Talk:Homeopathy

To Do List

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care. The fact that they didn't use the "heroic" measures in common use, such as bloodletting, powerful drugs like arsenic, strychnine, mercury, belladonna, etc. meant that more patients survived, since these drugs often caused more deaths. In many cases doing what amounted to nothing, i.e. placebo homeopathic treatment, was better than doing something, i.e. overkill with poisons, thus letting the body's own recuperative powers do the healing, which for many ordinary ailments is just fine.

Dose-response relationship

An editor is removing "Conventional medicine has found that higher doses usually cause stronger effects, whereas homeopathy claims the opposite." How could that possibly be misinterpreted? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I mean, isn't the dilution process one of the key parts of homeopathy? And the act of diluting a substance to make it stronger does contradict conventional notions of dose-response relationship.Dustinlull (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source? JoelWhy? talk 12:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Cjwilky said that I misunderstood the homeopathic notion of strength, and the sentence reflects that. I wrote that sentence as an attempt to summarize this paragraph from this section:

Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body. This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in myriad experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats, and humans.

If something is wrong here, let's fix it first in the body, and then summarize it appropriately in the lead (if it still seems like one of the most salient facts), as suggested at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Cjwilky, can you explain the error? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "potentization" and "more powerful" - you'll find loads of homoeopaths saying that potentization makes the remedies more powerful. There must be a decent source there somewhere.

Hahnemann states in the Organon, aphorism 128, that "medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent". See also 269-270. Brunton (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks to Arthur Rubin for bringing it to the talk page :) I missed that.

In summary, I suggest leave it as I can't find suitable references at the minute, and as is said, most searching will find it written in the same way as is written here - so we'll have to go with mainstream homeopathy speak till I can find enough info to correct it.

For those interested, the reality is that the correct choice of potency and posology makes the remedy most effective, and therefore "stronger". Low potencies can be far stronger than high potencies. Indeed it is the case that a potency of say 30c may repeatedly help but symptom return, so the general process is to try a higher potency, generally a 200c, which can then do nothing. Likewise if a 1m, 10m, 50m, CM is used. In some cases going up a potency means a higher level of cure is obtained eg the symptom recede for longer or permanently. Sometimes it can be that by going down a potency, or even several potencies, a more permanent cure is achieved.

So, using the word "stronger" is misleading. What is more accurate is that a higher potency is more refined, or has a greater clarity. The more similar it is to what is needing to be cured, the more effective a higher potency will be. Material doses of things are low potency and will work on most people eg opium will calm you. Higher doses need to be more spot on, so a 10m will only calm when the person is in a specific "opium state" of irritability.

Further excerpts from my advanced course in homeopathy are at.... ;)

Cjwilky (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Cjwilky. Does the word "potency" have a special meaning in homeopathy? This page has a (poorly written) definition that suggests that in mainstream medicine, a drug is more "potent" if a smaller dose is needed to get the therapeutic effect. The current version of the article doesn't define potency even though the word plays a prominent role. Can someone find a definition from a good source in the homeopathy literature? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A few good sources?

Can someone recommend one or two thorough, authoritative sources on the theory and practices of homeopathy, and one or two thorough, authoritative sources on the evidence regarding homeopathy's effectiveness? I looked a little at Google Books, and found a great many sources—way too many. I am not an expert on homeopathy, so it's hard for me to know where to begin. For example, I found Hahnemann's 1833 book easily enough, but I don't know if the first edition is the best one to summarize or if a later edition is better. (The consensus among Darwin historians is that the first edition of The Origin of Species is best, and the later editions mostly muddled things up.) I figure that to do some serious editing, I should read one book by Hahnemann, one comprehensive modern pro-homeopathy book for the lay reader, and one comprehensive modern critique. Which books do you recommend? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann developed some of his ideas further after writing the earlier editions. The 5th (the last one published during his lifetime) and 6th editions seem to be the ones that homoeopaths generally cite. Brunton (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brunton. I'm about to do some traveling. Hahnemann's 5th edition might make some good airplane and hotel-room reading. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann continually developed his ideas and adapted his practice and also went back to using older techniques. As Brunton says the later editions are better. The 5th is the best to read as the 6th goes onto other methods of remedy preparation and can be confusing. The 5th edition translated by Herring is generally seen to be the best. However, I'd suggest reading a summary rather than the original - will look out for one. Meanwhile if you want to dip into the Organon - Herrings translation is here http://www.homeolibrary.com/NewHomeo_2011/NEW_KENT/ORGANON_Hering/index.htm

I think we can all agree homeopathy isn't straightforward! Hahnemanns ideas were developed by many people, and in general I'd say methods have become more versatile whilst not necessarily being methods Hahnemann might agree with. I guess the key thing is what is homeopathy currently. I'm not sure I can suggest the best NPOV intro to that, but I'll look and get back to you.

Cjwilky (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See water.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats an inane comment even by your standards. Cjwilky (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, comment standards for homeopathy are quite low, since it is just water. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias and inaccuracy

I think the article is kind of biased. I will give an example.

The article states "These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results" If you read the sources which support the sentence, however, they write:

CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. or

The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. and

In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. These statements don't really support the sentence These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results.[17][18][19]

They don't say that its effects are due to placebo. Please correct.--Alice1818 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No. How is writing that "studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos" biased, based on the sources cited? They aren't saying that 'effects are due to placebo', they are saying that homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos. If you can't understand the difference between the two statements, I suggest you need to improve your comprehension skills. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(I m sorry I cannot detect that difference. Perhaps it cannot be perceived by the average editor who has limited skills but please, feel free to explain- I want to learn.)

Which part of the above cited sources support even this sentence: "homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos"? --Alice1818 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also find this confusing. If the results of the studies were "that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" then I can see how we could say that "homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos" (though I think it would be clearer to say "the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is entirely due to their placebo effect"). However, the results were not compatible with that hypothesis which suggests there is some effect beyond placebo. Jojalozzo 13:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If something is an 'x', then it cannot do any better than an 'x'. I don't see the issue. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that last comment. Is this good enough?

Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

From here. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. This is only one paper and it is not cited to support this sentence. Obviously the other sources cited above to support the sentence do not concur "with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. --Alice1818 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What specific changes are you proposing should be made to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the available sources cited in wikipedia :

Some studies have found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos; others have found that homeopathic remedies might perform better than placebos but there is "insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious. --Alice1818 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree that the sentence could be better expressed. Stepping back a little, to see what lies behind the words...

Key statistical issues include:

1) the poor methodological quality of many of the original trials, especially those which generated "positive results" (see, for example, Linde et al 2001, pmid 11527508);

2) concerns related to publication bias, ie the greater likelihood of "positive results" reaching publication.

Overall, results of meta-analyses of existing studies do not provide support for efficacy (ie superiority over placebo). These findings also need to be set in a broader interpretive context: the biological implausibility of homeopathy demands particularly strong statistical evidence to advance any support for efficacy (see, for example, Vickers 2000, pmid 10706236). That is clearly not the case: the shaky statistical basis of the claimed "positive results" would scarcely allow supporters of homeopathy to invoke (per Bradford Hill [1]) the Sherlock Holmes maxim, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So, on balance, I feel that the last part of the sentence is currently overgenerous to the claims of homeopathy.

According to a recent review by Ernst 2010, pmid 20402610, "the most reliable evidence — that produced by Cochrane reviews — fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo."

—MistyMorn (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does efficacy mean superiority over placebo ? a less biased approach

1. Doesefficacy mean superiority over placebo ? No, always according to sources available.

2. There is a dichotomy about homeopathy . The skeptical scientists like Ernst believe "the most reliable evidence — that produced by Cochrane reviews — fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." Others which are cited in the first paragraph do not agree with this point of view. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. You are basing your arguments on a false premise - that there is a disagreement between 'skeptical scientists' and 'others' as to whether homeopathy has any efficacy that cannot be explained by the placebo effect, and therefore we should remove any 'bias' which might bee seen to support one view over the other. The facts are simple though, the overwhelming majority of scientists who have conducted research into the issue have found no convincing evidence to support claims regarding non-placebo 'efficacy' - most particularly when engaging in meta-studies which reduce the randomness in results. It is self-evident that if you do enough experiments on anything, you will get individual results that 'prove' the most implausible things - hence the need to engage in meta-studies, and to avoid cherry-picking primary sources for 'positive results'. As has been stated repeatedly, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary degrees of proof' - and such proof has not been coming. We present the scientific consensus in regard to scientific issues, we do not pick and chose the results we wish to cite in order to create a false 'balance'. This has been discussed repeatedly, both on this talk page and elsewhere, and Wikipedia isn't going to change a policy which has been arrived at by consensus (after much debate) in order to suit the promoters of an implausible 'science' that provides no mechanism to explain its claimed 'results', and which actually fails to provide any reliable method by which it could be independently verified that it works at all. If people wish Wikipedia to present homoeopathy as scientific, the homoeopaths will have to convince the scientific mainstream first - this is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can only speak of a treatment having clinical efficacy if it shows demonstrable incremental benefits in comparison with placebo. That is not a "point of view". —MistyMorn (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no discussion to be had on this matter. It doesn't show bias to point out that homeopathy has no more of an effect than a placebo, because that's precisely what the overwhelming majority of the science has demonstrated. End of story. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The practical problem is this. Homeopathy works no better than placebo - this has been adequately demonstrated plenty of times - and that's totally unsurprising given what we know of extreme dilutions from mainstream science. So why use homeopathy rather than simpler placebos? Why go to all the trouble of diluting essence-of-duck-liver a bazillion times and placing a tiny drop of it onto a sugar pill - when a sugar pill works just as well? Sure there are arguments over whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe placebo - and whether you should require someone to have a medical license in order to do so - and whether it's ethical to lie to the patient - and legal (given informed consent laws). But regardless of that, homeopathic preparation of a placebo is just a colossal waste of time and money compared to just dispensing a placebo pill or a small bottle of plain water. If it's unethical to prescribe placebo - it's also unethical to prescribe homeopathy.

So it doesn't matter whether homeopathy does nothing at all - or is only as effective as a placebo. In fact, it would be an amazing and surprising thing if Homeopathy actually worked worse than placebo - because that would imply it was actually having an effect on the human body! There are just simpler/cheaper/safer ways to make a placebo.

Suppose I were to start up a new branch of fringe medicine in which I look at what's wrong with you and dispense either Orange, Mint or Cinnamon TicTacs (to match your "aura", I suppose!) - and tell my patients that these will cure their ills...that's going to be no better and no worse than homeopathy - and it's a lot cheaper and easier. So all efforts to justify homeopathy on grounds of it actually being "effective" (as in: "as effective as placebo") is still not a good or valid argument for it being a worthwhile activity. It's still just an elaborate scam.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is equally unethical( if we suppose that homeopaths give false hope to patients with serious conditions ) is to distort what the sources say on Homeopathy in order to advance a point of view. --Alice1818 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly your suggested change, which contains homeopathic remedies might perform better than placebos, will not make it into the article. Do you have any further suggestions? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please give me two examples- which studies (from those I mentioned above and used to support the first paragraph) state that homeopathic remedies do not work better than placebos? --Alice1818 (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You already mentioned an example yourself, did you not? Ernst did an analysis of 6 systematic reviews, which supports this statement. Do we have a higher quality source than that which says the opposite?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I also gave 3 examples in which the authors state that there is evidence that homeopathic remedies work better than placebos. I cannot see any majority of scientists who are publishing on Homeopathy to state that it is only placebo. Do you? If yes please give me your list to review.--Alice1818 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned WP:REDFLAG recently? The claim that a bottle of substance indistinguishable from water can cure illness is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Rather than seeking reasons to exclude such claims, Wikipedia's policies require that there should be very good evidence to include material like this as anything more than unsubstantiated claims. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires - I think- articles to be supported by sources. Not to distort the sources to support a preconceived point of view. I m asking you again since you seem to want to participate in the discussion: I gave 3 examples(cited in the article) in which the authors state that there is evidence that homeopathic remedies work better than placebos. I cannot see any majority of scientists who are publishing on Homeopathy to state that it is only placebo. Do you? If yes please give me your list to review.--Alice1818 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet we find hundreds of articles that do not. In all of medicine you can find the odd article that does support the fringe hypothesis. We cannot give undue weight to it. You do not get to use Argumentum ad ignorantium to your benefit. Bring evidence that moves the fringe theory that water does anything more than quench thirst, and we're all 100% behind it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to be specific and back up the claim that the majority of the scientists who publish on homeopathy say that it is basically placebo. Do you have a list we can review? Anybody can say "hundred of articles show..... whatever I fantasize ....--Alice1818 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't play that game. You're making the silly assertion that homeopathy works. Bring evidence, but I won't hold my breath. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The studies cited did not conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. A statement that "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions", for example, means that the evidence was not enough to distinguish homoeopathy from placebo. Even the analysis that concluded that its results "are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" had this conclusion effectively retracted by the same team's later reanalysis of the same data (also cited above), which said that this conclusion was "at least" an overestimate of the efficacy of homoeopathy. It has also been further qualified by later comments of the lead author, for example, "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein".

Asking for lists of studies that have concluded that homoeopathy is "only placebo" is trying to reverse the burden of proof. What we have (and what is likely to be found for an ineffective treatment) is a series of studies that have concluded that the efficacy of homoeopathy has not been demonstrated. That is the conclusion that the article reports. If a statement that homoeopathy works better than placebo is to be included in the article, it needs to be supported by references to published research that has actually concluded that. Brunton (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Change in lead

So the lead was changed about a month ago which discusses the summary of research being discussed above; this version shows a previous version of the lead, which I think was a better summary of the research on homeopathy. Any particular reason why it was changed? Should we change it back?

Although a few isolated studies have seen positive results from homeopathic treatments, systematic reviews of published trials have failed to demonstrate efficacy.[16][17][18][19][20] Higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive,[18][21] and most positive studies have not been replicated. Many have methodological problems preventing them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[1][4][22][23] The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception".[30]

Yobol (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think one reason is that the sentence "Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations[1][2] believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated." is convoluted and unintelligible. Jojalozzo 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh but you're talking about a different paragraph. Sorry, I can't help you there. Jojalozzo 02:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here: Some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo. A few studies have seen positive results from homeopathic treatments; some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo. However,there is insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition;[16][17][18][19][20] Higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive,[18][21] and most positive studies have not been replicated. Many have methodological problems preventing them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[1][4][22][23] The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception"--Alice1818 (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo

Oh yeah? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You got to laugh. And, as this section is entitled "Change in Lead" what do you reckon we change "..... based on the hypothesis that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people....." -- to -- "..... based on the hypothesis that disease cures a disease....."? That's basically what it's saying.

That's correct. Click here to verify. --Alice1818 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I just report what the studies report. Nothing more.--Alice1818 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The three studies are failures. Anything else? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain by giving examples?--Alice1818 (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read the three articles you linked to - here are quotes from their conclusions:

• Your first link says: "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias." - so it does not support the claim that homeopathy works because it says that the experiments had poor methodology.
• Your second link says: "...we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." - so no conclusion that homeopathy actually works for any of the conditions that were tested.
• Your third link] says: "The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power." - so maybe if we did a large enough study, we'd get better results.

So only the third of those three articles concludes that homeopathy might work better than placebo - and it admits that the sample size is too small - so we cannot make sweeping conclusions (including that essentially all of physics and chemistry are utterly wrong and that water has memory and all of that nonsense) based on an inadequate statistical study...bottom line is that these results could be just luck.

Conclusion: Not one of those three studies actually says that there is definitive evidence that homeopathy is better than placebo...which is what our article says. SteveBaker (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I said, but you spent more time trying to convince her than I did. Good job Steve.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve.It would be a great job indeed if you were replying to a homeopath who argues that the above studies show that homeopathy clearly works. The evidence shows - according to the authors - that homeopathy;s effects are not completely placebo effects- the efficacy is a different concept. The article says that its effects are placebo effects while only one meta analysis states that. The 2 other papers state that it is not completely placebo but the evidence for its efficacy is not sufficient to draw definite conclusions.

Shang's study says it is definitely placebo. The others studies state it is not completely placebo but its efficacy has not been clearly shown.

By the way The 3rd one is really strong.

Conclusions : The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness. Even if they call for more research they find strong evidence for efficacy and grounds for recommendations besides the statement for the effect beyond placebo.--Alice1818 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

they find strong evidence for efficacy

Just not strong enough to refute the Null Hypothesis. Scientists call that having no evidence. Got anything else? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alice wants to use the argument from ignorance trying to say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, since she is making the assertion that homeopathy works, she needs to provide:

• Evidence published in peer reviewed, high impact journals.
• Secondary meta-reviews in peer reviewed, high impact journals.
• Repeated primary research published in peer-reviewed high impact journals
• Solid statistical evidence that there is a clinical effect beyond a placebo.

Alice brings us that, then we can talk. All she has brought us are weak studies that provide no evidence that do not refute the null hypothesis.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this is your personal impression - at this point scientists conclude that

':The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.

They recommend homeopathy for a specific condition. This is from a high impact journal.

Also, If you want to discuss something - Please drop this arrogant ( "got anything else" style ) it does not show intellectual superiority but naiveté.--Alice1818 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cherry-picking primary research proves nothing. Unless and until mainstream science recognises homoeopathy as valid, Wikipedia won't. This isn't open to debate, end of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, it is a meta-analysis of just three studies by the same lead author. Brunton (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistically significant results! Very nice. This was published in 2003, was anyone able to replicate these results? TippyGoomba (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:ADVOCACY

Alice1818, you've clearly got nil consensus here. And you insist, refusing to, or perhaps simply unable to, verify the observations made patiently by other Wikipedians. This is wasting editors' time which could be far better spent elsewhere. So please do stop and verify. You asked, "Can you please give me two examples- which studies (from those I mentioned above and used to support the first paragraph) state that homeopathic remedies do not work better than placebos?" Just speaking for myself, I'd already done that, after spending an afternoon reviewing the literature in an unbiased way, according to my professional abilities, to address your concerns and check what I felt (and here I do agree with you) was a somewhat poorly expressed sentence. As I said, two sources not currently in the article which I think would be helpful here are Linde et al 2001 and Ernst 2010. Those two freely available sources would by themselves have answered your subsequent question. Please read them carefully without cherry picking sentences which might seemingly advance your POV when quoted out of context. Linde et al 2001 provides a convenient overview of systematic reviews (ie formally conducted studies of studies) on the subject until July 2000 (Methods reported here). Of the relatively few systematic reviews reported since then (and since a roughly contemporarary systematic review of the systematic reviews available at the time), Ernst 2010 is particularly relevant because it collates Cochrane reviews -- ie very rigorously conducted systematic reviews which are generally considered to provide the highest level of evidence on the efficacy of any treatment strategy.

Please also familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS, our sourcing guideline for medical content on Wikipedia, which is really relevant here. Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Listen: stop the personal attacks and the misinformation- I would appreciate that. This is first part of my response. --108.27.196.221 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks here.--McSly (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you McSly. I actually took considerable care with the wording so as not to risk offending a person who, presumably, is quite sincere in her own way, and may also be a new contributor. I wish to say I do not enjoy the conflictual aspects of Wikipedia editing and only get involved out of a sense of editorial duty. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Answers to Yobol's questions

I rewrote the lead a month or so ago to improve readability and to better summarize the body of the article. To the folks who are proposing changes to the lead: Would you be willing to try improving the coverage of homeopathy research in the body of the article for a while, and once that has settled down, return to the lead? In the body, it's easier to write about conflicting sources in more depth, because you have much more room to do it. For some more insight into how this process works, please see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

About personal attacks, bias and reliable sources

1.I find your comment on my contributions really offensive - Please apologize.

2. I asked the editors the following question: The article states "These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results" If you read the sources which support the sentence, however, they write:

CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. or The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. and

In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. These statements don't really support the sentence These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results.[17][18][19] Which part of the above cited sources support even this sentence : "homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos"? The above sources are used to support the sentence but they do not really say that. I got not answer. Another editor agreed with me.

3. Then I was told that the majority of the scientists find homeopathy to be a placebo therapy. I asked a list of the scientists who publish on homeopathy to verify. It was denied again.

4. I provided 2 reliable sources ( already cited ) which state that homeopathy has an effect over placebo but its efficacy is not established clearly which is a different thing.

5. I provided a meta analysis from a high impact journal where the authors state that there is an effect over placebo and also They recommend homeopathy for a specific condition.

6. I wrote also that only the Shang's paper states that homeopathy's effects are placebo effects - the other scientists the article quotes have expressed their disagreement citing their work which does not arrive to the same conclusion.

Finally, I provided reliable sources - see above - and suggested a more accurate summary for this really bad written and biased sentence.

The responses I got were rude and unhelpful ( "got anything else ?" or "wasted editors time" for pointing out an error which you see it yourslef and one more editor he agreed with me)  ?

And you have the nerve you and your friends - they came to support you -to tell me that I advocate for homeopathy?. --Alice1818 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC) --Alice1818 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologise for.

FWIW, I consider the accusation (by IP 108.27.196.221) of providing "misinformation" to be a serious, if risible, personal and professional attack, which however I chose to ignore in the interests of preventing drama.

At this point, I feel some sort of outside mediation is required. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to make the case that I advocate for homeopathy which is really misinformation defamation and thus unacceptable. I don't care to waste time with outside "mediation" - outside so to speak-- you mean your friends who do not "see" any personal attacks from your part accusing me that I advocate...Please --Alice1818 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Defamation"? That's another big word. Again, I suggest you reconsider your words. And maybe do something else for a while to calm down. Good night (over here at least), —MistyMorn (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I have the homeopathy page on my watchlist like many other editors and I usually read the discussions happening here. It looked like there was a disagreement between you and MistyMorn and I wanted to give a third opinion on the matter. I am not MistyMorn's friend. I don't actually think I had any interaction with him prior to this discussion. Disagreeing on a subject or having other editors putting their 2 cents is not in any way a personal attack or "calling friends". I suggest that you take a step back, close the discussion here so we can all move back discussing the improvement of the article.--McSly (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone and don't care to continue on this - I just don't accept and i will not in the future - after all this hard work I did to contribute in a neutral way using reliable sources only and not personal opinions( like several editors here) someone to tell me that I advocate for anything. This is false and not a good faith thing to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice1818 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're telling us that you don't advocate for homeopathy? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If you try to create this impression about me -which you do- my response refers to you as well. Read it again. --Alice1818 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that answers my question. Moving on... do you have a proposed change? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the results of the studies.

1. "CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials." - This says the studies that show positive results used substandard methods. That would support us saying something like "Homeopathy only produces positive results in poor quality studies."
2. "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." - This says that while there is no evidence for homeopathy being due to placebo, there is no evidence for it being efficacious in any other way.
3. "In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results." - This says the lower the quality of the study the more likely homeopathy is found to have positive results. This is pretty much the same as #1 but maybe more damning.

There's no support here for saying that some studies show positive results unless we give weight to studies with substandard methods. Reporting on poor quality studies doesn't merit Wikipedia readers' attention. Jojalozzo 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a review I cited beofre and clearly states the opinion of a scientific group published in an exceptional source. Ann Intern Med. 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. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 Don't you thing that this view should be included ? It differs from what the article states. --Alice1818 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more accurate and less biased lead

Hidden as there is clear and obvious consensus that there is no support for the changes proposed.

Based on what the used sources report I suggest this. I m using the authors words to avoid bias pro or against.

Some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo. A few studies have seen positive results from homeopathic treatments; some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo. However,they found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for most conditions;[16][17][18][19][20] Higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive,[18][21] and most positive studies have not been replicated. Many have methodological problems preventing them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[1][4][22][23] The lack of convincing and conclusive scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception". --Alice1818 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, the addition of

some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo

However,they find insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.

Got any citations? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.--Alice1818 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good. But one publication in 15 years isn't going to cut it. See WP:Weight. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several reanalyses of the dataset (by Linde and others) were subsequentlyreported in RS. See Ernst 2002, "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy":

Six re-analyses of Linde et al.'s original meta-analysis (3) were located (4–9). Table 1 summarizes key data from these publications. The results of these re-analyses demonstrate that the more rigorous trials are associated with smaller effect sizes which, in turn, render the overall effect insignificant (5, 6, 8). One re-analysis suggests that the initial positive meta-analytic result (3) was largely due to publication bias (9), a notion that had been considered by the original authors but was rejected by them. Most notably, perhaps, the authors of the original meta-analysis (3) concluded that their re-analysis ‘weakened the findings of their original meta-analysis’(6) . Collectively these re-analyses imply that the initial conclusions of Linde et al. (3) was not supported by critical evaluation of their data.

my emphasis -- these post publication reanalyses trump the conclusions of the 1997 analysis quoted above.

—MistyMorn (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes- I know I told you the scientists do not agree. Linde states that they reevaluated the evidence but still shows positive and over placebo. --Alice1818 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you know, but didn't think it worth mentioning that your citation had been specifically refuted? And now you think anyone is going to take anything else you say seriously? Wasting time indeed. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Different scientists hold different views. If you read the article "my citation" which is not mine is used for a long time now.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) One more: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

and also here: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And also 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. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is some very dedicated research, Alice1818. Unfortunately, since there are so many scientific journal papers about homeopathy, the difficulty with this article is how to summarize the present state of research in a way that gives appropriate weight to the variety of different results. Assigning the appropriate weight to different studies is beyond our purview as Wikipedia editors. We certainly can't settle it in a debate on a talk page. Would you be willing to track down some secondary sources that cover homeopathy research as a whole neutrally and authoritatively? For more information about why scientific journal papers are generally not preferred on Wikipedia, please take a look at WP:PRIMARY. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice contained in WP:MEDRS (ie WP:MEDREV, WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS, etc) is relevant here. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (the bulk of the sources under discussion in this thread) are actually considered secondary rather than primary sources, even though they are studies in their own right. WP:MEDRS also advises on how to avoid providing dated information, which is a relevant issue in this thread: Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

—MistyMorn (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

OK - yes, yes, yes, we've all read those conclusions. Not one single editor here agrees with your assertions - and, trust me, we've all seen those three articles before and we've discussed them here in the past. The bottom line is that you don't have consensus for the kind of change you're demanding - and your repeated arguments are not new - and they aren't changing anyone's minds. With no consensus and no prospect of getting a consensus, you must understand that your proposed changes don't get into the article...period.

So now it's time for you to drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine.

Continuing to push POV in the face of overwhelming consensus is Failure or refusal to "get the point" - which is classified as disruptive editing. Also, when you edit using a three day old, single-purpose account and start to behave like this, everyone is going to suspect sock-puppetry and the like. This article is under an ArbCom ruling that specifically calls out disruptive editing for immediate admin action.

Give it up - it's over, you lost, the end.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to include the statement, "some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo." The only general systematic review that concluded this (Linde et al 1997) has had this conclusion heavily qualified by a subsequent reanalysis by the same team and further comments by the lead author (see above) and also refuted by several reanalyses by other authors. Use of this analysis over the half dozen that came to less positive conclusions smacks of cherry-picling. Another analysis that you are trying to use to support this statement is an analysis of only three studies by the same author. Reviews that say that the evidence is not good enough to come to a definitive conclusion, or that further studies are needed to conclude that homoeopathy works, do not show that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Here's what the last-named author of the second paper (and lead author of the original publication of the same reasearch) you cite to support your atatement said about the review: "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'". The scientific consensus seems to be overwhelmingly that efficacy over placebo has not been demonstrated.

If you want to include this statement, you will need to provide sources for it. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It is surely not unreasonable to require this single-purpose account to address Brunton's key points directly and transparently. In other words, per WP:NPOV rather than WP:ADVOCACY, WP:DISRUPT, etc. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Object to proposal per WP:WEIGHT. As Brunton excellently points out, the sources that you have cited are not sufficient to substantiate the addition that you are proposing. Ankh.Morpork 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

first of all: Steve Baker you must be feeling very confident that adopting an abusive style will have no consequences for you in this talkpage ; most likely you assume that the admins , you refer to , concur with your views and they will forgive abusive comments like your last one as long as you hold a strong anti-homeopathy bias. And most likely you are right : I did not see anyone to give you any advice to be polite, non abusive, let alone to comment on your inappropriate editing style : I produced all my comments and suggestions for changes using and citing exceptional sources; you just reproduce your personal opinion on Homeopathy without citing even one study just adding some threats and abusive comments.--Alice1818 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your sources were terrible, yet you persisted. You deserve what you got Ms. SPA. This is not a location for you to be making a WP:POINT. Maybe you should check up on WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS before you return with more of your horrible sources for your lame excuses for what constitutes "exceptional sources." SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Another abusive comment, Are the lancet and the annals of the internal medicine terrible ? I did not know that.!--Alice1818 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. But if not used appropriately they may become so. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have repeatedly told you that WP:MEDRS applies, and that the sources you provide are insufficient per that policy to justify the changes to the article you propose. If you want Wikipedia to assert that homoeopathy is more effective than a placebo, you will have to convince the medical mainstream first. They aren't convinced, and unless and until they are, the article will reflect the overwhelming consensus. This is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to be specific and cite reliable sources like I do. I suggested specific changes supported from reliable sources. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

THE SOURCES YOU PROVIDE ARE INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CHANGES YOU PROPOSE, PER WP:MEDRS POLICY. GO AWAY... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone from the admin intervene and persuade this user to calm down. and act appropriately  ?--Alice1818 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've hid the section. One editor things a change needs to be made. Many others disagree, state why, and the single editor continues to push the issue. We're done, there is obvious consensus to leave the page as is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Weight of systematic reviews on Homeopathy - only placebo or not ?

Closed per obvious consensus

It is not my opinion that 3 systematic review oh Homeopathy reported effect more than placebo. This is a review I cited beofre and clearly states the opinion of a scientific group published in an exceptional source. Ann Intern Med. 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. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092

I know that this opinion is quite different form Ernst who argues all the time that all the systematic reviews show that homeopathy is only placebo.

However, you need to report all the opinions as long they appear in high impact journals per Neutral point of view. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, please read WP:MEDRS. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." Do you mean that? Can you explain why the above is not reliable source? And please drop this style. Enough. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS (as also explicitly quoted above): Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. Jonas et al 2003 is almost ten years old. Again, stop this disruption. You have been warned. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Again drop this style and be polite. Do you mean that all reviews before 2007 should be excluded? Why Shang is still cited then? It is published in 2005--Alice1818 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TEND. And WP:NOTAFORUM. Someone should just hat these commentaries. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have been patient and polite towards you. It is our duty to inform you of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:DISRUPT and WP:MEDRS. You have aggressively chosen to ignore them. In answer to your question, the article contains a historical chronology regarding the development of the evidence of absence of efficacy through systematic reviews and metanalyses. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to answer my questions rationally stop the threats - if you cannot do that , you don't have to participate.Someone else will do. I m asking Do you mean that all reviews before 2007 should be excluded? Why Shang is still cited then? It is published in 2005--Alice1818 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just told you: a chronological perspective is provided, illustrating historical contributions of key studies. The conclusions about efficacy and plausibility are based on the most recent high quality evidence, per WP:MEDRS. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that we have aWikipedia:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline isn't a threat. Pointing out that several participants in this discussion (including myself) consider your behaviour to fall within the guideline parameters isn't a threat either. An neither will me stating that if your behaviour here doesn't change, I will ask that you be blocked or banned for your disruptive behaviour be a threat - it will be a promise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All the studies citied to support the placebo attribution are before 2007.--Alice1818 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Ernst 2010? "...the most reliable evidence – that produced by Cochrane reviews – fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." —MistyMorn (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure I agree. However, if you look at article all the sentences which support the Placebo conclusion are before 2007. Should we removed them? --Alice1818 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC) (Don't forget that per Neutral point of view and wp med "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.") This is what I m suggesting --Alice1818 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by the expression "placebo conclusion"? Ernst 2010 concludes "...the most reliable evidence – that produced by Cochrane reviews – fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." The House of Commons Science and Tecnology Committee, which took evidence from stakeholders on all sides, also concluded that that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the meta analyses which are used to support the article summarized "consensus" which is false are before 2007. According to what you have said that only recent 5 year old studies should be used - the older ones should be removed. --Alice1818 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Homoeopathic 'medicine' is (according to current scientific knowledge) no more effective than a placebo. That is what our article is going to say. End of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also another recent report In 2011 the Swiss government completed an official examination of homeopathy, as part of its consideration of whether or not insurance companies should be made to cover homeopathic treatment. Their report, which concluded homeopathy is effective and should be covered, was published in English in February 2012. There is also a critical review for this report. --Alice1818 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read that...? [2] —MistyMorn (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL! From the article linked: "The Swiss report represents a biased review largely by homeopaths who changed the rules of evidence in order to declare that homeopathy works. Other homeopaths then present this review as unbiased and definitive. This is behavior that would make even the most unscrupulous pharmaceutical rep blush". Fails WP:MEDRS by a mile. Enough said... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it has the same weight to the one from the British government already cited in the article. You cannot of course, say that one goverment report is reliable and thus cited and the others is not. This could be absurd. I dont judge what the reports say - I might disagree myself - but the weight of the publication.

The question remains all opinions should be cited as long as they appear in reliable sources. per NPOV "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." --Alice1818 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Per SkepticalRaptor's suggestion, I've hid the section. Obviously there is no consensus to change the main page. Polite tendentious editing is still tendentious editing. The scientific consensus is that homeopathy shouldn't work, and the clinical trials show that, overall, it doesn't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

Can someone stop some users from deleting my contributions? How you allow such an abusive behavior? At least 2 editors have views similar to mine. The discussion is still going on - --Alice1818 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Contributions? Like what? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else who is not abusive there?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to confuse a failure to garner consensus, and an unwillingness to provide you a platform for further soapboxing, with abuse. Consensus is against you, this has been explained repeatedly, consensus doesn't mean everyone is happy, so let it go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Any help ? can someone stop editors from deleting my comments?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I deleted your most recent comment by accident. My reply above stands however. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this has gone on far too long, and have proposed that Alice1818 be blocked, to prevent further disruption: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Homoeopathy, and user:Alice1818 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 17, 2012‎

Fluffernutter's willingness to invoke arbcom's discretionary sanctions probably resolves or will resolve this for now at least. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to ban anyone who disagrees with you?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hi. I did not see any admin objecting to the abusive comments like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=502820191 someone screaming GO AWAY even if I asked for help. --Alice1818 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice1818 (talk • contribs)