efficacy is unlikely. In such an instance, the balance of the article should be evenly split between all three viewpoints. Excluding detractors and/or supporters is not NPOV. We should give appropriate weight to each view based on how much of the reliable literature it represents. Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee...I understand and actually appreciate your comments above, though I have found that when pro-homeopathy people provide references to research with RS and/or when they provide secondary sources that are notable, certain other editors delete them by saying that they are POV and therefore biased. In other words, there's a double standard. For instance, I do not understand why several of the above meta-analyses for which I have described and referenced are not presently a part of this article. Fylsee, hopefully, you can help me change this. DanaUllman^Talk 04:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficacy of Homeopathic treatment

We've discussed this many times before. Most recent discussion along these lines in the archives was here, and you'll notice that people were already tired of discussing it then. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected

I've not been active in this topic, so this may seem like a dumb question but: Why is this talk page semi-protected? Only in rare circumstances should a talk page be protected at all. I'm inquiring before asking for unprotection because I'm assuming there was a good reason for the protection. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, I think it was protected against Dr.Jhingaadey.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that articles on Probation should be semi-protected. It is hard enough as it is to reach a consensus without having to fight trolls, sockpuppets of blocked users, and vandals. MaxPont (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic Principles

<continued from archive 34>

We still have conflict about the contentious statement which asserts some tendentious stuff about scientific principles. Someone tried to support this by citing the NCAHF who just seem to make similar hand-waving assertions. I do not accept them as an authority on this matter. The chap who added this source expected that the source would be challenged but added it anyway. As I understand it, they are a body similar to Wikipedia - self-appointed amateurs who self-publish. Also, since they have a relevant POV on such matters, they are obviously not impartial. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Having a POV does nothing to disqualify something from being a reliable source.
2. The NCAHF has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
3. If you'd bother to read three sections up, you'd see an even better source which you could have put in instead (you could read the archives but not this page?). Would have been better to just put that one in. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The source that has now been added - Whorton's Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America - looks to be a good one on the general subject. I'm not so sure it would be so good on the matter of scientific principles but I havent' read it. Anyway, the citation is inadequate - it provides no URL, page reference nor quotation. This is insufficient for a specific matter of detail like this. It's like citing The Bible in its entirety and saying - "well, it's in there somewhere". :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable paper based sources are perfectly OK in Wikipedia. We don't need to add direct quotes but can reword and make honest summaries. I would recommend a standard work or encycopedia in medicine or chemistry, maybe [6]. Try your university bookstoore or library. MaxPont (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to keep complaining, or are you going to do the smallest amount of work yourself and add that? Check the section I referenced before. Your quest begins there... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to some previous discussion but I'm not sure what you mean. Please be more specific. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I hoped that I could end this discussion by looking up the exact place in Whorton where the current version of the statement ("[…] the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted […] is in contradiction to mainstream science's basic understanding of how nature works.") comes from and adding the pager number. I am happy with the formulation and would like to keep it as it is. But I only found the following, which is the first paragraph of the chapter on homeopathy (which is called "Dilutions of Grandeur", by the way).

[…] nineteenth-century physicians thought of another irregular system as still more unlikely. Indeed, homeopathy’s practices were so remarkably at odds with all accepted notions of how nature worked, of how nature conceivably could work, that they were only to be regarded as utterly impossible. It was "a stupendous monument of human folly"; it represented "the crowning exploit of pseudo-scientific audacity"; it constituted a fabric of "astounding absurdities" and "nonsensical trash." […] All in all, "the fact that men of sense and character should become its dupes, is one of the most striking exhibitions of intellectual stupidity and moral obliquity which the history of fanaticism itself can furnish." Homeopathy was also the most popular of all alternative systems of practice from the 1850s to the beginning of the twentieth century. —James C. Whorton, Nature Cures, p. 49

The sentence looks perfect on first sight, but there is a catch: When read in context it becomes clear that Whorton is summarising the position of contemporary scientists, not necessarily presenting his own. For more perspective, here is a later passage from the same chapter:

Much as bioenergeticists of the late twentieth century have reacted against the physical reductionism of modern medicine, many late eighteenth-century scientists, particularly in Germany, demanded that renewed attention be given to the non-material and non-quantifiable components of nature and that vitality be recognized as a mystery that transcends the physical sciences. Hahnemann’s concentration on the body’s vital force and the drug’s dynamic power were reflections of the revived study of non-material agents in nature. —James C. Whorton, Nature Cures, p. 67

Note the use of the word "scientists". As I said, I am very happy with the current version of the sentence. I think this passage gives a good explanation why I was uncomfortable with earlier, stronger statements. But unfortunately it looks as if we don't have a good source for the current version. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still pretty clear that mainstream scientists believe this from the source, isn't it? Just because Whorton doesn't agree with them doesn't mean it isn't their position, and that he can't be used as a reliable source for describing it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is pretty clear is that "nineteenth-century physicians" as a group thought homeopathy was "at odds with all accepted notions ... of how nature conceivably could work". If we stretch it a bit, we could use this source to support a similar statement about contemporary scientists as a group, although if we can't find a better source, I would rather have two or three of this sort to brace each other. The source still doesn't specify exactly where the problem was thought to be, and it is still way too weak for us to make the statement that homeopathy really is at odds. Why can't we just say some/many/most scientists think that the use of ultra-molecular solutions is at odds with how nature works? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already says "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" and this seems ample. A general trouble with the article is that it keeps repeating the same points about dilution and its implausibility. This constant harping on the same criticism is bad style and it is not NPOV - it makes the article look like an attack piece. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

… which undermines the credibility of all negative statements it makes about homeopathy. I am glad I am not the only one to see this, after all. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely this language style that makes this article woefully objectionable. Why? It reads as an attack piece and "de-bunking" article in a "skeptics" publication. NPOV is the standard we must use. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is refreshing having a new voice here, Colonel Warden, who seems to have a NPOV and who might mediate between the two sides. I'm open to hearing whatever specific recommendations he has for having his article be more neutral and more encyclopedic. One of the agreed upon references to our present article is this [Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507.] One of its conclusions was: "Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.28-30,80-82" Similarly, my recommendations at the top of this Talk page include making specific references to those high quality meta-analyses and reviews that have positive results and those that have had negative results. Such is so appropriate for an encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it appears as though you missed the ENTIRE point of the paper, which is to advise pharmacists that they should at least be knowledgeable about homeopathic remedies, because the may have patients who take them. It's sound advice. It is not some sort of clarion call that homeopathic drugs work. Btw, nice job bringing this up on two different pages (the Arsenicum article being the other), with two different claims being made about the same paper. Baegis (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also made reference to this article [Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507] a number of times as a good example for all who desire to be editors on the Wikipedia homeopathy article. It is well written and presents both sides without bias and from a neutral point of view (NPOV). Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, sorry, you missed my point. My point was that this article on homeopathy (and the one on Arsenicum album too, gives reference to that article to pharmacists but the references are ONLY to skeptical points of view. This article provides info for both sides of the argument, and yet, there are no quotes or references to the positive things about homeopathy that this article clearly states. Is that more clear? DanaUllman^Talk 00:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More references for the history section

These artcicles are from the respectable peer reviewed journal Medical History. They could add RS for the history section. Available in fulltext at Pubmed.

Homeopathy in America. The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy Med Hist. 1974 January; 18(1): 99–100. PMCID: PMC1081530

Book Review: Patients in the history of homoeopathy Lyn Brierley-Jones Med Hist. 2004 October 1; 48(4): 524–526. PMCID: PMC546381

Homöopathie: Patienten, Heilkundige, Institutionen: von den Anfängen bis heute Lutz D H Sauerteig Med Hist. 1998 July; 42(3): 407–408. PMCID: PMC1044058

Weltgeschichte der Homöopathie. Länder—Schulen—Heilkundige Nicolaas Rupke Med Hist. 1997 October; 41(4): 504–505. PMCID: PMC1043948

The patient not the cure. The challenge of homoeopathy Med Hist. 1977 July; 21(3): 341. PMCID: PMC1082051

The age of science. The scientific world-view in the nineteenth century Christine Stevenson Med Hist. 1988 July; 32(3): 350–351. PMCID: PMC1139905

Becoming a physician: medical education in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, 1750–1945 Matthew Ramsey Med Hist. 1998 April; 42(2): 249–250. PMCID: PMC1044009

MaxPont (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection_of_studies. This was spammed everywhere by a banned user, evidently, and was formerly included at the top of the References section of this talk pages for reasons unknown - but time will tell, and sufferers like the divine Miranda... Sorry, I played Lucky in an amateur production of Waiting for Godot once. Anyway, it serves no purpose, and exists on quite a number of User talk pages anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained very clearly what is going on or why. Perhaps you can do that? What on earth is this all about and why delete a simple inoffensive list of articles? What purpose does that possibly serve the encyclopedia? Peter morrell 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was looking into DanaUllman for the probation thing, I saw this list was prominently linked at the bottom of this page, in the references section. A list of purely positive studies from fairly obscure journals could not be used (per WP:REDFLAG) as a reference here, and it being spammed about by a now-banned user probably makes it all the worse. I don't mean to be intemperate about this (although after dealing with Ullman for a while I may be occasionally), but, in any case, now that the perma-link is gone, it's kinda hard to see any reason to keep it, and the biased nature of the list means that it's rather questionable, in the presence of better sources like metaanalyses that have rigourous inclusion criteria. I suppose it doesn't matter much, but I'd be really worried if there was any evidence that a biased list such as this was being used to win an argument, and it's hard to see other uses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a lot more that could be said on the presence of positive primary studies. Linde published a lot of papers on general problems with homeopathic studies as a whole, and this article in Time does a decent job of showing why there is a debate. But a list like that is no use in writing a neutral, mainstream article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is and isn't implausible

Friends, there is a RS[7] referenced in this article in the 2nd paragraph, "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. And yet, at another place in this article, it says, "Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed." If we are going to make an effort to have this article maintain a NPOV, I believe that we also need to provide this quote, and we should reference it to the same source. This is an obvious one. DanaUllman^Talk 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "extremely dilute" and a 30C Homeopathic dilution, specifically, one actually has an active ingredient. Doing something with zero active ingredient still goes against everything we know about science. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the second sentence is unsourced and should be deleted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear that the paper we are citing is actually relatively sympathetic towards the "water memory" hypothesis. But then, given how much has been published about the subject it seems a bit strange to source a claim in the lede to the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. So we should get rid of the quoted "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" bit and stop citing the paper. I am not sure if that's what you mean, but if you do I agree. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it — homeopathy is scientfiically implausible. Pharmaceutical Education isn't a great source, but it's not likely a paper in a serious medical journal is going to say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The implausibility bit has two other references (currently 14 and 15). We are talking about numer 16, which is the reference for "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". --Hans Adler (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems in line with the thrust of other references, though, if slightly stronger stated. E.g. "The preparation of remedies involves serial dilution, commonly to the extent that no molecules of the original substance remain, and vigorous shaking between dilutions (potentisation). During this process information is thought to be transferred from the diluted substance to the solvent,6 which in the light of current knowledge seems implausible" (Shang). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Education is a good source - no one can seriously argue it is not a reliable source -you cannot decide that a source is not good only because it states something positive for homeopathy.--Area69 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good source in this case. There are so many sources on this particular topic, some of them excellent, that there is no valid reason to choose an article in an educational journal, especially if one of the authors seems to be a recent graduate. It's like using the Leeds Roundhay Weekly as a source on the Queen's income. It was cherry picking, to source a negative statement about homeopathy to it, and that shouldn't be done. And it shouldn't be used to cherry pick a positive statement either. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, one could argue that we could use this as the third reference for the first half of the sentence, i.e. the implausibility part. But I don't think it makes sense to use a paper for this purpose in which theauthors also mention lots of possible explanation for a water memory effect in a sympathetic way. Especially not when we already have two others. Or do they have similar problems? (I haven't looked.) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, are you still talking about the Shang metaanalysis that I was quoting, or did you misread that as being from the Pharmaceutical education source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still talking about the Pharmaceutical Education source with which Dana started this thread. Are you sure you are in the right thread? It looks to me as if you have changed the topic completely without making it clear that this was your intention. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. There was another change of topic which happened with OrangeMarlin's cryptical "second sentence" remark above, or when I tried to make sense of that. Perhaps I got that wrong? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, aye. There's half-a-dozen separate topics under this same header. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found this quote in a higher-quality journal:

"Homeopathy has, in its 200 year history, remained a subject that is controversial, to say the least. It is based on the assumption that “like can be treated with like” and that serial dilutions render a remedy not weaker but stronger. Both of these assumptions are contrary to what we today know about the laws of nature. There are, of course, many therapies of which we currently do not understand how they work. But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science."

-Exploring Homeopathy, Edzard Ernst, Preventive Medicine Volume 45, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 280-281 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.008

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC )

.........well. If you are going to use that you should also state that homeopathy is controversial in the article. Then you should remove the category pseudoscience since this is again the wikirules. Besides that It is a peer review paper?--Area69 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered seeing a reference a couple months back to plausibility in the print version of US News & World Report, a tertiary source beyond reproach (in the appropriate contexts). Sure enough, the online version is available, here (see paragraph 6). This is probably about as canonical an example as we can get of a good tertiary source as it is summarizes alternative medicine secondary sources (albeit unnamed); it only would be nicer if the mention was a more focused on homeopathy instead of all alternative medicine. I would suggest not taking the language verbatim as when out of the context of the comparisons of different practices it takes on unneutral connotations ("woo-woo"), but the underlying message is fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be reluctant about quoting the media in such matters. Jefffire (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's useful for making general observations, if backed with other references. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal. I suggest the following: Homeopathy is scientifically implausible[14][15] and based on "the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge,"[16] and yet, similar sources assert, “Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed.”[16b] Please note I added a couple of words to the quote at the first part of the sentence because the authors did not say that homeopathy was diametrically oppose to... but saying that its theories are. Does this work? DanaUllman^Talk 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, in which paper does that new quote appear? Saying "16b" is really unhelpful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see. Per WP:UNDUE, that's a tiny minority view in science, and as it purports to assess science, we should leave it out. There are better sources with better quotes, for instance, the Preventive Medicine one, which is by Edzard Ernst, a respected authority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quote above from Preventive Medicine ("But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science.") supports the contested claim in the article about defying fundamental principles. MaxPont (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have already made reference to the Pharmacy Education article, and there is consensus that it is RS and notable, but to date, we have not incorporated its more balanced presentation. Are we or are we not interested in providing NPOV information?

There is absolutely no need for Ernst's strident statement. DanaUllman^Talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There is no need to quote Ernst's statement, but it can be used as one supporting RS for the "fundamental principles" sentence. MaxPont (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst's statement should not be used because it is obviously wrong. He says baldly that "it cannot work". It clearly can work via such mechanisms as the placebo effect. His language is sloppy and so it is not a good source. It is a matter of basic science which has been demonstrated by experiment that apparently inert medicines with no active ingredient nevertheless have a distinct healing effect. People who say that this action contradicts scientific principles are talking nonsense. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you already have this discussion at Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_34#Ernst_ref_.2316_added_today? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes & references

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thankyou