Talk:Homeopathy

Untitled

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.

External Links

Hi, I deleted an external link to the Ten23 site on the basis that it is a campaigning organisation with a clear bias. Daffydavid reverted this saying that was fine and mantioning deleting homeopathy organisations. Now, I don't see any homeopathy organisations in that External Links section, maybe you unbiased editors could suggest some? Cjwilky (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --George1935 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd argue on the basis that it is a campaigning organisation, as there are at least two other links to people/organisations that campaign against homeopathy. However I do still think that it should be removed as it isn't adding anything to the article beyond what's already said in it. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A little bit of willful blindness CJ? I see - Homeopathy organizations on the Open Directory Project, which when you click on it you get a whole whack of Homeopathic Orgs.--Daffydavid (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So why not keep a balance and do the same with the anti's rather than highlight them as with the ten23 - who as said above, doesn't add anything. Would that be because you are a supporter of that campaign? Cjwilky (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cj, you are going to have to do better than advocating for removal because it is against your point of view. WP:NPOV has been explained over and over again on these talk pages. Why do you say it doesn't add anything? I would have to disagree with you there. I did not add any of the external links on this article so I'm kind of surprised at your attempt to taint the discussion. By clearly implying I'm not capable of a neutral point of view, "Would that be because you are a supporter of that campaign?", seems to me that you don't actually have a point. Frankly Cj, while we don't often agree, I expected better from you. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems you don't have an argument Daffy, and inventing my reasons for deletion doesn't count. My stated reason is that it doesn't add anything more than any other anti or pro site would offer - maybe you can be explicit with what it does add when compared to other sites both pro and anti, and when the whole gamut is covered in those OPD links.

As you know, you chose to revert my edit, so presumably you have a reason, so far not stated.

You are a well known ten23 tweeter and I dare say have been involved in some of their campaigns, but you can choose to deny that or continue to avoid it as you did above - so I was just putting forward that side of you as being your reason for reverting... possibly... if you were explicit in your reasoning about why you reverted then I wouldn't have to guess and try and get a reason out of you :) Cjwilky (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cjwilky Homeopathic Detective at first I found you amusing. You really should change your user name to this. Let's begin examining your evidence, shall we? "Inventing my reasons for deletion doesn't count" - I didn't invent anything, you stated clearly your reason - " I deleted an external link to the Ten23 site on the basis that it is a campaigning organisation with a clear bias", given that views opposing the use of Homeopathy are not a reason for deletion, this only leaves the option that as an admitted practicing Homeopath you disagree with it and want it removed. Why did I revert your edit? Because your stated reason was an invalid reason for removal. You then attempted to change your argument to - "My stated reason is that it doesn't add anything more than any other anti or pro site would offer." Sorry NO, that wasn't your stated reason and as such I chose to ignore it because wasn't going to debate points that weren't actually made. But, to answer you, on investigation I find that it offers a link to a well organized campaign that is endorsed by JREF and Richard Dawkins. It seems unique in it's message as compared to the other links, but this is all irrelevant as you have still failed to give a compelling reason for it's deletion and continue to attempt character assassination. To continue on - "you chose to revert my edit, so presumably you have a reason, so far not stated", I stated it clearly, but I'll state it again, - You have no valid reason for deleting the link. And finally we come to what I presume you consider to be your coup de grâce - "You are a well known ten23 tweeter and I dare say have been involved in some of their campaigns, but you can choose to deny that or continue to avoid it as you did above - so I was just putting forward that side of you as being your reason for reverting... possibly" You really need to stop being passive aggressive. Unfortunately for you Cjwilky Homeopathic Detective your evidence is Homeopathic evidence. By that, I mean and pay attention here because I am growing tired of your assertions that I'm not being clear, there is not a single molecule of actual fact in your evidence, just like the medicine. For the record - Cj, I do not nor have I ever had a Twitter account nor have I belonged to 1023 at any time. To be clear Cj, I am tired of your childish antics. When you state a VALID reason for the proposed deletion, others may listen. Until then, adieu. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's try not to make any personal attacks or ad hominems. The guidance we should be looking at is that of the external links guidelines which state that "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I do not see any real reason that the 10:23 link conforms to this. The website doesn't "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." (WP:ELNO) and thus I don't see any reason for it to be included; the public opposition section already mentions them and other info on the site can be read at either 10:23 Campaign or in this article elsewhere. As a disclaimer I live in Merseyside and attend many Skeptics Society talks. Though as I'm arguing for removal I don't exactly see that being used against me. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (talk)I'm going to have to disagree on your interpretation of WP:ELNO specifically the assertion that it doesn't "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." If the WP article was much more detailed then I would agree, as it stands now the article is clearly lacking and does not give an accurate description of all the content available at the site itself. --Daffydavid (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Teeny Tiny edit war

John Snow and I disagree about the use of implausible/impossible as regards the plausibility of homeopathy in the "Plausibility" section of the article. In order to maintain "neutrality" John wants to use the word "implausible" rather than the more accurate "impossible" and in an edit summary, says -

"the section is entitled plausibility, and whether or not it's plausible is what it's about. Keep it civil please"

Would anybody else like to comment before I restore "impossible" to the text? John, Why do you think "implausible" is better, I would be interested to know? To me it is just less accurate, not more neutral. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly let me ask you not to restore 'impossible' to the text before a consensus for the change has been made. Can someone access the article that is sourced to and see if it says plausible or impossible? I'm having trouble logging in to Science Direct for some reason. FWIW I think implausible is better; it's fair and safe to say that the mechanism is implausible ("not seeming reasonable or probable; failing to convince.") but impossible might not be quite right ("not able to occur, exist, or be done."). As for an argument with a little more weight, sources seem to use the word implausible rather than impossible e.g. "physicians find such notions implausible", Samwalton9 (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

By the same token, I think that implausible should be removed until consensus for the change from impossible is reached. Can't have it both ways. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Since implausible was there first and is assumedly backed up by the source, the apparently controversial change to impossible is the one which should be discussed. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources used mention "implausible" not "impossible". However, the wider sources say it's both - I'll have a go at fixing ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at these words in the Lede. Teixeira neither says "impossible" nor "implausible" - he just says water memory theories are ... wrong. I've changed the word to "erroneous" to reflect this better. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy as to the substance - homeopathy is, within our extant science, impossible. I'd just like to let the facts speak for themselves as much as possible rather than goading the enthusiasts. If there's a way to cover both terms diplomatically Alex, please do. I'm happy to be 'hands-off' as even teen weeny edit wars are best avoided if we can. John Snow II (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to wonder whether it's worth mentioning both "implausible" and "impossible" in the lede: the first term looks a bit superfluous in light of the second. Or is there some subtlety here I'm missing? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, fair question. I suppose 'implausible' indicates that homeopathy is highly unlikely to be based on any working mechanism, whereas 'impossible' suggests that there is and never can be any such mechanism, even in our wildest dreams. The former seems the crucial knowledge to impart, whereas the latter could stimulate a rather pointless debate. John Snow II (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"highly implausible"? "profoundly implausible"? How to indicate the precise shade of meaning that says "not philosophically impossible" ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, a Cambridge physics professor and Nobel Prize winner, has suggested a mechanism by which homeopathy may operate, so simply dismissing it as 'impossible' seems hasty. Check the link at the bottom of his homepage to see his discussion. Generally, the entire tone of the article is so vehemently condemnatory that it reads nothing like a normal encyclopedia article, or even like the typical Wikipedia article. Just contrast your article with the tone a traditional encyclopedia like the 'Encyclopedia Britannica' adopts when discussing homeopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.108 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Until Josphson comes up with something better than "a suggestion" of how Homeopathy may work in a letter to the editor it's safe to keep the article as is. Next time please link to the actual page you are referencing so we can ensure that we are discussing the same page. The link wasn't at the bottom of his page but it was the only one mentioning this topic. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This article contain so much non senses,see comment of learned person like Prof Dr Hegde(MBBS, MD, MRCP(UK), FRCP(London), FACC(Bethesda Md USA), FRCPG(Glasgow USA), FRCPE(Edn), FRCPI(Dublin), FAMS 1. Former Vice Chancellor, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Deemed University 2. Former Pro Vice Chancellor, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Deemed University 3. Former Dean, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore 4. Former Principal, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore 5. Former Director of PG studies, Professor & Head of the Dept. of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore 6. Former professor of cardiology, the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, University of London) spoke about the importance of alternative medicines like Ayurveda and Homeopathy. He said, “There are all kinds of tactics are used to suppress Homeopathy as a form of treatment. But it is one of the best medicines. 'It is much more scientific than modern medicine. Just because one cannot detect the chemical present in the nano particle of the pills, you call it unscientific? This is not fair.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.217.131.55 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according to most WP:MEDRS, homeopathy is dangerous nonsense which deters seriously ill people from seeking treatment via science-based medicine. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:184.151.246.108 the article is so biased it is just a polemic - totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1935 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but an edit suggestion would be much more helpful. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys, sort of backing up Daffydavid's point remember talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM if you have WP:MEDRS sources that suggest homeopathic remedies are anything other than mislabeled and expensive water please present them. Otherwise there are more appropriate venues to talk about "tactics used to suppress Homeopathy". Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are - but the editors here have chosen to edit them out. --George1935 (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably because those sources were not considered reliable per Wikipedia policy. Can you please give an example? Heptor _talk 09:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I will give many -below --George1935 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreadable Sentence

"Homeopaths have asserted that Hippocrates, in about 400 BC, "perhaps originated homeopathy" when he prescribed a small dose of mandrake root – which in larger doses produced mania – to treat mania itself;[27] in the 16th century the pioneer of pharmacology Paracelsus declared that small doses of "what makes a man ill also cures him."[28] Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) gave homeopathy its name and expanded its principles in the late 18th century. "

There's something so wrong with this sentence, I would not presume to try to fix it

75.71.200.117 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Way too complex. I've made an attempt at correcting it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

New Study - Is homeopathy a placebo therapy ? Maybe not.

This is a new study.

“In our paper we showed that the effects on quality of life observed in patients receiving homeopathic care in a usual care setting are small or moderate at maximum, but cannot be explained by RTM alone. Due to the uncontrolled study design they may, however, completely be due to nonspecific effects. All our analyses made a restrictive and conservative assumption, so the true treatment effects might be larger than shown.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1935 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What jumps out at me at first glance is that it's an observational study (which "cannot be used as reliable sources to make statements of fact about the "safety, efficacy, or effectiveness" of a practice") with no controls.--Frglz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There's so many weasel words in the abstract it would be easier nailing jello to tree than trying to find an actual conclusion in the study.--Daffydavid (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

All it says is that the observed effects "cannot be explained by [regression to the mean] alone". This isn't a finding that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. It specifically says that the effects "may, however, completely be due to nonspecific effects." Brunton (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The fourth word says it all. "We" showed = primary source. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

According to what you are saying this sentence from Shangs review - "We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias." shows that their review should be regarded as a primary source? --George1935 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course that is not what I said.... Shang was reanalyzing other's trial observations. Please read wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the cited study It is not a primary source : Are the effects of homeopathy attributable to a statistical artefact? A reanalysis of an observational study.--George1935 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a reanalysis of a single observational study. That mean it is just as much a primary source as the originally published study. If it had been published before the original analysis of the study results, it would not make the original analysis a secondary source.

And read the cited study (the bit you quoted, actually): it explicitly states that the apparent effects of homoeopathy may "completely be due to nonspecific effects". In case you don't know, "nonspecific effects" are those effects that would be seen equally in treatment and placebo groups of a controlled trial. The study actually says that homoeopathy may have no effects over placebo. Brunton (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"In this paper we reanalysed data from a previously published cohort study, which evaluated the changes in health effects in patients that received treatment by a homeopath in a usual care situation. " It is a secondary source It might be completely be due to nonspecific effects -----this does not mean ONLY placebo, .Anyhow ..This is their conclusion and an encyclopedia has to report it -- If one wants to be neutral. Or one might wants to ignore the study like any study reporting positive effects on homeopathy which is a typical practice in this forum. Even if the studies are published in reputable sources. --George1935 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a single study, George, even if it is a second analysis of a previously published single observational study. "Second" is not the same as "secondary".

"It might be completely be due to nonspecific effects -----this does not mean ONLY placebo". Yes, it does. That is what "nonspecific effects" means - effects that are not specific to the treatment being tested, and that you would also expect to see in the placebo arm of a trial. A study that concludes that it may "completely be due to nonspecific effects" is explicitly stating that it has not established that there is a difference between homoeopathy and placebo. Brunton (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. -- Even Ernst in his blog writes that "t......his interesting re-analysis really tell us? My interpretation is as follows: the type of observational study that homeopaths are so fond of yields false-positive results. Even he finds the results -- which he criticizes----(false) positive" And you say that this ..means that it is negative. ? --George1935 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the conclusion that the results may be completely due to nonspecific effects means that it does not demonstrate that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Brunton (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The paper says it is possible to be placebo or it could have a real effect. - but maybe Dr. Enrst is pro homeopathy --- and the wikipedia definition about secondary sources is ..wrong. Who knows? --George1935 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't conclude that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. End of story. Brunton (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not have to say that-----to report its findings - you know that. --George1935 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A study that doesn't establish effects over placebo doesn't alter the consensus on the efficacy of homoeopathy currently reported by the article. Brunton (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was to inform people about the findings of different studies -not matter what they are positive negative or both.Not to pretend that studies other than negative do not really exist. --George1935 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The article cannot possibly report on every single paper, and in fact WP:MEDRS recommends the use of reviews rather than primary sources like this one. And, once again, this study doesn't come to any conclusion that alters the consensus reported by the article. It doesn't conclude that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. We don't need to cite an individual study that doesn't establish efficacy over placebo when the same thing is supported by secondary sources.

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article. What specific changes to the article are you proposing, based on this study? Brunton (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To stop reporting that the consensus is that Homeopathy is non sense because a number of secondary sources do not say that.It is misinformation. --George1935 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you provide the specific wording of the change with the source(s) you want to use? --McSly (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Until George1935 provides the sources he alludes to an edit suggestion would be rather premature. George, the consensus IS Homeopathy is nonsense. Perhaps you should look up the definition of consensus. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean among the editors here or according to the reliable sources wikipedia supposes to rely on to make such a statement? --George1935 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

George1935, you have been invited to provide your sources and instead you continue to make snide comments. Despite what you continually allege, Wikipedia has rules and they are being applied to this article. If you have a large number of WP:RS sources that support your position we would all love to see them. As it stands now you have provided 1 study and in the face of countless other studies it doesn't mean much. If you were to provide many studies and they all showed the same conclusion then we would include that information in the article and the degree of coverage would be proportionate to the number and quality of the studies. Until you provide this information - I and I suspect other editors are tiring of this conversation. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well ---the tired people can always take a break. I will provide the sources analytically. --George1935 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Before you do that, it is probably worth having a look at the archives for this talk page, to make sure that you aren't just bringing up the same points and sources that have already been discussed. Brunton (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Homeopathy a speculative, refuted concept as the article states ----or this is one side of the story?

Here are some sources which while do NOT prove homeopathy but they say that the findings of the research are positive but inconclusive. Definitely not a ...refuted concept.

Of course almost all the papers below-even if they are published in first rate journals have been edited out- in order to make the statement "Homeopathy is a speculative, refuted concept" sound well founded.

"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.-"

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.

The meta-analysis results change sensitively to the chosen threshold defining large sample sizes. Because of the high heterogeneity between the trials, Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented.

"There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®."

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 and "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."--George1935 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse George. Is your real name Dullman? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)