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.

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)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy. The Arbcom have specifically stated that they want to expand the scope of this case to Homeopathy pages and the article probation in general. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but even having read the pages in Wikipedia about these dispute management systems I still don't really understand what it means to have had an Aribtration opened. What are interested parties supposed to do? What are we trying to achieve? What are the Arbitrator's meant to be deciding? Sorry to be a pain, but while I have an interest in the subject of the arbitration I have almost no understanding of the arbitration process itself. OffTheFence (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, when you put it like that, it's awfully hard to explain =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 19 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[1] 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)

Not exactly - I don't recall Ernst coming up before. The basic issue which needs to be grasped here is that, so far as I know, science doesn't have an especially good theory as to why the placebo effect works. According to our article on the subject, A considerable body of work has attempted to elucidate the 'mechanism' of the placebo effect - but without much success.. So, if science relies upon this mysterious effect in determining the results of clinical trials, we are in no position to cast aspersions upon homeopathy which works in a somewhat similar way. Both homeopathy and allopathy have gaps or mysteries in their workings and science has yet to get to the bottom of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Peter Morell talks about him on the thread I linked, and Ernst was also discussed on the RS noticeboard on December 2007 --Enric Naval (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Complementary or alternative medicine: the need for plausibility.

Whatever Happened to Plausibility as the Basis for Clinical Research and Practice After EBM and CAM Rushed in?.

A critical overview of homeopathy. - general review, quite positive but notes implausibility and fact that it contradicts "contemporary rational basis of medicine".

Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment - notes that "there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Tim. The article, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," is particularly NPOV and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Because it seems that we have a strong enough anti-homeopathy statement near the top of the article that suggests that homeopathy is implausible and runs counter modern pharmaceutical knowledge, I suggest that we add in a quote from this article's abstract: "Some data—both from randomized, controlled trials and laboratory research—show effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea." I can provide the references to each of the meta-analyses for these four conditions from major conventional medical journals. DanaUllman^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've solved the "implausibility" problem. We can just say "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" with this as a reference (or added to some of the other references for this statement). As the the rest of this review, that sentence about meta-analyses doesn't reflect the current state of knowledge, since the 2005 Shang review represents the state-of-the-art in the analyses of homeopathy. Including dated material is not a good idea, so I wouldn't agree with the suggestion to quote that sentence. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because Shang wrote his analysis of homeopathic studies does not automatically invalidate them or make them any less significant. I do not agree with giving Shang such an inordinate amount of power to invalidate significant research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be a better wording to the effect that some positive studies of homeopathic efficacy do exist, but that they are old rather than recent; they are regarded by many as methodologically flawed; they involve small statistically insginificant groups; and there remains the bald fact that trials of homeopathy have been in general a big disappointment. This combines with the lack of a scientific mechanism to create the situation where this article does indeed read like a 'hatchet job' and 'an attack piece' BECAUSE that is a correct evaluation of the status of homeopathy in the world as seen by the average person. The many people who have good experiences with homeopathic treatment and thus a strong personal conviction that it works (including Dana) clearly do not outnumber the majority of people who remain sceptical about it. I think this is a more balanced assessment. However, I do think the article should mention the positive studies en passant at some point with a clutch of refs added of the best. That would be a fairer situation than leaving the article entirely as 'an attack piece,' which it currently undoubtedly is. If so, we need to agree on a slight rewording and which refs to use. thanks Peter morrell 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the average opinion of homeopathy is that it is bunk. My impression is that it is still seen as fairly respectable in countries such as the UK. Hostility seems to come from the hard-science types who are a minority. It is like religion - mocked by rationalists but still commanding widespread support. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to ”Colonel Warden” above: I think you make an unfair misinterpretation of the statement from Ernst that homeopathy “cannot work” when you make references to placebo. Homeopaths themselves claim that it works regardless of the placebo effect and the focus of this entire debate is whether homeopathy actually works in the way the homeopaths claim. No one has disputed that placebo exists and can have an impact on studies of homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• My general position to be sceptical of all sorts of medicine. Presenting some sorts of medicine uncritically while presenting others in an overly critical way does not seem NPOV. They all have their problems - both practical and theoretical - and we should be wary of vested interests on all sides. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to DanaUllman above: If Dana gives a correct description of the article “A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," (Annals of Internal Medicine) I think it should be included without disclaimers. I base that on the title of the article and the reputation of the academic journal. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• General Comment: I don’t at all buy the arguments that articles should be rejected just because they are old (in particular if “old” means 2003). The average quality for acceptance in academic journals was not significantly lower in the 1980s than today. Well designed peer reviewed studies are not invalidated by time, only slowly superseded by the growing body of other studies. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Ernst is in no sense a respected figure. He is reviled by most folks in CAM as a persistently scathing commentator about CAM, a so-called professor of a subject he seeks to invalidate with everything he publishes. In this way, he has made himself into a joke in the academic world. Regarding older studies, nor do I think they are necessarily worse than recent ones, but some of the older studies were not constructed using genuine homeopathic principles or they had small numbers, or they were seen to be flawed in some way or other. That is what many people think. It is not especially my view but it is the predominant view among researchers. Hopefully better studies will come along. Peter morrell 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst is unpopular among certain people because he is researching the effectiveness of CAM using rigorous methods and the results are unpalatable to them. Elsewhere he seems to be respected. Even within CAM, he appears to be enough of "a respected figure" to be on the editorial board of Homeopathy[2], for example. Brunton (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: Dana's descriptions of studies have been discovered to be highly misleading in the past, both as to hyping/disparaging notability based on whether he likes the conclusions, and very selective quoting. Hence Ullman's review of A Critical Overview of Homeopathy should probably be ignored until other, more trustworthy editors have looked at it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dana and arion. The 2005 meta analyses should be included but they cannot invalidate significant research findings. Besides that the 2005 meta analyses have been critisized in mainstream notable journals and press and this critisism should appear in the lead in proportion to its appearence in reliable sources. ( All these exist in references already cited in the article.I will provide them upon request. )--Area69 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are these "significant research findings" you're referring to? If you're suggesting, as it sounds like you are, that single studies are more significant than metaanalyses, and that criticism in alt-med journals and letters from homeopaths should be counted higher simply because it's more numerous, even though there's no studies to back them up, then you fail at understanding reliability in terms of science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I might quote something I said above: "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." We can discuss positive studies, explain why they aren't generally accepted in science, and so on. This doesn't mean yo get to reject a meta-analysis in The Lancet because you dislike it, nor that you get to claim that multiple very poor-quality individual studies should be given equal weight with respected, high-quality metaanalyses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more than tad ironic (major chutzpah, in fact) that Shoemaker questions the accuracy of my descriptions of studies when he erroneously refers to the 2005 Lancet review of research as a "meta-analysis." Even the authors of that paper do not refer to it as such. Despite the RS nature of the Lancet, they lost a lot of credibility in publishing that paper, as was evidenced by the many harsh criticisms that this "review" got. That review began with 110 homeopathic and a "matching" 110 conventional medical studies, and then found 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only 9 similarly high quality medical studies, and yet, they never revealed what these studies showed. Instead, they chose to assess only the largest studies in this group, 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional. One homeopathic study was a "weight-loss" study! They ignored two large studies testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu. They ignored the meta-analysis of 3 childhood diarrhea studies as well as one of these studies that was published in PEDIATRICS (was it not RS enough for them?). They ignored ALL four of the Reilly allergy studies. Their review didn't even analyse external validity because 6 of the 8 homeopathic studies didn't have it. It is interesting to note that the authors of the Lancet report didn't even reveal which studies that they included in their review until critics demanded that they do such. What type of high quality medical journal would provide (hide) such a "black box" of data? DanaUllman^Talk 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question to Shoemaker's Holiday (or others). Is DanaUllman getting the facts right here? Above you claimed that DanaUllman should be dismissed because he misrepresent the content and conclusions of academic studies. MaxPont (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since DanaUllman concedes he was wrong in his accusation against me below, I don't think there's any point further discussing something that attacks The Lancet as conspiring against them, and other ridiculous claims. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon more precise review of this article, Shang (2005) referred to his work as a comparative study of homeopathic and conventional medical research. Only once in this article did he refer to the word "meta-analysis" in reference to his comparison, though due to the broad definition of the word ("A procedure for statistically combining the results of many different studies"), I will concede that one could refer to this review by Shang as a meta-analysis, though my above criticisms of this review of research still remains. The following quote from this article will be of interest to all: "Simulation studies have shown that detection of bias is difficult when meta-analyses are based on a small number of trials. For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50] and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases that are prevalent in these publications, as shown by our study, might promote the conclusion that the results cannot be trusted." It is interesting that Shang refers to the results of 8 homeopathic studies on acute infections of the upper respiratory tract as "robust," and yet, he claims that 8 studies is too few to obtain unbiased results, while at the same time, they final analysis compared 8 homeopathic trials and 6 conventional ones. You cannot have it both ways. DanaUllman^Talk 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since we are citing Whorton in support of the idea that homeopathy is contraty to mainstream medical principles, it seems reasonable to cite his balanced view that the matter is not fully explained and so that it would be prudent to allow that these principles are incomplete. I have added a sentence to this effect with a substantial supporting quote in the citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

References to more meta-analyses

On April 1st, I posted the below recommended additions to this article, and we had some good discussion here. The material was archived before things were finalized. Scientizzle promised to recommend some compromise ideas. I'm open...

This article is missing reference to many meta-analyses in highly respected medical journals. In this light, I am recommending the following addition to this article. You will note that I have integrated some critique of some of these meta-analyses. It is strange that this article ignores the impressive and high quality work of Reilly, the Cochrane review of clinical trials on Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu, and the 3 studies on childhood diarrhea by Jacobs and team. The first sentence below is taken directly from the article here, though I have added my recommendations for what should be said next. DanaUllmanTalk 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] However, various meta-analysis have found a greater effect from a homeopathic medicine than a placebo [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. PMID 9310601. 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 (means odds ratio of 1.86). The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” The authors later analyzed these trials and concluded that higher quality trials were less likely to be positive than those of lower quality, though they acknowledged that this is true of conventional medical research too, saying in the first sentence of the article, “There is increasing evidence that more rigorous trials tend to yield less optimistic results than trials with less precautions against bias.” Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.] and several meta-analyses evaluating the homeopathic treatment of specific diseases has also found positive results. [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.] [Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.] [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.] A review of 67 in vitro studies was conducted, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. [Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011] The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” DanaUllman^Talk 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this suggested wording would help bring this article into a better quality NPOV presentation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We really can't mention Linde 1997 and Linde 1999 without including the statement from the 1999 paper that the 1997 paper "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". Perhaps the authors' comment in a letter published in The Lancet that the 1997 study "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"[3] is also relevant here. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment about "conventional medical research" is a nice tu quoque, perhaps, but not really relevant here as the article is about homoeopathy, not conventional medicine. Brunton (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here. I did give reference to Linde's 1999 article above, though I'm open to adding your above quote (please note, however, that some editors here have claimed that Linde "retracted" his meta-analysis, which is not true; in fact, he never said that the significance was lost, just reduced. My additional point was that Linde noted in the 1st sentence of his article (!) that evaluations of high quality research consistently find less significant effects. As such, the info about ALL clinical research is important here. DanaUllman^Talk 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They certainly seemed to think that the already tentative conclusions of the 1997 paper were weakened. Brunton (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk about SELECTIVE QUOTING! The very sentence before the one quoted by Brunton in the authors' comment in a letter published in The Lancet is this:

"The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." [4] Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the letter starts off with Linde saying that he agrees Homeopathy is highly implausible. Do either of these random quotes matter? Brunton was talking about studies by Linde, not the Lancet editorial. Are Linde's opinions on a Lancet editorial that isn't under discussion at this time really so very highly relevant that you can make a bad-faith, all-quotes accusation of selective quoting? Brunton's quote was relevant to the discussion at hand. Yours [and my sample quote] were not. Learn the damn difference. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore your uncivil language and repeat that my point is valid. This is a case of selective quoting. The letter clearly stated: "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." [5] Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about the Linde et al. papers here, not Shang or the associated editorial. Brunton (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But the wrong impression that was created by your quote was that the letter in The Lancet was critical of homeopathy. What the letter also stated was:

"Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement." [6] Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what we're talking about here. The letter stated that the very paper that we are discussing here, and which it is proposed to include in the article as supportive of homoeopathy, "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". I hope we're not going to get into another pointless argument about the definition of "retract", by the way. Brunton (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to be encyclopedic, perhaps we can include Brunton's addition and Arion's addition. Brunton felt that his addition from Linde's letter to the Lancet was notable, and if we can agree that it is, then, we must also agree that the sentence just before it is also notable. The other choice is to not add either of these additions because if you notice that I have already made reference to Linde acknowledging a reduced significance from the higher quality trials. Consensus is difficult, but I hope that we're getting closer. DanaUllman^Talk 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was pointing out that the letter was not presenting an anti-homeopathy position as Brunton's selected quote might have led one to believe. The letter was complaining that the study should not be used to say homeopathy is "proven" (by the way, I have not seen such a claim). However, he was also stating: "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." In other words, he was saying that homeopathy has also not been disproven.

His position is close to mine. My position regarding research on homeopathy is:

(1) Homeopathy has not been disproven by research

(2) Homeopathy has not been proven by research

(3) Homeopathic research has produced mixed results

The Wikipedia article should reflect the "mixed results" status of the research, instead of leading the reader to think that homeopathy has been disproven by "science". Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with including the comments that Arion suggests anywhere in the article is that they are criticisms not of the Shang paper but of the accompanying editorial, which isn't mentioned in the article as far as I can see. While the letter itself certainly doesn't appear to be particularly supportive of homoeopathy, given that is says, "we agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", we are not discussing the Shang paper here, or the plausibility of homoeopathy, but the 1997 Linde paper and the weight that it should be given. Brunton (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, Brunton, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot want to quote from Linde's letter to fit your needs/desires and then say that other quotes from the same letter don't have a place. In another discussion here, some editors asserted that Linde had "retracted" his previous meta-analysis, which is not only not true, but clearly, he has asserted that data show that results from homeopathic medicines are better than that of a placebo. Arion and I are trying to work for a compromise that acknowledges mixed results, and yet, at present, only the negative studies are highlighted. This has to change, that is, if we wish to strive for accuracy, NPOV encyclopedic knowledge. DanaUllman^Talk 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've already spent 3 pages complaining about me using ONE WORD, and ignoring all documented criticism of you in favour of that. Do you now plan on using that to dismiss all criticism by everyone else as well? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the value of editors criticizing of editors, instead of discussing how to improve the actual article for which the discussion page is intended. I have clearly shown that the letter was making a clear statement that homeopathy has not been disproven, yet that very fact continues to be ignored. The actual quotes were provided.

My comment had been regarding the point that the letter to The Lancet that was quoted was presented as if it was negative about homeopathy, but it actually was complaining about the tendency for either side of the homeopathic research question to consider their side to have proven their position.

The letter's MAIN point was that homeopathic research had NOT DISPROVEN homeopathy - but you would never have known that from that isolated quote that Brunton presented. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not generally required that you quote parts of a letter irrelevant to the specific subject being discussed simply because someone else likes the views expressed in them. That is a basic necessity for productive discussion, otherwise we may as well just quote every study in full every time we mention one. Provided that the point made is not refuted by discussion in the rest of the article, allowing some latitude for quotes is necessary. And finally, you liking the point does not make it the main point of the letter, which covers quite a number of subjects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your not liking the point does not automatically mean that it is not the main point of the letter. If someone has a mind-set that homeopathy is "obviously impossible" and all scientific research will bear out that belief - then facts might easily be overlooked. Remember, scientific inquiry cannot simply be structured to confirm one's own beliefs. That is not how discovery and advancemnent of knowledge has progressed on this world. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The atmosphere here has become extremely unpleasant and hostile of late; poisonous might be a better word. Can somebody please summarise the key issue and then suggest a way forward so folks can work more harmoniously towards improving the article? Or has that objective now become eclipsed as a side-issue to all the endless squabbling? Peter morrell 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you with my thoughts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Arion 3x3 is clearly wrong that the letter claims that homeopathy is NOT DISPROVEN, because it is a scientific impossibility to DISPROVE that something has an effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• For clarity, read what was actually written: "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that 'homoeopathy has no benefit' and that 'the time has passed for further investment in research' is not backed at all by the data."
• I read that as clearly stating that homeopathy cannot be described as having "no benefit" because that conclusion "is not backed at all by the data.". That means that it has not been proven to be of no benefit.
• Our article needs to more clearly describe the current state of research into homeopathy, instead of leading the reader to falsely believe that homeopathy has been proven to be of no benefit. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, you're quotemining one letter and building castles in the air on the foundation of what some words might be twisted to say. Science doesn't deal in proof. Linde is an old-fashioned scientist. That's probably all he means. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no "twisting" and the quotations were direct quotations. No one can seriously tell me that they do not understand the meaning of those words. Now lets get on with improving this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If we're going to include the criticism of the Lancet editorial, we need to reference the editorial's comments in the article, otherwise we run the risk of giving the entirely misleading impression that those words are criticisms of the Shang paper. Brunton (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Much more to the point, it has been widely agreed some days back what this article principally requires: some RS cites to show that there do exist in this world positive studies of homeopathy. The article is presenly brimful with negative studies and fair enough they need to be there, but positive ones do exist and what Arion and Dana have primarily been trying to point to, as far as I can see, is that to balance things up a little, we need to decide on and include some of those refs. Instead of endlessly bitching about which studies and who said what, or making personal attacks on other editors, or creating a very hostile atmosphere here, we would be better employed by working together to find and use the studies we need. Is that a fair summary of the current impasse? Peter morrell 11:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible. Positive studies of homeopathy do not survive the simple winnowing process of holding them to normal standards of quality. To admit positive studies for homeopathy you have to lower the bar so far that the studies become intrinsically worthless. That is homeopathy's problem not the problem of this article. Indeed the fact that this is the situation is of encyclopaedic note in itself and is adequately reflected in the meta-analyses where the consensus is that homeopathic pills have no intrinsic medical worth. Studies can be of high-quality or positive for homeopathy. Not both. What you perceive to be a lack of balance results from the fact that homeopathy is wrong and being wrong is not a balanced position. Why can you not accept that this is a done deal? Homeopathy cannot produce effects that survive examination under properly controlled conditions and the literature fairly reflects this. It's a done deal. Time to move on. The fact that homeopathy doesn't work doesn't make it any less valid to for inclusion in an encyclopaedia as a cultural phenomenon, but we need to move on from the idea that the pills have any medical effect. OffTheFence (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have just read a succinct summary of the problem with the homeopathy article(s). The problem is not Dana Ullman. The problem is just this kind of biased statement by one of the editors who are determined not to allow any research that is positive to homeopathy. The readers of Wikipedia are not interested in the personal opinions (or in this case mind-sets) of editors. The readers want a factually accurate and NPOV article on homeopathy. As Peter Morrell put it, here is "what this article principally requires: some RS cites to show that there do exist in this world positive studies of homeopathy." Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence erroneously asserted that "good studies" do not show efficacy of homeopathic medicines. In order for him to make this statement, he needs to verify why the Oscillococcinum trials in the TREATMENT of influenza should not be referenced (is the Cochrane Report not RS?). I am not aware of any critique of the four clinical trials, and each of them found statistically significant results as compared with placebo. The Cochrane Report referred to the results as "promising." Why should we not reference the 3 studies by Jacobs, et al, in the treatment of childhood diarrhea? Why should the four trials on various allergic disorders conducted by Reilly, two in the BMJ and 1 in the Lancet, be ignored? "Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis" was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, one of the leading journals on this medical specialty. Why shouldn't the results of this study be referenced. It is not in our interests to hear your personal views of these studies. Please give reference to RS journals. As yet, no one has provided a substantial reason why the above statement should not be a part of this article, but I'm open to dialogue and other people's input on how to include this body of evidence from leading medical journals. DanaUllman^Talk 04:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, "promising" is not the same as "proves something effective beyond a doubt and you should use homeopathy right now! Yes, now! What are you WAITING for?!" I know that the two are easily confused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply recommending that we give reference to the Cochrane Report's results on the TREATMENT of influenza and influenza-syndrome with Oscillococcinum. For the record, I want to express concern that this article makes various references to "negative" results of various Cochrane Reports, and yet, it is evidence of bias and of POV-pushing to ignore this positive report from this RS. One of these days, I would really like to see a skeptic of homeopathy admit that some good results has shown that a homeopathic medicine has shown to have an effect that is above and beyond that of a placebo effect. It would show "good faith" in doing so. Anyone want to be bold? DanaUllman^Talk 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoe...I'm confused by your above statement. I described the Cochrane Report on Oscillococcinum using their words "promising." I did not write nor did they write that this research "proves blah blah blah." I'm not exactly clear where you got that quote or why you brought it up. Can you clarify, or better, simply agree that it is time to give reference to this Cochrane Report that cites four studies that show that patients given this medicine experienced relief from the flu faster than those patients given a placebo. DanaUllman^Talk 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Belief in Homeopathy

I have not been around for a while, but I'd like some quotations considered for inclusion in the section on "General Philosophy" [7], either directly or as sources to which reference can be made.

Peter Morrell previously strongly objected to any similarity with religion being highlighted [8] and said "Yes, Kent was a highly religious man, so what? You can keep pushing this wild POV but there really is no more religion and belief in homeopathy than there is in science today. Is there a section on religion in the science article or the medicine article? According to you, there should be. That's precisely how daft your idea is. If you continue in this vein then you might even be banned. This article is under probation and prejudicial & vastly uninformed time-wasters like you are on a short leash or did you forget this? If a pro-homeo person were doing what you are doing here they would have been banned 24 hours ago."

but the following quotations make that similarity clear and accepted and they happen to have been written by Peter Morrell himself. "Modern homeopathy dwells in a nebulous and metaphysical realm into which few allopaths would fear to tread."[9] "homoeopathy is very much a `belief-system' containing many philosophical elements and ideas.""there are clear and undeniable parallels between homoeopathy and religion.""Both are systems of belief.""The power structures of a religion usually revolve around a central figure - eg the founder ""In the case of the founder of hom, Hahnemann, he is widely revered as the creator of hom, and frequently as the ultimate authority for settling disputes."[10]. I will say that I asked Peter for an internet source for his article on "Homeopathy and Religion" but he did not oblige, but I found them myself in the end. I had thought it might be a jumping off point to finding other material to be offered for inclusion here, but since it turns out to include exactly the kind of material I had in mind for inclusion as part of this topic I see no need to look further at this point.

I also think that the ideas of JG Frazer should then be included."Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic"[11] The magical thinking of homeopathic medicine involves this form of thinking. [12]

Might I ask that we reconsider the options in the article for describing the nature of the homeopathic belief system. Merely saying it is a form of vitalism is too narrow.OffTheFence (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is NOT a religion, never has been and never will be so your point is entirely off-topic. It therefore merits no further comment. Peter morrell 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you are not going to apologise for your previous invective against me. Sticks and stones etc, I have no wish to respond in kind and so have concentrated on the issues. Please see below. OffTheFence (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That said, at least H. Walach, writing for the British Homeopathic Journal [Now Homeopathy ] 2000 Jul;89(3):127-40. specifically said (!) that it was magic. An earlier version (mentioned in the BHJ paper) appears in full at [13].

Peter Fisher discusses it reasonably favourably as an explanation of Homeopathy in {{doi:10.1016/j.homp.2004.07.005}}. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That some homeopaths subscribe to a spiritual paradigm does not make homeopathy a religion either.

A religion is defined thus: a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. [14]

Homeopathy does not fit this definition. Vaguely it partially fits point 3. Science, however, conforms to points 2 and 4; therefore science is more of a religion than homeopathy! How utterly amazing. Peter morrell 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it conforms to all four, but Peter, this is getting simply bizarre. You are complaining that homeopathy cannot be likened to a religion, yet there are many ways in which this case can be reasonably made, but the first place I looked was at things you yourself have written. If you wish to cite appropriate WP:RS sources that counter this perfectly sensible suggestion then they could be considered to add as a counterweight. Maybe you find it embarrassing to have it described as religion, I cannot help that and I have sources to back me up. You might want to find something that describes homeopathy as functioning well within a rational scientific paradigm, which makes it amenable to the normal processes of experimental investigation. Many homeopathic sources say something rather different from that, but if you want to cite relevant rationalist homeopathic literature then please feel free to do so.OffTheFence (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

At some risk to the limits of Fair Use here are some more quotations from one of the sources I have already cited.[15]

"the deeper aspects of homoeopathy are, like religion, contrary to the materialistic principles that 'Scientists' would have us believe regulate material existence."

"The doctrine of the vital force fits so closely the facts of homoeopathy that it is remarkable that science has never shown much interest in the subject. One reason may be that all Vitalist theories about life come very close indeed to the spiritual, and science is never prepared to get tangled up with subjective truths. This is where religion comes in."

"In conclusion, what we can say about homoeopathy and religion is that there are some definite connections between them. They agree very broadly about the nature of man and of life, they support each other logically and they complement one another."

"In my view homoeopathy is a spiritual technique, a spiritual discipline, that heals sickness by addressing that in each of us - vital force and spirit - from which the body, was created and by which it is maintained. In this sense therefore homoeopathy is far more than a system of medicine. When practised properly it holds out to humanity a means of self-understanding, self discovery and self-help as important and as valid as any religion on earth."

"There are many who feel that their personal religious faith and beliefs - if any - are quite separate from their practice of homoeopathy and that they occupy quite separate parts of their life. Fine. That is so for them. But quite a majority of homoeopaths have endeavoured to formulate more advanced philosophies for homoeopathy, based upon a conceptual framework, derived - at least in part - from a religion. "

"In general terms one might be tempted to conclude that homoeopathy as a philosophy fits in most easily with various polytheistic religions like Hinduism and Paganism - including Druidism - and with the Oriental religious philosophies like Zen, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism."

"What is a religion?

While leaving aside the question of what a religion is, and its function, we can say what it contains. All religions contain a number of discernible elements. Some of these are fairly obvious. Others less obvious. They include:

spiritual element, philosophical element, emotional element, belief and trust element, personal salvation element, world or humanity salvation element, mythologiocal, fantastic or poetic element, orthodox, traditional element, power structures and hierarchies, Homoeopathy also contains most of these elements. It certainly includes elements 2-5, some would also include 1 and 6. Homoeopathy has certainly had its share of 7, 8 and 9. It will be necessary therefore, to consider each of these in further detail in their own right in order to show their relation to homoeopathy."

I think that's enough to make my point. It should not have been necessary to belabour this point quite so leadenly, but Peter Morrell seems to have a major problem with having this issue raised and considered for inclusion. If anyone wants to read the rest they can follow the link I gave.

I really think that we need to move on from a basis that the philosophical basis of homeopathy needs to include a reference to its religious aspects as well as the magical ideas and vitalism. I don't think that it can be rationally said that these are not relevant or important.

And, by the way Peter Morrell, if someone was writing a general piece about the philosophy of science it would be perfectly reasonable to allude to its religious context especially in past centuries. It was a particularly feeble strawman you raised, but to explore science's historical and philosophical links with religion here really would be off-topic, but unless you have only a very narrow reading of the history of science they should be obvious. OffTheFence (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

DRAFT SECTION FOLLOWS

==General philosophy== Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, [16]indeed the language of magic [17] has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths [18] and those skeptical of it [19] but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems [20].

It is a vitalist philosophy in that it regards diseases and sickness to be caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force in humans and that these disturbances manifest themselves as unique symptoms. Homeopathy contends that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the "law of susceptibility". The law of susceptibility states that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called "miasms" to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases. However, Hahnemann rejected the notion of a disease as a separate thing or invading entity and insisted that it was always part of the "living whole".

I think this is appropriately modest, NPOV and easily referenced to verifiable sources. I am not very interested in hearing from Peter whether he still thinks homeopathy is a religion or whether he has changed his mind and wishes to distance himself from his previously published position on the subject. The point is that a clear NPOV statement can and should be made in the article that highlights these aspects of homeopathic philosophy for the general reader of Wikipedia. I am however interested to see whether anyone else has more or better ideas or other source materials that they would like to have cited. Might I suggest that if they do then they should copy my draft section and copy it into their own response with appropriate edits and we can see whether we can shape this up. This is not rocket science and boils down to a single sentence so I don't see much need for this to be a lengthy or contentious process.

OffTheFence (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "appropriately modest". I would call it "unnecessarily inflammatory". --Hans Adler (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. You can argue it's wrong, or not notable enough to be in the article be in the article, but it's not inflammatory to suggest a statement of views that are decidely out there and somewhat widely held. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that essentially I agree with the opinion and suspect that it is notable. But that's no way to express this. This is supposed to be an article about homeopathy, not propaganda for or against it. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that your resentment of parallels being drawn between homeopathy and religion says rather more about your attitude to religion than it does about the parallels. Why should you find it offensive and equate it to anti-homeopathy propaganda that these parallels are drawn. Homeopaths themselves have been very happy to accept these parallels. Please try to move on from this position. The parallels have been highlighted in a valid way. Do you have something useful to contribute?OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some suggestions would help, then? Just saying it's inflammatory doesn't really help improve it, or make it obvious how to fix the problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this won't be easy to fix. Since I am not more of a native speaker at 3 am then at other times it's probably not a good idea for me to try doing it now, but perhaps I have some time to think about it tomorrow. The point is really that this kind of thing must be expressed much more diplomatically. Perhaps you understand the problem if I write something parallel about religion:

"Metaphysical principles such as transubstantiation set Catholicism apart from other Christian confessions. Catholics contend that prayers directed to the Virgin Mary are passed on to God by her, a belief that has been compared to "magical thinking" by some Protestant theologians. Because of the important role of saints, Catholicism also has much in common with polytheism."

Formulations like this are SPOV, but not NPOV. We can say such things, but we must be more diplomatic. The second paragraph seems to be much better, by the way. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. [21] I think an exploration of the page to which I have linked and the further pages to which it leads rather support my approach and suggest that a Catholic Wikipedian would not react in a hostile manner to your suggestion, except to say that it is far too brief and warrants expansion over several pages as has been done for the pages about Catholic doctrine. I don't think a Catholic would feel threatened by such material, indeed such matters lie at the core of theological debate. What is it about homeopaths and homeopathy that makes them so touchy on this subject? Ah well, to discuss this further really would take us off-topic, but can we accept the principle that the reasonableness and relevance of what I am suggesting has been settled? OffTheFence (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try to pay closer attention. The second paragraph is the one that is currently in the main article I have changed only its first word. But the second paragraph only deals with vitalism, which is only part of the philosophical picture. OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that there was a de-facto agreement on treating religion articles different than other articles since they are based on faith and not on science, and there was not point in putting into doubt the scientific basis of them. Since homeopathy claims to be based on hard science and be scientifically measurable, it should not receive that treatment. Btw, here we are not trying to be diplomatic, and religion articles are not written that way for the sake of diplomacy, or else we would have removed all Muhammad drawings. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As Peter Morrell pointed out, connecting homeopathy with religion or magic is wrong. In fact I would go further and say that it is absurd, and an insult to all the health professionals utilizing homeopathy successfully. As Hans Adler put so well, "This is supposed to be an article about homeopathy, not propaganda for or against it." Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion, have you actually read the links I provided? Please answer that specific question with a short and simple answer. OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion, you have been back since I posted the question above, please answer it, if you would be so kind. OffTheFence (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So why does Walach propose and Fisher support a magical interpretation? It does seem a notable point of view. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not notable, and it's an absurd fantasy. Ask any homeopath. Ask any of the millions of homeopathic consumers. Ask any homeopathic researcher. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, Walach and Peter Fisher? =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have spoken to fewer homeopaths than me and read less of their literature. This religious or quasi-religious viewpoint is standard. True, it may not feature much in the mindset of the average consumer who buys a homeopathic remedy based in part on the usual mistaken similarity with herbalism, but nor do I expect that consumer to understand the pharmacology of COX inhibitors when they buy ibuprofen. That does not have any bearing on the fact that the philosophical basis of homeopathy is metaphysical, magical or religious in its character, which I have established by reference to good source materials. As I have suggested to Hans you cannot reasonably challenge the notability or relevance of these ideas. What you can do is help to flesh out their presentation with further citations if you wish to. OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Put Homeopathy + Philosophy into Google and this is the first link you find [22]. Here the authors wish to distance themselves from the idea of religion in homeopathy, presumably out of a defensive reflex similar to that which has been evident on this page, but in so doing they explicitly remind us of how frequently that link is made, "A study of any field of alternative medicine such as homeopathy is likely to take the student into a whole host of derivative concepts ranging from ancient religious rituals to quantum physics." and the desire to bring in the "spiritual" is very strong in many sources, "In spiritual healing as well as in genuine, classical homeopathy, it is not so much that man will rise to the level of spiritual realm, as much as Spirit, the transcendent [sic] Supramental Realm, will reveal itself amidst our experience as healing."[23]. Or "it is not possible to explain any healing effect of homeopathic therapy without entering the spiritual or supernatural realm." [24]. Now that link does have something interesting to say specifically about homeopathy and Christianity as an individual religion, Homeopathy has no scientific basis and is totally dependent on a spiritual understanding of man and diseases. Healing effect of homeopathy is unthinkable without the use of spiritual or psychic power. Homeopathy is a way to spiritual power and healing that passes by Jesus Christ and this has no support in the Bible. Samuel Hahnemann's attitude towards Jesus is clearly stated in one of his biographies: "He resisted the dreamer Jesus from Nazareth, who did not lead the selected ones to the right way of wisdom" (1). He also said about Jesus that "he carried the darkness of this world and gave offence to the friends of ethereal wisdom"". Having established the general similarities homeopathy has with religion if one of its advocates would like to incorporate that apparent distancing of it from Christianity specifically then that would be reasonable. This also sits rather well with what Peter Morrell says in the essay that I have linked to, "In general terms one might be tempted to conclude that homoeopathy as a philosophy fits in most easily with various polytheistic religions like Hinduism and Paganism - including Druidism - and with the Oriental religious philosophies like Zen, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism."[25]

p.s. To those who seem to have a problem with the whole area of metaphysics and homeopathy being highlighted publicly in this article, might I point out that the contrasts and overlaps between science and metaphysical ideas are described in Wikipedia, see here [26] and here [27]. The references are necessarily more oblique than is appropriate for the case of homeopathy, but that this because scientific textbooks do not routinely give over their opening chapters to spiritual speculation whereas homeopathic textbooks most definitely do. OffTheFence (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As was suggested previously, I think there is no reason not to collect a large volume of this material and make a separate daughter article on Homeopathy and religion. There are people who think it is the work of the devil, there are people who think it is consonant with Christianity and all manner of other beliefs. It does not belong in this main article and there is not room.--Filll (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed that suggestion, but if you look at the draft, all I am adding is a single sentence, the rest of the draft is already in the Article. The paragraph that is currently in the Article just needs minor rebalancing and providing with context and that is the small aim I am trying to achieve. As I pointed out previously and, in contradiction to what has been claimed previously, the main general articles on science even make some space for these aspects and it is much more central to homeopathy than it is to those articles. OffTheFence (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we solve this on our own?

Some of the latest contributions of OffTheFence (talk · contribs) are outright bizarre. While I am still not at the point where I would say this user's behaviour must be intentionally unconstructive, I think it is safe to say that it is similar to that of a sophisticated troll and might best be treated as such. Rather than run to ANI and ask for another topic ban, I suggest that we try to solve this challenge on our own, as a community building exercise.

I propose that we all just follow the DNFTT strategy and stop reacting to this user. Of course this only works if we all agree that that's the right way to proceed. If any of the regular contributors to this article doesn't agree, just leave a short note here and I will withdraw this proposal. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler, in what way have my contributions been bizarre? Some have been semi-ironic, or partly humorous, but none have been erroneous and all have been underpinned by a serious desire to address the substantive issues. I have cited the public and widely held beliefs of homeopaths about homeopathy. (Their widely held nature makes them WP:NOTABLE, by the wayOffTheFence (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)) What is your problem with that? I would prefer that you deal with the issues rather engage in snide ad hominem. However, I take no offence and would happily consider any contribution you might wish to make. Might I also point out that half the time there is whingeing on these pages about people making un-discussed edits then the other half people like you complain about opening up topics so that they may be discussed. If you can refute the validity of the ideas that I have presented then please do so. If you abdicate from the discussion then that is your choice.OffTheFence (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I also point out that just because you may want to airbrush over a topic that for some reason you are not comfortable with does not make that topic ineligible for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. OffTheFence (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Hans, I ask you the same question as I asked Arion, have you read any of the links I provided? If you have not then please refrain from comment until you have done so. If you have then please explain the basis on which you claim my suggestions are bizarre. OffTheFence (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems obvious that Enric Naval does not agree. I withdraw my proposal.

Thank you. Let's move on.OffTheFence (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to explain how exactly OffTheFence's responses to my objections were bizarre. People can read the above discussion and draw their own conclusions [28] [29]. I have read some of the links provided by OffTheFence, and they did not corroborate his views in any way. I am not going to waste my time on the others.

Fact is that this kind of tendentiousness has no place in an encyclopaedia. I checked the homeopathy articles in Britannica (2001 CD edition) and in Encarta. They are shorter than this one, so the fact that they don't mention this topic doesn't say much. But even though they cover the criticism of homeopathy, in comparison to this article they sound like advertising for homeopathy. I am convinced that that's because they were written by experts who know what NPOV means, not by a committe of people pushing opposite POVs. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A "proper" encyclopaedia should not tolerate the inclusion of homeopathy from an "in universe" perspective [30]. However, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that it must include editors who are "in universe" but will not accept that fact. From an NPOV perspective, giving due regard to WP:WEIGHT, homeopathy is a comfortable fiction, a busted flush, but here we are discussing it as if it is a viable medical therapy. It's a funny old world. All I can do is act within the rules and try to make Wikipedia's account of homeopathy reflect reality where possible. OffTheFence (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I dunno about OffTheFence's comments, I've looked at them and I can't see the tendentiousness or troll behaviour on them. At most, too long arguments and too much quoting on one of the comments.

About other encyclopedias' NPOV, I doubt that they follow exactly the same NPOV policy as outlined on WP:NPOV, and we don't know how their WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE equivalents are worded and applied, and their entries are probably written by only one person and not by a group of persons with different opinions, so I wouldn't attempt to compare their style. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be better that those, dammit :D --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these diffs aren't very clear. In any case he did not react to my point but instead speculated about my attitude towards religions – but so vaguely that I haven't got the faintest idea whether he is for or against religions and whether he suspects me of being for or against them. It's nearly impossible to defend against such a fuzzy attack, so I stepped aside and tried something else.

You earlier mentioned a special exception for religion articles. I don't think there is anything special about the topic. Such exceptions exist for a reason, and this reason typically applies to religion articles, and it typically doesn't apply to Pokemon articles. I am absolutely convinced that if this reason applies to Jehovah's Witnesses, then it applies to homeopathy as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, discussion about OffTheFence comments are going a bit off-topic from improving the article, so I'll refrain from discussing them. I can continue talking about them on your talk page if you want.

The reason is that religion is faith-based and not science-based. Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be based on faith. Scientology is also based on faith and treated accordingly, but its self-help system Dianetics is claimed to be based on science and gets this sort of sections: Dianetics#Scientific_evaluation_and_criticisms.

Now, if you are saying that homeopathy is based on faith, then we should start stripping all claims and studies saying that homeopathy is scientifically proved :P --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It involves metaphysical and magical thinking, fundamental violations of logic, and ignorance of basic scientific knowledge. -- Fyslee / talk 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All of this was part of medicine at the time when Hannemann laid out the foundations of homeopathy, with blood extractions, the virus theory not still developed, much of the scientific knowledge that today is taken for granted still not discovered, non-profesionalization of the medic profession, etc. A valid criticism would be, for example, to say that the science has changed a lot since that time, and that some homeopathy practicers are still using the original outdated concept which includes all those concepts (properly sourced, of course :P) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Some people are stagnant or seek stagnant sources, and thus never learn. -- Fyslee / talk 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

redirecting discussion to draft section

So, we have a draft section that is sourced by the statements of two notable homeopaths, namely:

• Dr Peter Fisher (homeopath), Clinical Director, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital [31]
• Harald Walach, (University of Freiburg, Dept. of Environmental Medicine) from a paper on Homeopathy journal when it had a different name

And also from texts by:

• Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941), from the book "The Golden Bough" (1922)[32]
• User:Peter morrell [33]

And it also cites texts from Samuel Hahnemann.

I have yet to see any comment saying that the draft is incorrect, unacurate, misrepresentative of its sources, or any specific example of where the wording would be WP:NPOV. Notability of sources is established. The relevance of a statement made by notable homeopaths about the basis of homeopathy should be clear too.

The following is of arguments that are not sufficient to block an addition that breaks no policies. This is starting to look like just wallstoning of inclusion of *any* criticism:

• Saying that it's "inflammatory"
• trying to draw parallelisms to religious articles where the topic is based on faith and not science, instead of drawing parallelisms to similar sections on articles that are science based like Science#Philosophy_of_science
• civil accusations of sophisticated trolling not backed by diffs
• claims that an article "about" a topic can't include propaganda against the topic, but we are talking of commentaries by relevant sources on the field about the basis of the topic itself.

So, provide some valid reason citing specific text that is not acceptable so it can be changed before inclusion, backed with exact policy and part of the policy that the text is breaking, or stop complaining about it and let other editors improve the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that I don't even think it is criticism. Many homeopaths are proud of the spiritual metaphysical aspect of what they do. That is why I have found the reactions to this topic so strange. OffTheFence (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"many heomopaths" are not all and its perfetly possible that some or even most reputable homeopaths would not like to have theri scientific resarch be dismissed as not only being incorrect but magical as well. Smith Jones (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. What you say is interesting and probably beyond the scope of a brief encyclopaedia entry. I cannot tell you why some homeopaths seek validation via experimental methods while others deny the applicability of these methods. However, what is germane here is that the majority view supported by their main textbooks is that homeopathy is founded in a spiritual, non-materialist view of the world and this underlies their frequent excuses about the difficulty they have of garnering experimental support for the efficacy of their remedies. But, to discuss this further, we end up engaging in a meta-discussion somewhat remote from the proposed modification of the article. OffTheFence (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true. What might be relevant would be something from some rationalist wing of homeopathy to balance the spiritualist wing, though, frankly, you are going to struggle to find anything. Because they are fundamentally dependant on content-fre solvent or sugar having biological effects, they have to move outside mainstream science at a fairly early stage. More precisely, what they say might appear rational, bu on closer inspection it is not and it will be difficult to source a fully rational source from the literature, but please feel free to make the effort. OffTheFence (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Many homeopaths are proud of the spiritual metaphysical aspect of what they do." is simply untrue. You can not provide a source for it - because there is none. As a physician who has interacted with homeopaths for decades, I have yet to find one that thinks or speaks the way that you want to falsely characterize them. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a physician? OffTheFence (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised if you are physician that you could come to that conclusion. I came to it very quickly when I met homeopaths in my professional capacity, though I might not have if I only took a very superficial approach to the issue. Call it OR if you want, but this is a talk page and obvious deductions from the available evidence form part of what we may sensibly discuss on this page. I would not attempt to insert into the main Article a statement that the majority of homeopaths are proud of its spiritual aspects without a reliable source even though it is a valid deduction and also, probably, true. Please try to distinguish in your mind discussion about an encyclopaedic entry and the content of the entry itself. I thought I had supplied enough sources to illustrate my point. Perhaps you need more, but then we risk Hans calling my behaviour bizarre again if I produce a load of citations and quote from them. Go and read any standard homeopathic text. If you can find a viewpoint that contradicts the position I am describing then get back to me, but until then I'm afraid your assertion is unsubstantiated and unverifiable. It is also untrue. Do you really need to be led by the hand to sources of homeopaths declaring their activities to be on the spiritual level and inaccessible to science? Once again I must infer that your knowledge of the homeopathic literature is so shallow as to disqualify you form comment here. OffTheFence (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My extensive library of homeopathic literature backs up my statement. The insistance on inserting nonsense about magic and religion being relevant to homeopathy is not correct - and a not so veiled attempt to discredit homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which statement? Most homeopathic books I have read deal fairly heavily with spirit, vital force, non-material effects etc. It may be that either your or my reading of the literature has been the more representative. I'd like you to cite a single standard homeopathic textbook that does not deal with the spiritual aspects. As I am writing this, I have in front of me George Vithoulkas' book "The Science of Homeopathy" and even by page 8 we are already encountering material such as "The flesh and the spirit are two phases of your actuality in space and time". As I say, this is a book that actually uses "Science" in its title! In any case, how is this relevant to the proposed draft section? OffTheFence (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Arion, you have still made no attempt to refute or challenge the citations I provided, which does not leave you at liberty to describe my proposed alterations as nonsense. You may wish to engage in a meta-discussion, I do not. I am trying to create an encyclopaedia entry here. Please try to concentrate on the task at hand. OffTheFence (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that there is an aspect to the individual that is a biological organism (flesh) and an aspect that is consciousness (called "spirit" by some) is a statement that a good percentage of non-homeopathic medical practitioners would probably also agree with. Your belief that this supports discrediting homeopathy by associating it with magic or religion is not a logical conclusion, in my estimation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

An association with religion discredits homeopathy?!! Wow. That's quite an assertion. I cannot see why you would make that inference. I am not proposing that such an inference should be part of the article. Why are you? Why does associating homeopathy with religion discredit it? Again we risk travelling down the road of meta-discussion, but this seems to matter to you so please explain why it does. I am sure that many religiously-inclined believers in homeopathy would be interested to hear what you have to say. I am a scientist and I have no problem with considering the associations between science and religion or medicine and religion. What is your problem here? OffTheFence (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's evaluate the sources (sigh)

(1) Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, [34]

The opinion of one non-notable homeopath, in a relatively recent (2002) online(?) journal(?) that doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.

(2) indeed the language of magic [35]

A section from Sir James George Frazer (1922), "The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion". Seriously outdated; uses the word "homoeopathic magic" for a kind of magic, that is only vaguely related to homeopathy and includes the use of voodoo puppets. (Example from the following section: "If homoeopathic or imitative magic, working by means of images, has commonly been practised for the spiteful purpose of putting obnoxious people out of the world, it has also, though far more rarely, been employed with the benevolent intention of helping others into it.")

(3) has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths [36]

A paper from 1999 by one homeopath who later published something called "weak quantum theory" which he hopes can explain efficacy of homeopathy.

(4) and those skeptical of it [37]

A 2001 article from the Skeptical Inquirer, written by an anthropologist.

(5) but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems [38].

This article is from 1982. Author and journal are the same as for the first reference.

• (1) and (5): The references are obviously way too weak and have been chosen in spite of the obvious danger of provoking the author (who, after all, is a regular editor here, and has been for 2 years).
• (2) "The language of magic" does not need a reference; perhaps a wiki link to make clear what is meant. Using an old book about "homeopathic" voodoo is inflammatory.
• (3) It's completely unclear whether this author's opinion is even notable in homeopathy circles (as opposed to skeptics' circles where innovative ridiculous ideas by homeopaths are always welcome). The abstract contains the sentence: "I will turn to explain how the scientifically obscene word 'magic' can be understood in an inoffensive way." This explains the problem: "magic" is an obscene word, and the entire paragraph seems to have been put together in order to insult. The only relevant things for homeopathy and magic that I found using Google were on anti-pseudoscience sites or due to Walach.
• (4) I see no problems with that.

for Harasch's notability, he's Co-Chairmen of the Organising Committee for the 3rd International Congress on Complementary Medicine Research on Sidney on 2008, and is also on the scientific committee and the Scientific Advisory Committee [39]. I don't know about the congress notability, so I leave it for others to asses the notability of this. I also don't know the exact notability of him being director of the European Samueli Institute Office [40]

(I can't review the other stuff today and probably will take a pair of days before I can look at all of them) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence, I have once jumped through your hoops now. The result was exactly what could be expected. I will not do this again. Nor, I expect, will anybody else. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Some substantive input, at last. Bear in mind, Hans that we are dealing with material that is not the same as published experimental work so the assessment of WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE are rather different. The equation with religion was well-argued to a point where it becomes self-evident in the piece and has been widely republished around the internet, so it is definitely notable. JG Frazer is notable and the applicability of the word homeopathic was deliberately chosen at the time and referenced subsequently. Walach's invocation of the word "magic" is most definitely notable, has been widely promulgated and forms the basis of something fancifully called the non-local interpretation of homeopathy which has led to Lionel Milgrom's extensive forays into the area, which have, in turn, been widely cited. I'm afraid you can't claim that to be non-notable when the UK's best known homeopath discusses it in an editorial in the UK's leading homeopathic journal. So, your complaints that the material does not qualify are refuted. Why would you want this material to be excluded? OffTheFence (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Hans this would be less tiresome if you bothered to look at the material more closely. I cited the first part of Peter Morrell's essay from a source that was not hidden behind a paywall, but if you want its original citation from the British Medical Journal, then I am happy to oblige, [41]. Hans, please stop assuming that I am stupid and do not have a firm grasp of the homeopathic literature. Indeed, of the editors here, barring Dana, I probably have a better knowledge of the primary literature than most, have access to an archive of several hundred research papers and have spent several years examining it. Thank you. OffTheFence (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking you for stupid, far from it. I am taking you for unconstructive, and that in a very sophisticated way that is hard to deal with. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being over-sensitive, and I have no idea whether to take that as a compliment, but choose to do so. Do you now accept that the BMJ reference makes Morrell's comments notable and RS? Do you withdraw your challenge to the other citations? OffTheFence (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it with this section is not that it isn't a view a few people have of homeopathy, but that it doesn't appear very notable view, so might not merit much or any discussion in the main article on this subject. Which source do you think establishes that this is a reasonably prominent position, OTF? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's a fair point. It is the self-evident nature of the argument presented in Morrell's published article and the wide use of the non-locality idea and "magic" in more recent years that substantiate my overall position. You'll kind of have to take my word for the fact that this is widespread (or Google's word if you search on these terms), but I can see a case for making the sentence I have proposed subordinate to the opening sentence rather than being the lead paragraph of that section. We have, as usual the problem of expert opinion counting for little at Wikipedia. I am an "expert" in the homeopathic literature, but that needs to be grounded to verifiable citations here. I think I have done that. OffTheFence (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proclaiming yourself an "expert" says more about you than you probably realize. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the ironic import of the inverted commas was lost on you. Never mind. OffTheFence (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this suggestion might be a little over-long and detailed, but some mention of it would, in my opinion, be justified. We could also mention Milgrom's bizarre supposedly-quantum-mechanical expansions of it - I THINK he references Walach in them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He certainly does. Most if not all of his "PPR entanglement" series of papers reference Magic of Signs, and he also frequently references Walach's paper, co-authored with Atmanspacher and Romer, on "weak quantum theory". Brunton (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

However similar they may seem to non-physicists, quantum theory and magic are two different things, so we can't possibly use a reference to vague ideas about quantum effects to support the idea that people think homeopathy works by magic. Indeed, that argument seems so bizarre that I'm sure I can't have understood you properly. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions for OffTheFence

The discussion about the religion proposal seems to be much less constructive than the other discussions we have had here recently. Perhaps I was a bit too quick in attributing this to the main difference that I saw, namely the involvement, if not dominance, of a particular new editor with a large output of text and a certain propensity to answer their interlocutor's weakest argument rather than their real concern. That's how I saw it. If I made an error of judgement, then I would like to adjust my attitude to make it easier to move forward to consensus. But I need help to do this. OffTheFence, please help me by answering the following two questions:

• Have you read this source before proposing it as a reference, and were you aware of the way in which it uses the expression "homoeopathic magic"?
• Would you mind amending your proposal (by this I mean the first bold paragraph above and the place where you propose to put it) to take into account those of my concerns that I have expressed above and that you don't want to discuss?

Feel free to answer the spirit of my questions rather than the letter if that's more effective. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

re Frazer- I hear what you are saying. Yes, I had read it. Obviously it will take longer to explain than it does to pose the question, but here goes. The use of the word "homeopathic" is not coincidental because the principle underlying Frazer's idea and homeopathy as a therapy have so much in common. Yes, it does require an extension of Frazer's usage, hence the second citation. Without that citation, or an equivalent one, Frazer's homeopathic magic would be too remote from the topic. But the link has been made and the equivalence noted. By the time we also have Walach's ideas, reported by Fisher and taken off into yet a different direction by Milgrom what we can see is various parts of one puzzle, or different views of the same thing seen through different lenses. OffTheFence (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to amend my proposal, that's why it is a proposal, but can you be more explicit about which concerns you mean. There has been a lot of hot air generated by this issue and it would be helpful if you could show me what you want me to focus on. Thank you for the more conciliatory tone. OffTheFence (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to second-guess your concerns while I have some time. Forgive me, but I'm going to copy and paste your comments and interleave my own in bold.

(1) Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, [42]

The opinion of one non-notable homeopath, in a relatively recent (2002) online(?) journal(?) that doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.

I have now given you the BMJ citation, though the one I initially employed is accessible as full-text it is the BMJ origin that makes it notable etc.

(2) indeed the language of magic [43]

A section from Sir James George Frazer (1922), "The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion". Seriously outdated; uses the word "homoeopathic magic" for a kind of magic, that is only vaguely related to homeopathy and includes the use of voodoo puppets. (Example from the following section: "If homoeopathic or imitative magic, working by means of images, has commonly been practised for the spiteful purpose of putting obnoxious people out of the world, it has also, though far more rarely, been employed with the benevolent intention of helping others into it.")

Answered above. The whole idea of magic can be addressed at greater length if you wish to include all the nuances and cite more sources including Milgrom.

(3) has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths [44]

A paper from 1999 by one homeopath who later published something called "weak quantum theory" which he hopes can explain efficacy of homeopathy.

See above

(4) and those skeptical of it [45]

A 2001 article from the Skeptical Inquirer, written by an anthropologist.

See above. I think that being an anthropologist would make him eminently well-qualified to comment on a belief system.

(5) but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems [46].

This article is from 1982. Author and journal are the same as for the first reference.

And the Organon was published 200 years ago. If 1982 is too long ago, you'll have to manage without Hahnemann. OffTheFence (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Have you not read it. It is well-argued. Peter has not returned recently to explain why he objects to inclusion of this material but it is internally consistent and well thought-through. It has also been re-posted in many places. Can you produce a source that argues coherently against the viewpoint outlined there. If you can then we can discuss whether the one cancels the other and neither get a mention in the Article, or whether both are good and both get mentioned balancing each other.

Could I suggest that replies get added below this edit rather than engage in any more interleaving? The layout is getting very messy. Sorry about that.OffTheFence (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer citation to my essay from 1981-2 not to be used because it was just a hack piece and it is an extreme minority view in homeopathy. It stemmed from a conversation with an editor. No way does it represent anything like a standard view in homeopathy, as has been claimed. If necessary that essay will be removed from the site. Peter morrell 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have posted simultaneously, so I had not read your edit when I posted the material above. It would also have been more constructive to approach the matter in this calm manner rather than the invective you posted previously. Be that as it may, I'd still be happier to hear an argument or see a referenced citation that argues against the material in that essay. The essay is well-argued. Where is the counter-argument? It must be accepted that an author's words cannot be unsaid and removing the essay from a website now does not affect the content. It does seem odd that you would wish to remove that essay from consideration today, when from the evidence of the page to which I linked, it has been accessible there uncontroversially since 2000. I believe I am also right in saying that it originally appeared in the Homeopath, which brings its citation up the scale of WP:RS and notability in this context. If you would prefer I'll change the citation to point directly at The Homeopath.OffTheFence (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK well use it but it is not a view I hold any more and nor do I think it is more than 1% of homeopaths who have any religious affiliation or care tuppence about so-called 'spiritual beliefs in medicine.' Remember also what Kent said that homeopathy has nothing to do wtih beliefs, prayer, incantations, magic etc because the wrong remedy never works but the right one opens the box. There is a quote to that effect if you want me to find it. The gist of it is that he wishes just as hard (for a good outcome for the patient) with the wrong remedy as with the right one but only the right one does the trick. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree with this whole magic idea/thread. Also, of course, homeopathy is not allied to any belief system, nor was it conceived as such; it arose entirely from Hahnemann's empirical work with single drugs. It unravelled of its own as a piece of practical research. My 2 cents FWIW Peter morrell 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the quote (revised): I have often heard physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with my wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy. James Tyler Kent, Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms & Precepts, 1910, chapter 43, Series in Degrees Peter morrell 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another section break

OffTheFence, thanks for your detailed answers.

Let's forget about fragment (4) for the moment. The reference is fine. If anyone is qualified to compare homeopathy with magic then it's anthropologists, and moreover it's clearly marked as opionion of skeptics. This does not mean that it must be mentioned in this section, or anywhere in the article, but it's certainly a possibility to which I am open.

As far as (5) is concerned, based on my own very limited observation I would agree, just as I would agree for classical pychoanalysis, for example. But that's "original research", and in this case I wouldn't even trust that I know enough about homeopathy even in one country, let alone worldwide. In some countries homeopathy is almost illegal, in others it is part of the mainstream (see International prevalence and regulation of homeopathy), therefore some cultural aspects of homeopathy are bound to vary dramatically from one country to another. So the questions are: Can we find a reliable source, do we want to add this to the article, and where. I don't think we are going to find any sources against (5), not because there are no people who deny it, but more because the entire question is something for dinner parties rather than publications, and the best strategy for someone who didn't agree with Peter's article was to not draw attention to it with a rebuttal.

Peter doesn't seem to object to (1), and I don't have a very strong opinion about this. However, there is a historical reason for this metaphysical character, and in my opinion the right way to discuss this point is probably in connection with the somewhat anachronistic nature of homeopathy, which, I suspect, is mainly due to the dominant role of its founder, and which has caused homeopathy to carry metaphysical elements of medicine into the 21st century that were mainstream in the 18th. (This dominance of the founder, by the way, is one thing that homeopathy has in common with religion, and perhaps this observation can help us to replace (5) with something that everybody can agree with.)

My problem with (3) is that I am not sure that Walach is sufficiently representative for homeopathy that we can say "homeopaths" or even just "some homeopaths" here. Perhaps something like "some researchers who want to find a mechanism that could explain homeopathy". (I am not happy with this particular formulation.) In any case I strongly doubt that magic is part of the "general philosophy" of homeopathy, and I would need strong sources to convince me otherwise.

Now (2) is where I really got a bad opinion about you, and I had hoped that you could clear this point out a bit better. The funny thing is that basically you probably want to make a point with which I agree: That the idea of replacing one disease by another, similar one, is an intuitively appealing one of the kind described in Frazer's book. But I think it's obvious that this reference must be extremely offensive to homeopaths, and if it is to be cited it all we would have to do this with extreme care to put it into the right setting.

There is also a synthesis problem. Frazer talks about "homoeopathic magic", but he doesn't apply it to homeopathy. (I haven't read everything, correct me if I'm wrong.) The connection seems to be the "like cures like" principle. If the paper by Walach actually has any real meaning (it sounds too much like postmodern cultural studies for my taste), then it's something else, as far as I can tell. Combining the two looks like improper synthesis to me (and the further connection with religion even more so).

I have found an interesting source that also makes this connection [47]. But note that it is not relevant to homeopathy, that it characterises Frazer's book as "one of the most famous but also most reviled books in anthropology", and that it says "It is doubtful, however, that many people who use homeopathy are familiar with this explanation. Most of them are likely to use homeopathy because they have heard or experienced that it works, though they do not understand its worlcing." Here "this explanation" is the idea of one disease replacing another, which is necessary to connect homeopathy with "homoeopathic magic" in Frazer's sense.

If we had a section with criticism of homeopathy we could probably discuss these things in detail there and perhaps even connect some of them, based on skeptic sources. But I am afraid of proposing such a thing.

Perhaps it's worth saying this very clearly. I am not a pro-homeopathy editor. My aim is an article that is really NPOV, which means that for both pro- and anti-homeopathy people there will be some aspects they don't like. If it is to be stable, then we must avoid everything that is outright offensive to one side or the other, such as "homeopathy is known to be effective" or "homeopathy is quackery". I think we can only reach this point if each side has respect for the other's position and shows this respect by exercising a certain amount of self-censorship. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have as an aim that this article becomes truly NPOV. I agree with Hans that respect for each other's position requires eliminating the outright offensive and derisive language that still continues to poison this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not enough to have pro homeopathy POV-pushers that disrupt the article. I find the attempts to push a homeo-religion/magic link inflammatory and bordering on OR. Peace please. MaxPont (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is OK and it is useful to have such inputs. We learned much from it. We can't outlaw certain views and can at best learn from whatever drifts up to the surface. There are strong opposing views on this subject but the article kind of benefits from this and will always be a mosaic, an amalgam of opposing views. It is never static, but forms a volatile and also dynamic compromise. Such is the nature of the situation. Surely that is far better than a boring article in monotone dictated from on high by some 'expert?' Peter morrell 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter, do you know Giano's guide to writing a featured article? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't and nor do I presently have time to read it. Sorry. Peter morrell 09:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

redirecting discussion again, this time with concrete proposals

Written as a laundry list.

summary: making a better version of draft paragraph about magical thinking on homeopathy located at Talk:Homeopathy#Nature_of_Belief_in_Homeopathy:

1. taking [48] into account to attribute stuff and undo synthesis.
2. Separating "magical" from "using quantum theory without proof" [49], possibly using sources explained at [50]
3. include counter argument by James Tyler Kent from [51],
4. take into account " Also, of course, homeopathy is not allied to any belief system, nor was it conceived as such; it arose entirely from Hahnemann's empirical work with single drugs. It unravelled of its own as a piece of practical research. " [52]. * Reject claims of being too old per [53]
5. ignore claim from Peter Morrell to remove his source, see above diff (but try to point directly to The Homeopath instead). Peter morrell's article was published on a notable reliable journal, so it should be cited per WP:NPOV. If he thinks that his article is no longer valid, he should publish an article saying so on his website, or make an adenda to the old article, explaining why it's not valid or applicable for backing the statement on this paragraph. I suggest to Peter that if he still thinks that we shouldn't use his article, then he can bring the matter to WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard, and explain there the problem and his reasons, in order to get uninvolved independient second opinions from experienced editors that are versed on the theme of sources.
6. check if Frazer was actually talking about homeopathy when he said "homeopathic magic" or talking about something else, per [54].
7. Attribute the Frazer book with year so it's clear that it's an old text talking about the state of art that time, per above diff
8. make explicit that Frazer compares homeopathy with voodoo puppets "the principle that like produces like" with the use of voodoo puppets on the context of "Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic", and make double sure it's clear on the draft that he's talking about homeopathy at that year and not at the current state. Possibly note that blood extractions were normal at that time, comparing with poor state of medicine at that time.
9. attribute the anthropologist source, to make clear it's a comment about how people thinks, and not about the science itself
10. ask Shoemaker to find the source for reanalysis of Linde on second paragraph, per [55]
11. Harasch notability does not appear to be contested, nobody answered to my post [56], acknowledging he is notable enough to cite his opinion
12. Morrell statements' notability looks like established, with this going unanswered
13. establishing notability of cited anthropologist as anthropologist especialized on some area relevant to him making comments about homeopathy
14. establishing notability of rest of sources, one by one with specific details so they can be discussed rationally, and can't be claimed later to be non-notable (collect arguments on [57] and put on a better order), and readdress Hans Adler's list
15. ignore claims about non-notability that don't address a specific source and specific problems [58] (sorry, Tim)

--Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's way too fast for me. I don't think it's very constructive to pursue this further, based so directly on what we already have. And at least one of your points is frivolous. If you really don't know which one, ask, but I think it should be obvious. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if you refer to the point about ignoring Peter's request, but I improved that point anyways because I noticed that I had neglected to explain my reasons to do so .

There is no hurry on going throught this list fastly, and it can be expanded and improved with other editor's comments. You can also ignore it if you prefer, since the list was mainly intended to help OffTheFence with the draft redaction, and other editors to help him. It looks a bit overhelming at first, but if you go point by point, some of the points are trivial stuff about re-wording one sentence to accomplish a certain effect. I think that improving the draft with this list would give a rock-solid draft as a result, with quality up to a Good Article standards --Enric Naval (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the voodoo puppets thing, but perhaps you just didn't read the reference. Frazer's definition is not directly applicable to homeopathy, and he doesn't even say anything about it. He talks about the "Law of Similarity", but he defines it as "that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause", which is not the homeopathic "similia similibus". They are obviously related, and his choice of terminology strongly suggests that he saw a connection, but if he doesn't even mention it we don't know if he saw it as more than a metaphor. Based on the general tone of the book, I would say citing it is not much better than citing a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer from 1922. (It is better only because the book is more notable.)

Frazer doesn't say anything about homeopathy that we can cite while distancing ourselves from it. If it's wrong to use the word "allopathic" in medicine (and it is wrong, per WP:FRINGE), then it is just as wrong to discuss Frazer's use of the word "homoeopathic" in homeopathy, and for the same reasons. Please make sure that you are not insulting homeopaths with your proposals. I am fairly sure that Peter, for example, would prefer to have an article which explains the evils of "allopathy" and why homeopathy is far superior. Do you see him pushing that? The pro-homeopathy editors are showing the restraint that is necessary to get something done here. I am looking forward to the time when all anti-homeopathy editors start behaving in the same way. The time when our main concern is how to get this article featured, because we are all proud of it. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On relevance to homeopathy. I find that saying that a chapter named "Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic" [59] by an anthropologist can't be used as a commentary on the basis belief on homeopathy is not accurate at all, specially when it mentions how it's based on the "law of similarity". On the James_George_Frazer article it's said that he posits how human belief goes from magic to religion to science, so his writings are definitely relevant to explaining how homeopathy science could be based originaly on magic or/and religion. On my list I already make a point to make clear that he is an anthropologist talking about people, and not about science.

I can't assess how citing his book is citing the National Enquirer, but the James_George_Frazer article claims that he was "a Scottish social anthropologist influential in the early stages of the modern studies of mythology and comparative religion.", talks about his book and it's influence on modern mythographers, René Girard, a whole generation of artists and poets, and T. S. Eliot. Do you have reasons to believe that this is not true? This makes him notable for inclusion per WP:NPOV, independently on your personal beliefs of how it's insulting to homeopathy, which are not relevant for this. What sort of article Peter would prefer is neither relevant for the inclusion of a clearly notable source on an article. Also, how does WP:FRINGE apply to a clearly notable book on mithology?

I think that you will need to substantiate better your claims of non-notability and non-appropiatedness. Also, of course you can distantiate yourself of what a source says.

On the voodoo puppet thing, I was paraphrasing (incorrectly) your comment that was referenced on OffTheence's comment here [60]. I corrected my wording so it's in accordance with what the source exactly says. Please notice that this a laundry list of tasks with hints on what needs to be done, not the final wording of the draft, so it will include inaccuracies. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. It's an awful lot to read, so apologies if this is repetitive. First, I'd say it's problematic to infer anything about the profession from the beliefs of individual homeopaths. There are medical doctors who believe they'll go to heaven when they die and that a virgin gave birth to a child 2,000 years ago, but we don't add that to the article on medicine to discredit it.

As for sources like The Golden Bough, it's outdated, he was no expert on homeopathy, and its use would constitute OR and POV pushing. If you want to write a section on the philosophy of homeopathy, I suggest you look for some work by academic philosophers, which is likely to be well-argued and fair. I'm not certain that it exists, but the concept of like curing like has been of interest in philosophy for thousands of years, so there should be something in the metaphysics literature. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean, and I accept your argument. I'll let it to OffTheFence to find works by academic philosophers. I'm not knwoledgeable enough on the topic to find that type of sources and write a new draft from scratch based on those sources. I just wanted to "save" this draft, since I didn't want it to be lost just becuase it wasn't worded adequately, or wasn't attributing the sources correctly. By you comment, it seems the draft was from the start based on sources that are just plain not appropiate, so it's not salvageable, and I'll just drop it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I've noticed that this talks about metaanalyses being difficult, then drops the subject. I saw a paper the other day that reanalysed Linde's 1997 paper, and showed that if you simultaneously used only the high-quality studies and corrected for publication bias, the results reduced to zero, and there was also a letter discussing (Shang?) that pointed out that a lot of these analyses were extreme, and only justified by the scientific implausibilty. I think we could make a good, NPOV section on that - If I can find the damn things again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Linde paper with me at this very moment, but I'm somewhat certain that when Linde included only the "high quality studies" (26 of them) and adjusted for publication bias, the odd-ratio was still 1.78, which is still significant. Some researchers have taken the 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies and the 9 "high quality" conventional medical studies and found that the homeopathic studies showed significance over placebo (P=0.0392)[ Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB (2006) What a difference a trial makes. FACT, Supplement 1, 28-29]. Yeah, this IS Ernst's publication. Considering that Ernst is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy, this data is both interesting and notable. DanaUllman^Talk 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not doing the research myself, but can somebody tell me with just what procedure Linde "adjusted for publication bias" and how large the adjustment was? Another thing that I noticed while pondering this question: Why are there two separate references given in Homeopathy#Research on medical effectiveness for the quote starting "The evidence of bias ..."? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article really NPOV?

On the Naturopathy Talk Page, I saw that someone complained that the Lead here reads, "Claims...............quackery at worst" and found it to be true. Isn't it offensive to call Qualified Homeopathic Doctors Quacks? I've been healed of Gall-stones, my father of kidney stones and my mother of piles, besides our Homeopathic Doctor seems to have a good practice. Can't we have something titled, 'Criticism' lower down in the article and put this matter there? I mean, the Lead should be NPOV isn't it?Happening (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not have a NPOV. There is much editing effort underway to address this but progress is slow. In the meantime, it is not clear to me why the article does not have a tag to indicate that the article is disputed and so I shall add one. Readers should understand that the current version is contested. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@Happening: This article is not calling homeopathy quackery. It is reporting that some people have called it that, and provides 4 reliable sources to substantiate that fact. In contrast, the experiences of your parents are not verifiable. I hope you understand the difference.--Art Carlson (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@Colonel Warden: If you add an NPOV tag, it would help focus the discussion if you would point out a few of the biggest POV problems you see and suggest some alternatives. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler makes a good point above that the corresponding articles in respected encyclopedias like Britannica have a more respectful tone towards the topic. Such articles form a useful benchmark and it would be helpful to study their structure and tone as a model. When we have an article that can stand comparison with such independent work, we may remove the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a few quotes from Britannica and juxtapose them with the version here? That would help us understand what you mean and also provide a start for an improved formulation. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see the summary of their article online:

homeopathy - System of therapeutics founded in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann on the principle that “like cures like.”

That is, substances that in healthy persons would produce the symptoms from which the patient suffers are used to treat the patient. Hahnemann further stated that the potency of a curative agent increases as the substance is diluted. When it was introduced, homeopathy was a mild, welcome alternative to heavy-handed therapies such as bleeding, but it has since been criticized for focusing on symptoms rather than causes. With the rise of alternative medicine, it has seen a resurgence.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I try to describe my version without breaking the copyright. In the first paragraph they distance themselves from Hahnemann's quinine experience using the words "he claimed", not "he contended". Our article seems to be uncritical in this respect, although it doesn't seem to be reproducible. They have a sentence "[…] most homeopathists believed in the action of minute doses of medicine", so they are clearly not claiming that belief in homeopathy necessarily entails belief in the part that is most well-known and easiest to debunk, as we seem to be doing.

Are you saying that "claim" is more neutral than "contend"? I think the denotation is the same and is neutral, but some people seem to see a negative connotation in one word or the other. We could follow EB here and change

Homeopathic practitioners contend that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness.

to

Homeopathic practitioners treat an ill person with a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness.

It also makes the language less convoluted. As to your second point, do we have any evidence that a significant number of homeopaths (any at all?) do not believe in the action of minute doses?

--Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, so I may be wrong about "claim" and "contend". My dictionary suggests other nuances that would make this a bad example anyway, so I withdraw that. But in any case your version is better.

As to the minute doses I believe there are two problems. One is the exact definition of the words "homeopath" (e.g. my physician is mainly an "allopath", but also a homeopath) and "minute". The other is that there are probably forces at work here similar to those that would make it hard to prove that the vast majority of European Christians have no problem with evolution. They just don't write about it, at least not in their role as Christians. So far as I am concerned we can claim that nowadays all homeopaths believe in minute doses beyond the Avogadro limit; if it's not true sooner or later a homeopath will come along and give us the necessary references. But currently slightly less than half of all paragraphs mention the high dilutions; in many cases that's necessary, but the sections Homeopathy#Preparation of remedies and Homeopathy#High dilutions are a good example of undue weight. I believe this problem can be solved my shoving much of that cruft into a separate article. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate and indeed essential to mention the high dilutions in both Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion and Homeopathy#High dilutions, but looking through those sections I find these examples. In Dilution and succussion:

• a bottle of poison in Lake Geneva,
• a pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans,
• a drop in all the water on earth ,
• one molecule in 1% of the volume of an Olympic-size swimming pool (the entire pool is never used),
• 1 ml in a cube of water 106 light years on a side.

In High dilutions:

• one molecule in a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth, and
• one molecule in two billion pills (a thousand tons of lactose).

This does seem to be overdoing it a bit, if only on stylistic grounds. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how this happened, and there may be innocent explanations, but it reminds me of the description of a particular troll who keeps adding innocent stuff to an article until it's completely broken. But last time I mentioned the problem the enthusiasm for solving it was underwhelming. Perhaps nobody bothered to read the sections to see what I said was true. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The second (and last) paragraph in my CD version of the article says: "To many […], homeopathy was a mild, welcome alternative to bleeding, […] and other heavy-handed therapies of the day. In the 20th century, however, homeopathy has been viewed with little favour and has been criticized for focusing on the symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of disease. Homeopathy still has some adherents, and there are a number of national and international societies, including […]."

This is firm (homeopathy is an anachronism, and the only thing necessary to say about the present is that it's criticised but still practised) but not insulting (homeopathy was a mild alternative; this is slightly undermined by "to many patients and some physicians", but in an unobtrusive way).

We devote an entire section to the horrors of 18th century medicine, so the "mild alternative" part is already covered. Is there language in our article that you think is "insulting"? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "quackery" is of course insulting, even when it is only quoted. That wouldn't be a problem if it was counterbalanced with something positive. But it appears in the lede, of all places, and functions as a kind of summary of an entire criticism section. The article does not distance itself from the word (with its obvious fraud connotations): It explains why it is used, i.e. it justifies the use.

Apart from this blatant example the balance is the main problem, to the point that it becomes insulting. E.g. in the lede we have one paragraph in which the article carefully distances itself from all homeopathic practices. The following paragraph which explains why it can't work is slightly longer. I believe the last paragraph is supposed to be about prevalence and legality of homeopathy. But it looks more like a coatrack for further negative statements. Surely there is something wrong here if the lede of homeopathy is more negative than the lede of Spanish Inquisition, Christian Science, fascism, or even pedophilia. Try some other controversial topics, and you will see that these examples were not cherry-picked. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Encarta article can be found here. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While we can certainly learn by analyzing it, I don't think the Britannica lead is anything we want to copy. It is true that homeopathy has sometimes "been criticized for focusing on symptoms rather than causes", it has most often been criticized for using ultramolecular doses, which is not mentioned at all in the Britannica lead. (Maybe it is a mistake.) Note also that while EB says homeopathy is criticized for "focusing on symptoms rather than causes", Encarta says in its lead that "[h]omeopathy focuses on healing the underlying cause of disease, not simply eliminating the symptoms caused by the disease." Take your pick. I'll stick with our lead and try to make it even better. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that this is an example of Britannica using one of the privileges of an expert-written encyclopedia: They can say things that are correct but look wrong to laypeople. Homeopathy claims to be treating the causes, but that's questionable and has been questioned. E.g. Hahnemann seriously argued against expelling tapeworms and pinworms with purgatives, claiming that this didn't go at the root of the problem. If you can read German, read "Samuel Hahnemann: Pseudomessias medicus" on Google Books, an annotated Organon, for a beautiful response to that. For brevity they had to decide between various criticisms, and I agree with their choice. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated.

• Art, the reliable sources you mention are just allegations, which y'all have repeated in this article (and I believe that is "insulting" for a Homeopathic Doctor). I also saw in the Archives that there are 398 studies that show Homeopathy works. Between claim and contend, there will probably have to be a discussion, because claim means to 'demand as right' and contend means 'subject matter of dispute'-Happening (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if there were no basis for the allegations of quackery, the fact that a notable group makes such allegations is sufficient reason to report it (not repeat it). As for the 398 studies, you better go back to the archives and re-read what is said about them. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Happening, I think you should be a bit more realistic with what you expect here. Homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE, and I see no chance that that's going to be changed. There are also many studies that show homeopathy does not work, and there are serious problems with such studies: If you make 100 studies to test whether wearing a hat has an effect on eyesight, then most of them will say no, but it's quite likely that 1 will say there is a small positive effect, and 1 will say there is a small negative effect. Unfortunately this and other problems make the question rather complicated, and we have had extended discussions here that we had better not repeat so soon. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic understanding

I have just removed a sentence from the lede which makes a point about the basic principles or understanding of science. I find this point to be tendentious and incorrect. It is supported by reference to Whorton. I tried to add some balance by adding a further point from Whorton to the effect that scientific understanding is or may be incomplete. This point was disputed. Since we can't have selective use of a source to support just one side, I am removing the other side for balance. The lede over-eggs this point anyway so pruning is generally a good way to go. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That was an undiscussed change away from the status quo, so I am not surprised it was reverted. The POV tag is still there, but it doesn't really make a big difference because the POV is fairly obvious anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why ARE we using Wharton for that? One would think that in all the fallout from the Benveniste affair in Nature that a good, strong source could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I discuss changes and am here discussing them still. The problem is editors who revert without discussion and who just make tendentious edit summaries like "POV pushing". Such action seems contrary to good practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have made some kind of strange edits, though. Removing the section cited by Wharton may have been justified in retrospect, but without explaining it in the edit summary, it looked random, and removed a fairly well-accepted view in the medical field. (I've found a better ref.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I only found one sentence in the Nature editorial (your "better ref") that is relevant here, but it's a good one: Nor is there much comfort for anybody in the explanation offered at the end of the article - that antibody molecules once embodied in water leave their internal marks, as ghosts of a kind, on its molecular structure - for there is no evidence of any other kind to suggest that such behavior may be within the bounds of possibility. As a service to the reader, and in light of the controversy surrounding the decision to include this statement in the article, I would like to quote this sentence directly in the footnote. Or is that considered bad style? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope not, because it seems very sensible to me, and I have done it extensively elsewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also quoted a few times on the footnote, when the quote was supporting the statement, but it was too long to include it on the text, or it was not relevant to include the exact wording of the source --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the last few sentences were relevant too: [The suggestion that extreme homeopathic dilutions have an effect] strike at the roots of two centuries of observation and rationalization of physical phenomena. Where, for example, would elementary principles such as the Law of Mass Action be if Benveniste is proved correct? The principle of restraint which applies is simply that, when an unexpected observation requires that a substantial part of our intellectual heritage be thrown away, it is prudent to ask more carefully than usual whether the observation may be incorrect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's nice, too, especially because it purports to answer the question that was repeatedly posed here, which basic laws are violated. Unfortunately, I don't immediately see where the Law of Mass Action is involved. As to the presentation here, if various parts and several sentences of the essay are relevant, then it might be better to leave the reference as is, considering it is online, and let the reader pick out the parts that interest her. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The law of mass action in a nutshell means "more stuff = more effect". If water memory were true, this law could not apply. Tim Vickers (talk)

Or, in the words of Law of mass action, "the rate of an elementary reaction (a reaction that proceeds through only one transition state, that is one mechanistic step) is proportional to the product of the concentrations of the participating molecules." That's all well and good, but it only applies to "elementary reactions", and it seems embarassingly naive to call any biological system "elementary". Besides, the standpoint of homeopathy is not that super small concentrations have in proportion super large effects, but that the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not molecules but something we do not yet know how to measure. That view can also be described as embarassingly naive, but the connection to the law of mass action seems to me to be extremely tenuous. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a good example of why is is not sensible to approach this from first principles. Science does not work like axiomatic mathematics. You start with observations and experiment and the principles just summarise the results. In biochemistry and medicine, it seems quite normal for miniscule quantities to have a powerful effect due to their catalytic, triggering or controlling effect - enzymes, hormones, etc. Crude criticisms which are based upon tendentious reasoning from debatable principles should be excluded from the article and this is currently my main purpose here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemical reactions and association-dissociation equilibria, which are the two fundamental types of processes occurring within organisms, can indeed be broken down into sets of simple rate equations (see enzyme kinetics for example). In particularly complex systems, such as a living cell, there will be large numbers of these individual reaction steps occurring simultaneously, but the components of these complex reactions are still simple reaction steps. The chemical reactions that occur in living matter are no different than those in non-living matter, people who think otherwise are adherents of the "embarassingly naive" [Sic] idea of vitalism (which is now part of history). Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a chance that 'science' hasn't yet devised methods to find out the mechanism of action of Homeopathic remedies?Happening (talk)

We have, but the mechanism of the placebo effect is still not understood in molecular detail. Neurobiology is not a particularly advanced field. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, for the moment, shouldn't we consider it's effects good enough? More importantly, I don't consider Homeopathic remedies to be 'placebo'-Happening (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Good enough" for what? That you choose not to accept the scientific consensus (that homeopathic theory is vitally flawed, that homeopathic dilutions of a certain level and beyond have no reasonable probability of containing an active ingredient, and that reported treatment successes are consistent with a placebo effect) is your deal, but it really has no bearing on this article. — Scientizzle 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is confused on a couple of points (1) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (2) No one in mainstream medicine or science denies that homeopathy might operate by placebo effect. I think it is even stated in this article (or used to be, but it might have been swamped with nonsense). What is going on is that some want to claim homeopathy results are NOT a placebo effect.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, Fill,

There wouldn't have been so many Patients flocking Homeopathic Doctors if they were giving just Placebo. Our family is a 'testimonial' that it's worked for us. In fact, if I'd really been given placebo, I'd have died of Liver Cancer long ago according to other Doctors (probably Arion can testify to that)!-Happening (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

There is no section for Criticism in this article which most Wikipedia pages have. Para 2 seems to be pretty critical, so shouldn't we title Para 2 'Criticism' (or else we may end up putting the same matter there as well)? 3 Paragraphs for the Lead may be a bit long anyway. I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated, at least once.-Happening (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages do not usually have "criticism" sections and having such sections is not a good idea for many reasons. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree - there are "criticism" sections in a lot of articles and all the articles on 'Alternative Medicine' do have "criticism" sections. Why isn't it a good idea? It will make the article more NPOV-Happening (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The theory is that the entire article should be balanced. It shouldn't be a positive article with a single section reserved for negative statements. Everything should be fair.

Apart from the special problems with this article's "population", which mean that any big changes need to be discussed first to prevent a huge fight, your edits also made the lede of this article very small. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be small - a succinct summary. See the Britannica summary above. Following its model, the lede should be one paragraph in which there should just be one sentence of criticism. What we have now is the usual result of editing by committee - a overblown compendium of diverse views. I am not convinced that Wikipedia has any good way of resolving such a case of too many cooks. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support Colonel. There is a sentence of criticism in the Lead which reads, "The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol". In a committee, there at least is a 'decision taken', but here?Happening (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

Also, the length suggested for an article of ">30,000 characters" is "three or four paragraphs". I'm not arguing that the current lead is perfect or anything, but it's at least within-guideline regarding size and content. There's certainly no need to break it up as Happening (talk · contribs) did, but wordsmithing to enhance brevity while maintaining accuracy is a worthy goal. — Scientizzle 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have my issues with the lede, but the size is approximately right. With SlimVirgin's new paragraph the balance is also much better than it has been for weeks (at least). And reducing the size by reformulating in a more elegant way is generally a good thing. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand it right it used to be the WP consensus that NPOV is achieved by a criticism section (around 2007 and earlier). This has changed and now the demands are higher, that the entire article should be balanced. However, many articles still have the old structure and in my opinion it is still tolerated if it is impossible to reach a consensus on the new structure. I think we should develop a criticism section for this article as a way of reducing all the conflicts. MaxPont (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Max! Why don't you create a 'Criticism' sectionHappening (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy/Lead - a sandbox / work space

I've copied the Lead section to Talk:Homeopathy/Lead just to kick some ideas around.... - I don't know if this has been tried before, but feel it might be worth a go! It's a kind of specific sandbox really, and I hope it helps! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now completed what a hope is a simplification, and clarification of the lead in neutral terms - and I think it's better than the current draft! - I presume the eyes and ears around here are fairly well trained, so I won't be bold until we've got some feedback here.... take a look, and thoughts most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better. I changed one detail where it wasn't entirely correct. Perhaps we can shorten the last paragraph as well, but even as it is it's a great improvement. Getting rid of the etymology in the lede, as you have done, works for me if we discuss it in the History section. Anyway, if we implement this new lede I expect we will check that we are not losing any information and extend the body where necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the last paragraph reads more like body text than lead. I would clash all of it except the one sentence "Current usage around the world ...". --Art Carlson (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

glad you found some merit in it! - I think it's a good idea to take this really slowly, and encourage a wide range of views before any edits to the actual article (I gather this subject is somewhat heated, and although I consider myself quite neutral - that's not really for me to judge I guess!) - I think the length of lead is probably ok - but I kinda agree that the final para reads a bit like body text.. I'll take another look to see if I can either synthesise, or write some new stuff which makes it work better as its own 'mini article'- cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:44, 24 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