Talk:Homeopathy

Pseudoscience

The article calls homeopathy a pseudoscience, but nowhere in wikipedia's guidelines does this seem to be allowed. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories There is no scientific consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience, especially in Europe, therefore, it is classified as a questionable science. Klocek (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated, in the Wikipedia guidelines that anything should be called anything. The thing is that there is nothing in the guidelines that says it shouldn't be - and anything that's not forbidden is OK. What we ARE required to do is to represent the world from a mainstream scientific perspective and to provide references for what we say.

The mainstream scientific view is that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience...and we have references to prove that. So there is no reason we shouldn't say so. More importantly, the WP:FRINGE guidelines make it clear that it would be a breach of the neutral position to allow the homeopathists to dominate the content of the article with their bogus (according to mainstream science - and therefore according to Wikipedia) position.

Aside from all of that - you may ask why poor old homeopathy is being called a pseudoscience in the first place? Some see this word as some kind of an insult. It's not, it's a straightforward classification of an idea or discipline. The definition of the word pseudoscience given in most dictionaries agrees with the one provided by Wiktionary, which I'll quote for you:

Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.

Homeopathy undoubtedly purports to be scientific - it makes MANY claims to be able to produce certain results from certain practices based on scientific-sounding descriptions of some very odd properties of water.

The deciding factor is therefore whether or not homeopathy follows "The Scientific Method".

I suggest you read at least the introduction to our Scientific method article...but here is a summary of what this means:

Basically, the scientific method requires that you form an idea which you are not yet certain about. We call that a "hypothesis". A good hypothesis has to explain everything that we already know about the topic and then makes certain testable predictions about the universe. The next step is that you do some experiments to see if those predictions turn out to be true - and if they do, your hypothesis is a better explanation for how the universe works than the one we already have. So you write a paper describing your new hypothesis, what predictions you made, what experiments you did, what results you got and how you interpret those results to back up your hypothesis. This paper is then peer-reviewed for obvious mistakes and deceptions and to be sure that nobody else already showed it was true. That's by a bunch of other people who work in that field ("your peers") - and if it passes muster, it'll be published in some journal or other. If the hypothesis is reasonably compelling, other scientists will attempt to repeat your experiments to see if what you did really works as you claim and they may try to come up with alternative explanations for what you observed. They write more papers - perhaps devise more experiments to test your claims. Eventually, if enough of the other people who test this agree that your hypothesis is the best explanation for the experimental results, your hypothesis becomes accepted into the mainstream as a "theory". (Which is what used to be called a "law").

So - the burning question here is: Do homeopathists do this? The answer is a blindingly clear "NO!" - they most certainly do not. What they did is to come up with two basic hypotheses:

1. Diluting something until there is none left 'imprints' the water in some permanent or at least long-lived fashion.
2. Drinking imprinted water affects your health in some manner - possibly the reverse of the harm that would be caused by ingesting the original substance.

What experiments have been done to follow up on (1)? The answer is - none whatever. Not one single documented example of a homeopathist systematically testing whether water takes on this "imprint" has ever been performed! Where are the double-blind studies of (2)? Where is the statistical analysis of how many people were cured of their colds by very diluted raw duck liver?

That is why we call homeopathy a "pseudoscience" - it makes scientific claims - but never does the hard work to test them...instead they skip the basic science, skip the human trials and go straight to selling the stuff in little bottles in WalMart.

Wikipedia says that homeopathy is a pseudoscience because that is precisely, and undeniably what it is. This is the mainstream view of scientists - and it clearly follows the definition of the word and what is going on in the world of homeopathy.

We don't say that religions are pseudosciences because they tell people to take their wild and crazy claims on faith - and (with some exceptions) tend not to make scientific predictions or wrap themselves in the mantle of science. We don't say that quantum physics is pseudoscience because although quantum physicists make scientific claims, they really do follow the scientific method.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Klocek (talk · contribs) - there is a scientific consensus that homoeopathy is pseudoscience, including "in Europe". Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience --24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Homeopathy with astrology are the textbook case of obvious pseudoscience.--McSly (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

no - you are wrong - look what the best review for oscillo says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

While SteveBaker provides an excellent explanation above, the real reason the article includes "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience^[2][3][4]" is the ^[2][3][4] which (in the article) point to reliable sources that verify the statement. Anyone wanting to contest the statement needs to explain how the sources are incorrectly used, or provide other specific evidence to contradict the statement—bearing in mind that reliable sources are required. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that by "the best review for oscillo" you mean the Cochrane review, it doesn't say anything about whether or not homoeopathy is regarded as pseudoscience, so cannot be used as a source on this point. Brunton (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we need more sourcing for this, several of the essays in the book Philosophy of Pseudoscience (ed. Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry) recently published by the University of Chicago Press use homoeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, for example (p. 30), "Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy [...] are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously", or (p. 49), "homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience". Brunton (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

correcting misrepresentative opinion

The asertion of the UK House of Commons Scientific Select Committee is contentious with regard to the support garnered from within the committe, it noted that only three of those sitting actually voted and of those three none had any specilaist knowledge of the subject. No Health Care Trust at the time were invited to speak neither was representatives from Homeopathic association and not least no patient was afforded the same opportunity. As to the closing Paragraph remark that the government agrees is disingenous especial in light of Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House Of Commons Science and Technology Committee, February 2010,which noted,these limitations make the Committee’s report an unreliable source of evidence about homeopathy. The jury must still be regarded as out on its efficacy and risk/ benefit ratio. Whether more research should be done, and of what kind, is another question. But there can be no ethical objection to it since the principal questions have not, as the Committee claimed, “been settled already”. Earl Baldwin of Bewdley. June 2010. Added to which 206 sitting MPs signed an early day motion expressing concerns over the report content and procedure (Topgrad (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from the report. If you want to have this modified or removed you will have to provide a WP:RS source of equal or greater weight which clearly contradicts the report. What you have provide so far is primarily WP:OR . --Daffydavid (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That EDM was by David Tredinnick (politician). 'Nuff said. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LeadSongDog for interest sake what do you say about Earl Baldwins report and what is your opinion as to why 206 sitting MPs felt the need to sign it _(Topgrad (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not had the opportunity to examine that report, but in general politicians act for political reasons, not scientific ones. I would be surprised if even 20 of the 205 even read what they signed. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am prepared to be corrected regarding the ED as I undertsand it it was in response to the way in which the committe blatantly conducted itself and the biased minority veiw that was reported, political savvy to distance them selves for the flak maybe or, a demonstration of balanced democracy in action? (Topgrad (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Better Source for Placebo Claim?

The lede makes the strong claim that "its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos" yet the cited source is much less committal in its interpretation:

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.

Surely there is a better source, that more firmly supports the statement in the lede? I'd rather not back up an assertion that "homeopathic remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos" with a finding that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies." Most studies I've found online are meta-studies that are themselves based on analysis of earlier studies, many of which were conducted with the intention of proving that homeopathy works. So the meta-studies generally take the approach of finding flaws with the earlier studies, or cross-referencing effects to smooth out differences and reduce the significance of measured effects. I understand why they need to do this (nobody but homeopathy supporters tend to want to fund large-scale studies of homeopathy) but for something that is so widely accepted as pseudoscience among the mainstream medical community, surely there is some primary research with a less wishy-washy demonstration of the placebo claim?

Also, the same source is actually listed twice in the references. I'd try to fix it but the proper syntax for handling citations in Wikipedia is.. less than obvious to me. --Pyrrhoneia (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote is saying that because the measured results of homeopathy are most certainly no better than placebo, then the small amount of positive results found in the trials probably is because homeopathy is just a placebo. The results being statistically no better than placebo is a given. You can measure it, it's definitely true. However, the idea that the mechanism through which homeopathy operates is the same as the way a sugar pill operates isn't something that you can know for sure from just the data they looked at. I don't believe it, but maybe Homeopathy really does cure a few percent of patients because of god-knows-what-mechanism, but at the cost of suppressing the placebo effect and somehow making people not get better just because they think they will - resulting in a real treatment that happens to cure an identical number of people compared to placebo. So if homeopathy suppressed the placebo effect and provided some genuine benefit - then perhaps it "works" (albeit very, very badly!). So this report is carefully stating that these purely statistical results are not in any way disproving the idea that homeopathy is just a placebo - and they do show that it's no better than a placebo...which is a polite, carefully scientific, cagey, way of saying "it's bloody obvious that it's a placebo!" SteveBaker (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi SteveBaker. That's actually not what the quote is saying. "Specific effect" means effect over and above what would be expected from a placebo. The study indicates support — albeit weak support — for there being a non-placebo effect of homeopathic treatment. The part at the end about compatibility means that the effect is still within the margin of error... but that's a pretty awful point to use as the basis of the claim in the lede. The study cited did find that homeopathic remedies were more effective than placebo, which directly contradicts the statement in the article it's meant to support. I'm not asking for an argument against (or in favor of) homeopathy here on the talk page. I'm asking for a better reference. I acknowledge it's difficult to find such references (which is how I ended up at this article in the first place, hoping to find some) ironically because most researchers don't see homeopathy as something worthy of study, even to disprove it. Most of the primary studies are funded by groups attempting to prove that homeopathy works, and the negative results are mostly meta-studies that at best (given the source material) can only undermine the statistical significance of the original findings in support of homeopathy. But there are primary studies with negative results, though many of them are behind pay walls or are seriously outdated. The current cited source would only support a weaker statement in the lede such as "homeopathic remedies have been found to have no statistically significant effect over placebos" and I would much rather keep the current phrasing with a better citation, rather than water down the claim. Pyrrhoneia (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not favor the use of "primary studies with negative [or positive] results." What part of "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." is insufficient for the statement we make? While we don't have to use refs in the lead (because that content should be based on sourced content in the body of the article), and therefore we often use none or minimal references in the lead, I have added one more ref to that lead statement. I hope that will help. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst's systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy may be a useful addition to the Shang analysis on this point.

Part of the problem is that because of the sort of language they use and the nature of the question they actually ask, trials (and reviews of trials) are never actually going to conclude that a treatment doesn't work, because of the nature of the question being asked. They try to refute the null hypothesis that a treatment doesn't work. If the null hypothesis is refuted then the paper can conclude that the treatment is effective. If it isn't refuted then the conclusion will be that efficacy is not established rather than that the treatment is not effective, but "the treatment doesn't work" is a reasonably good "plain English" translation of the scientific terminology. This was also discussed here last September, archived here. Brunton (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

May I add from Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House Of Commons Science and Technology Committee, February 2010 who cited the NHS CRD at York in 2002, in which one of an Effective Health Care series on “the effectiveness of health service interventions for decision makers”. This bulletin made a systematic assessment of the evidence to date. It advised “caution” in interpreting this evidence, and warned that many of the areas researched were “not representative of the conditions that homeopathic practitioners usually treat”, and that “the methodological problems of the research” should be considered. It found “insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend homeopathy for any specific condition”. At the same time it could not conclude that homeopathy performed no better than placebo.(80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC))80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Furthermore contributors Professors Linde and statistician Rainer Lutke held the reviews “conclusively demonstrate” a placebo effect is overstated and unsustainable on present evidence. In concluding Earl Baldwain found it questionable why a journalist doctor was invited to appear in preference to some other non-representative contributors to the inquiry. The written submission by Dr. Goldacr was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (“extreme quackery” was mentioned). By contrast, the submission by the Complementary Medicine Research Group from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York presented 68 references [Ev. 143]. In this appears the statement “To date there are eight systematic reviews that provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy are beyond placebo when used as a treatment for [five childhood conditions]”. This claim from mainstream academic centre, rated joint first nationally for health services research in the latest Research Assessment Exercise, stood in stark contradiction to Prof. Ernst’s referenced claims, and to Dr. Goldacre’s unreferenced statements. It would have been illuminating if the Committee had probed the Group about this, face to face as a witness, and attempted some resolution before agreeing in such unequivocal terms with the two witnesses who were invited to appear and were quoted favourably. The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their “selective approaches” to evidence [73]. However they could fairly be accused of the same. Unfortunately they did not (presumably) have, the scope to solicit the views of Dr. Linde from Germany which would have differed from those of, Prof. Ernst with regard to the evidence. (Topgrad (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Pyrrhoneia is completely right with regard to the cited source. It merely states that its finding does not contradict placebo claims, which however is not enough to source the formulation in WP. Note that this is not an argument against homöopathy being just a placebo effect, but just an argument for citing different sources since the current source is indeed not properly paraphrased.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added the Ernst "systematic review of systematic reviews" as a reference for that point. Looking at the studies cited in the "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" section of the article, and the evidence submitted to the HoC "Evidence check", there doesn't seem to be much, if anything, in the way of more recent systematic reviews that contradict its findings. Brunton (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you be good enought to cite the findings of The Department of Health Sciences at the University of York 8 systematic reviews that found evidence that the effects of Homeopathy are beyond placebo for five childhood ailments and run counter to Ernst stated view and, further could it be indicated if not already that, Shang et al also has its critics re Failure to Exclude False Negative Bias: A Fundamental Flaw in the Trial of Shang et al. Helmut Kiene, Gunver S. Kienle, and Tido von Schön-Angerer. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. October 2005, (11(5): 783-783. doi:10.1089/acm.2005.11.783. (Topgrad (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

The second one appears to be a letter to the editor of a journal specialising in CAM. Using it to rebut peer-reviewed research would give it undue weight and be counter to WP:MEDRS.

Do you have a reference for the York paper? Brunton (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

From the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York evidence to The Scienctific Select Committe HOuse of Commons, when I find the reference I will post on to you. Could you explain what undue weight means in this sense or does WP:MEDRS as in general non acceptance of legitimate rebuttal merely skews to one side of the argument and therefore they could be accused of non-neutrality a corner stone of wiki? (Topgrad (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Extremely high dilutions as basically only line of argument against homeopathy over several paragraphs?

Over several paragraphs in the "Evidence and Efficacy" section of the article, homeopathy is dismissed with the sole argument that extremely high dilutions (over D20/C10) statistically leave none of the original substance in the final product:
"The low concentration of homeopathic remedies, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance..."
"The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations often leave none of the original substance in the final product."
"The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy preclude a biologically plausible mechanism of action."
This, of course is statistically true for those extreme dilutions. However, this argumentation (and, I reiterate, this argumentation is basically used as the sole argument in those paragraphs) ignores that most homeopathic medications are usally administered at far lower dilutions (D3 to D12), which do not pose the need to argue with "water memory" or "quantum effects", as even a dilution as high as D12 (X12) still contains roughly 10¹¹ substance molecules per mol (14g/0.5oz) of water. I think pointing out the impossible "high" dilutions as the sole line of argumentation while completely ignoring the "lower" dilutions is a structural flaw of those paragraphs and should be adressed. -- megA (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a section discussing high dilution, under the "Plausibility" sub-heading. But it is not by any means the "only line of argument", nor even the major one. There is more emphasis on the lack of reliable evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness. After all, as my grandmother used to say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, MegA is correct. While there are various other reasons to doubt the claims of homeopathy, they are nonetheless not adequately addressed in the specified paragraphs. MegA's point was about the article, not about homeopathy. This article actually does a pretty terrible job of providing references explaining why homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. I came here looking for an easily accessible list of such references, but most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it. I understand why that is (they're meta-studies based on primary studies that were attempting to prove homeopathy was effective) but there are good primary studies, if you dig deep enough. They're old and not all of them are online, though. I'm trying to locate them now, but help would be appreciated. --Pyrrhoneia (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to www.giriweb.com GIRI was created in 1986 and represents relevant and independent scientific international organization concerning the study of high dilutions.The aim of the GIRI is to bring together pharmacologists, biologists, physicians,chemists, physicists and other professionals to keep in touch, to exchange experiences and develop joint research projects about high dilutions, homeopathy included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You may also consider IJHDR International Journal of High Dilutuion Research IJHDR is a full free open-access electronic journal specialising in the multidisciplinary field of High Dilution (HD) research. Hosted by GIRI, it is peer-reviewed, with an international editorial board and published quarterly.

You gotta be kidding us....the board of consultants is rife with known homeopathy proponents and lobbyists like Michael Frass, Otto Weingärtner, and Stephen Baumgartner. And that is even only the german-speaking part. At least, you gave us a nice example how homeopaths actually try to pretend being science (by creating a fake peer-reviewed journal), which by definition is pseudoscience. Rka001 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The IJHDR was previously titled Cultura Homeopática. Brunton (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would ask, that you should bring yourselves up to date as to who is on the current board 2014 Baumunagtner sure, however non of the others you referred to appear to be on the board and just a point the edit was for Pyrrhoneia information, although I am sure that he/ahe is capable of making their own mind up as to its sincerity and the spirit it was given unlike, your ill mannered response good manners and civility even when debating cost nothing.(Topgrad (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As of today, all named persons are listed as "Consultants", and all three persons are well-known, heavily biased proponents of Homeopathy in the German speaking countries. I am sure, similar heroic figureheads of science are hidden in the list of the many editors and consultants of this journal. Someone recommended that journal as a source for reliable information about the topic at hand, but it took me like 2 clicks to see that is not. It is a very thinly veiled attempt to propagate the use of homeopathy. Rka001 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just two clikcks an indication of an appropriately unbiased indepth investigation on your behalf did you actually read any? Could you let me know who are these heroic figures are maybe one is (RIP) Madame Madeline Batitde Professeur Honoraire Immunology, University of Montpellier by any chance?(Topgrad (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Are you seriously proposing said Journal is a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards? As i said before, the names i recognize are notorious for propagating the use of homeopathy, hence cannot be possibly cited (neither here or anywhere else) for reliable, robust statements. Other names i recognize are Louis Rey (known for performing poorly designed experiments to proof the existence of a water memory). Someone is from "homeopaths without frontiers", whose german branch claims to heal malaria with homeopathy, so who are actually dangerous. A good chunk of the persons listed have the term "homeopathy" in their affiliation. So....how could you possibly claim this is a unbiased journal which is not subject to a severe conflict of interest? Rka001 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Only one Rka from which it appears you go on to tar every body with the same brush, you seem to have missed my point entirely, again I would ask have you personally read any. As to journals most I woud suggest seek to maintain the status quo via biased editorial, in this scenario and, re your reliability, any journal dependent on funds from advertisers particularly when large amonunts are at stake it can alledgedly be suggested they have a bias for commercial, legal or political reasons orthodox or compleimentary. As to the nameless someone who claimed to heal malaria well, nuff said even I would not condone that statement! Also can you answer the remainder of my question re conflicts of interest (Topgrad (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

For your enjoyment

http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/wikipedia-call-to-action-to-update-homeopathy-at-wikipedia Be aware of online petitions! As a fun sidenote, this clearly demonstrate how homeopaths think how science works: By petition.^^Rka001 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are they calling for "a large number of people [to] sign this petition"? Surely, the less people that sign it, the more effective it will be. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I got a request to sign a petition from change.org to avoid the Homeopathic section's closure at the Bristol (or was it Glasgow?) Hospital which claimed that a petition for it's closure was signed by 2000 sceptics/critics of Homeopathy, while they have 24,000 signatures to avoid its closure and were looking to make it 25,000 signatures. However, are we at wikipedia going to put such trivia into this article? I hope not!—Khabboos (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rka001, if that petition is signed by say 25,000 people and submitted to Jimmy/Jimbo Wales and he agrees to put all the criticism in one section or have a different page for "criticism of Homeopathy" that petition may achieve what it was intended to.—Khabboos (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, that is not how Wikipedia works but I'm beginning to think you are already aware of that. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes and petitions carry very little weight. We work by debate and a consensus of ideas. It's not "one man one vote" - it's more like "one compelling argument, one vote" or, ideally, "one valid reference, one vote". When I look at the comments provided by people who signed that petition, they are almost all vapid "Me Too!" comments - or "Homeopathy cured me of XXXX, so it must work!" comments. Those are not useful arguments - and pretty much all of those 24,000 votes would count for precisely nothing in a consensus debate here on Wikipedia.

Understand that this is an Encyclopedia. Our goal is to present the universe as it truly is. If we allow a bunch of people who merely wish that the universe was other than it is to change our content, then all of our articles will reflect the world that people wish it was like, rather than how it actually is...and that would make for a pretty terrible reference book.

Just think about how "editing by petition" would work. I have no doubt you could find 24,000 Islamic extremists to sign a petition to change the article on the USA (I'll leave it to your imagination to fill in what they might demand we'd say about it)...should Wikipedia cave in to that kind of pressure? What about the holocaust deniers? Klu Klux Klan members? I bet the Flat Earth society could get that many signatures - and then we'd have to rewrite Earth to say that the earth is flat! Any group of people with an extreme viewpoint could very easily get that many signatures.

Homeopathy has been tested time after time in careful scientific experiments - and the overwhelming conclusion is that it doesn't work. Just because a lot of people wish that it worked, we can't write "It really does work!" in our article because that would be a lie. We could (and actually do) say that a lot of people believe that it works (see Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy)...and this petition does indeed back up that statement...and that's the only piece of information of any value contained in the petition.

So the petition is worthless and it can't/won't/shouldn't change a darned thing in this article.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with petitions is that you can get large-sounding numbers of people who simultaneously represent a negligible portion of public opinion. Consider the 2012 U.S. presidential elections. 67,323 people didn't just sign a online petition; they got off their couches, lined up, and voted to elect Roseanne Barr the 45th President of the United States. By that metric, the above-linked 3000-signature e-petition represents an idea about 4.5% as good as "Roseanne for President" (it scored 45 milliroseannes?). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's much less than 45 milliRoseannes - the presidential vote was only for eligible US voters. So the unit of one "Roseanne" is 67,300 out of the 211,000,000 eligible voters in 2012. Since the number of eligible participants in the petition is everyone with access to the Internet (2.4 billion people by some estimates) 3000 votes is more like 27 microRoseannes!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a democarcy per se OK it is however supposed to be neutral that means to me not favouring one side or the other if thats the case from what has been discussed wiki has no intention in living up to its mission statement of providing balance. If not why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) plus how many volunteers actually read any studies before passing comment

Wikipedia's neutrality policy is complemented by the reliable sources policy, which means that only reliable sources can be cited, and all statements,whether fact or opinion, have to be from them. While the neutrality policy requires all viewpoints to be represented, how prevalent they are in the article are determined by how prominent they are on reliable sources. Reliable sources state that the higher quality studies show a lack of evidence for homeopathy, which is presented as a fact in the article because it is a fact that those studie say that, for example. Jh1234l (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's commentary on this is a great statement of how things are around here - check it out: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point however, given the spin that some researchers have intorduced in the work is there not, a requirement of wiki to revisit some of the more controvertial that have beed drawn into the light as seen, in the media in the USA and abroad to establlish their reliability or, does wiki rigidly seek to maintain the neutral staus quo and not correct theses reported discrepencies?(Topgrad (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk)

User:80.2.37.152, you have been instructed to sign your comments, but are still not doing so. Don't you read your talk page? Signing is a non-negotiable requirement here, so start doing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I do if it is in a civil recgonised format unlike your remarks I think you need lessons in good manners and public relation my friend. If it to sign with four tildes found at the top of the page then why did you not just point me in that direction for information sake(Topgrad (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Thank you for starting to sign your comments, and for creating an account. Instructions had already been left on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou didn't hurt did it? However for my part being a newbie finding my way around and understanding the protocols at the moment is difficult for me(Topgrad (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC))80.2.37.152 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

I understand! We've all been there. To make it easier for you, here are a few things that are immediately relevant:

• Use only one account, so remember to always log in using your Topgrad account. If you forget, then go back and sign them as you have done. Since the time stamp was right, you only need to replace the IP number part with Topgrad.
• Investigate the wikilinks people use so you understand the full meaning and intent of their comments.
• Keep an eye on your watchlist and your talk page. Messages there can be important, so keep the lines of communication open to everyone, especially editors who may hold opposing POV and be unpleasant. It's not easy, but you'll be better off if you do so. Take the high road.
• Read contribution and edit histories and always leave edit summaries.
• Then, regardless of how tough things seem to be going, try to remain calm and civil, and always assume good faith. Misunderstandings occur very easily when we don't have body language in the picture. Don't be afraid to ask for help. We're a team and need to work together.

Welcome on board! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for the welcome BullRangifer the info will come in handy although coping with unpleasant individuals whomever, can bring the worst out of me particularly the arrogant kind. I agrre cibvility is the standard and, as you are already aware good manners cost in my part of the world "nowt" which means nothing. I look forward to some healthy debates and correcting misrepresentaion in the pages of wiki. By the way I wish to change my tag to my real name could point me in the right direction please(Topgrad (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Positive studies and clinical trials

I will find good references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. for these studies, but please let me know if we can insert these into this article —Khabboos (talk) 15:03, June 18, 2014‎ (UTC)

--

Redacted. At least part was a direct copypaste from [1]--LeadSongDog come howl! 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC) --

Where have you copied this wall of text from? Do you think anybody is going to read it? Isn't it a copyright violation? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It can't be a copyvio because I have only posted the studies and clinical trials the source mentioned! I have even added the html codes.—Khabboos (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, that was not the source I used. Anyway, can we add those studies/clinical trials using references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. into this article? Can I add that matter back here (on the Talk page) as a collapsed table?—Khabboos (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please state your proposed added text and the source that supports it. Note medical sources need to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, for example: Study 1) In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica, by Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J., published in the Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444, which showed Inhibitory Basophil degranulation and Study 2) Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate, by Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F., published in the Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9., which showed Protective Glutamate toxicity etc.—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:MEDRS? These are rather old primary sources, so not at all suitable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that there are good, positive studies/clinical trials and we at least need to have an NPOV tag for this article - almost every sentence is attacking homeopathy (I've been topic banned from terrorism related articles and I'm looking for other articles to edit, so that I can appeal my TBan in a month).—Khabboos (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you haven't read MEDRS. Please do so. **Very** few studies or clinical trials, even in non-fringe areas, are suitable. Also, seeking a second place to conduct wikicombat is not going to do your case much good. Why not work on something mundane for a while, instead? Just click the "random article" link and see what comes up? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The point you are trying to make (there are positive trials) has already been covered in the lede, by citing two secondary sources on that matter. 2. We are not using primary sources because the underlying statistics predict 5% of the studies being false positives/negatives. 3. Of all things, this article is not the best choice to show your goodwill, especially when you are clearly biased against reporting the scientific consent. Rka001 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time for any 'wikicombat', so I won't even edit this article. I did read the matter at WP:MEDRS. Now, as a rookie/novice here, I want to know what wikipedia's official policy is. It claims to be an encyclopedia and like say, the Encyclopedia Brittannica should simply explain what homeopathy is (I object to the words pseudoscience, nonsense, quackery or a sham, placebos etc. in this article), but almost all the comp. and alt. med. articles, including articles on its advocates/practitioners (like Deepak Chopra) are attack pieces. If I'm right, we can at least have an NPOV tag at the top of this article.—Khabboos (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is easily looked up and from a quick glance at your talk page it would appear the policies have been explained to you many times. A NPOV tag is not appropriate on this article and this matter has been discussed endlessly. See the archives for this talk page if you want a more detailed answer. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article cites published sytematic reviews and analyses rather than cherry-picked "positive" trials. By their very nature, systematic reviews include the "positive" trials. We don't need to include them twice, and doing this would give them undue weight. Brunton (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, I can't keep searching for it (there are so many pages to search), so can you tell me what the objection to the NPOV tag was, in brief.—Khabboos (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article reports the scientific consensus, supported by the types of source recommended by WP:MEDRS. The words that you object to including are also adequately sourced. Brunton (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't feel offended, but isn't that what others are saying about Homeopathy and not how an encyclopedia should explain Homeopathy (wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia right)?—Khabboos (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You fail to understand Wikipedia. Articles here do far more than "explain". They cover every aspect of the subject which can be found in RS. That includes controversies and opinions, not just the dry facts of what and how. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just read citizendium's article on Homeopathy (which seems to be much better than this wikipedia article) and feel that we can use their references - the studies and mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Any comments?—Khabboos (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we use the references cited at citizendium here in this section of 'our' article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as we wouldn't have an article explaining what flat earthers believe without pointing out that their beliefs are patently contradicted by the scientific evidence, we don't have a homeopathy article explaining what practitioners believe without highlighting the abundance of evidence that demonstrates it is nonsense. That is in conformance with NPOV requirements. Creating a false balance is NOT in line with NPOV policies. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Citizendium operates under very different rules than we do - and the result is an encyclopedia that not many people trust enough to actually read. It has an Alexia rank in the 300,000 range and it's getting worse every month - where Wikipedia's rank is more or less always between 5 and 10. (That means that only half a dozen websites in the entire world are read more widely than Wikipedia - and a third of a million web sites are more widely read than Citizendium). Given that they are both publicly-editable free-access comprehensive encyclopedias - you have to wonder why that is.

Wikipedia's guiding principle on this kind of subject is that we unflinchingly take the mainstream scientific view. No serious, properly run systematic review has ever shown homeopathy to be any better than placebo - which is why we use that word a lot in our article. Yes, we also use the word "pseudoscience" - please look up the definition of that word before you assume it's some kind of derogatory term - it's not. It means that this is a field of study that makes claims of a scientifically predictive, testable nature (you give someone treatment X and their illness Y is made better Z% of the time) - but it's practitioners don't follow the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, peer review, publication, systematic review, theory). Nobody can deny that fact - homeopathists don't do proper double-blind placebo-controlled experiments on statistically reasonable numbers of subjects...they do a "proving" and leap from trying it on one person to saying "Behold! We have a new wonderdrug!". We also use the words "nonsense", "quackery" and "sham" - they are in a sentence that says: "The continued practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[21] quackery,[4][22][23] or a sham." - we're not saying that it necessarily is any of those things - we're saying that mainstream science has "characterized" it as those things...for which we have multiple references - and which is obviously a notable fact about Homeopathy that (given WIkipedia's stated rules about following the mainstream scientific view) it would be biassed reporting if we chose to suppress it.

Personally: If you're trying to impress admins with how well you work in the Wikipedia community - you're going completely the wrong way about it - and I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you've been the subject of a topic ban. What you should be doing with your time is to get familiar with our community rules, guidelines and standards and doing more asking than telling. For sure, Wikipedia says that alt medicine is bunkum - it says that because that's the belief of mainstream science - and that is one of our guiding principles. As an editor interested in working in this kind of an article, you need to get familiar with those kinds of policy. If you've read - but don't agree with - that guiding principle, then you're in deep trouble because it's held at the very highest levels of the organization and produces strong keep consensus whenever it's discussed. There are other online encyclopedias (and perhaps Citizendium is one of them) who might feel differently - but that's their decision, not ours. Anyone can set up an "online encyclopedia" with any set of rules they want - and the readers will decide which of them is the most useful. The Alexia rankings are (in effect) a measure of the efficacy of the founding principles of these websites - and Wikipedia has clearly gotten it right in areas where Citizendium has failed miserably.

However, Wikipedia is by far the most trusted and widely read encyclopedia in the world - and I'd suggest that part of the reason for that is precisely because we take the mainstream view and don't allow crazy theories like Homeopathy to represent themselves as "THE TRUTH".

If you don't like that - then you don't have to continue to work here. But don't expect anything you say here to persuade us to say anything other than what proper hard-core science has to say on this topic - and that is most certainly that it's a pile of steaming bullshit.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

When wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, its articles should be encyclopedic, not attack pieces, right? (Smile)—Khabboos (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's only an attack piece if you assume the views of a homeopathist. If I were a believer in homeopathy, then probably, I would feel attacked by an article that says that everything I stand for is bullshit. On the other hand, a mainstream scientist who's spent their career studying human biochemistry, doing clever experiments, trying his best to cure cancer is going to feel every bit as badly attacked if we say that telling cancer patients to drink 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 diluted dog milk (yes, really!)...will cure them so much better than all that nasty science stuff. So in any controversial subject area, you're never going to please everyone...and if you're an information provider, you shouldn't even try. Instead, we have to pick a position on these matters that's 'neutral' - and write from that neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). In the case of medical and scientific articles, WIkipedia mandates (quite strongly) that the mainstream scientific view is the neutral position. So to be neutral in this matter, we say that science is right and homeopathists are wrong. Sure, someone gets upset - but the truth is often like that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line here: You have to argue either:

1. Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV/FRINGE/etc in matters like this are wrong...or...
2. Editors of this article are not following the WIkipedia guidelines.

Those are the only two arguments that carry any weight whatever. If it's (1) that is your beef (and I think it is) - then go to the pages describing those policies and try to get them changed (good luck with that! It's never going to happen!)....if it's (2) and you think we're disobeying Wikipedias guidelines - then please point out the specific section of the rules/policies/guidelines that you think we're infringing and we can talk about whether that's really a problem or not.

What won't work here (and will eventually land you with another topic ban for disruption) is arguing that homeopathy is true and that's what we should say. That's irrelevant because we have plenty of references for what the article says. SteveBaker (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK Steve, don't get mad with me, but if I say it's (1), how do I request a change of policy (never mind the result)?—Khabboos (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Each policy page has its own associated talk page for discussion of edits to that policy. Overall, policies are governed by wp:POLICY. For less specific issues, such as "what policy addresses XYZ" questions, try asking at wp:Village pump (policy). That said, it's far more productive to first understand policies before setting out to change them. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, LSD!—Khabboos (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not mad with you! If you really think that you want to try to get the policies on representing the mainstream scientific communities view as the neutral position - then (as LeadSongDog points out), you need to find the policy in question and discuss it on the associated talk page with the people who maintain that policy. However, in the case of the policy on the position of science and fringe theories, one has to appeal to a higher power because this policy comes about after a decision from "ArbCom" - and changing ArbCom decisions is a nightmare - they are kinda like the "Supreme Court" of WIkipedia. The idea that we follow the mainstream scientific view here has been stated and re-stated many times, by everyone from Jimbo down. If you plan to raise an issue with them - you'd better have a very clear, reasoned and concise set of arguments that hasn't already been talked to death before. If you start wasting their time with the kind of approach you've taken here - then you'll get very short shrift indeed.

• You need to read all of the links, findings and whatever from: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases - note particularly the lede, which says "Arbitration Committee rulings constitute the final step in the dispute resolution process."...yeah - final. The only way to get these kinds of decisions changed is to find radically new arguments that nobody has considered before. Merely repeating what's been said (and ruled upon) in that group before will get you thrown out in zero time flat!

• Note that one of those ArbCom rulings "...encourages administrators to apply discretionary sanctions to prevent disruption in articles related to pseudoscience and fringe science broadly construed." - meaning that people working around these topics are on a hair-trigger. The slightest hint of disruption could easily get you kicked out of Wikipedia forever...especially considering your recent history and topic-ban. So tread extremely carefully.

• Truly, honestly, this is such a core principle of Wikipedia that you really, REALLY stand no chance whatever of getting it changed.

• Note that one ArbCom ruling applies specifically to Homeopathy - and it was put in place precisely to deal with people trying to do exactly what you're trying to do (removing words like "pseudoscience" from an article that is very clearly about a pseudoscientific topic). Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy...so, again, beware! You're walking into a minefield.

• There is a strong consensus for the present position. To overturn a consensus, you need to get overwhelming support - near unanimity for your position. Do you really think you have any arguments that can do that?

SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew that this article was and still is under discretionary sanctions and that is why I haven't edited it yet. I will be careful in future also, thanks for the advice Steve!—Khabboos (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Steve, that may be an old link (re arbcom ruling). That's from 2008 and is mostly struck out. I think this should be the current link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that Melanie. It also lead to a note written by Jimbo on this subject that I was trying to track down - so it was doubly useful.

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html

It's well worth a read, no matter which side of the "Homeopathy is/isn't pseudoscience" debate you're on.

There is a also a nice, simple, easy-to-understand ArbCom ruling which bears quoting here:

• " Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." - which passed on an 8-0 vote, seven years ago, and has never been revoked. Since mainstream scientists are generally agreed that Homeopathy is false - and universally agreed that its proponents are not following the scientific method, the ArbCom ruling says that we categorize it as pseudoscience. The only way to avoid that is to find references in solid scientific publications that say that it's not pseudoscience - or overturning the ArbCom decision. Since neither is remotely likely ever to occur - the pseudoscience label stays here.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

May I ask who are the members of the arbitration committe as I would like to enquire as to their disclosures regarding conflict of interest and, as to the ruling never being remotely changed may I add a note of caution and say never say never particularly in matters of science. At the same time as a newbie would you please tell me what is meant by the term discretionary sanctions attached here, this seems odd as wiki doesnot have a central editorial board (Topgrad (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC))80.2.37.152 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) 80.2.37.152 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

This is getting a little beyond the scope of this talk page - but members of ArbCom are listed at WP:ARBCOM - which links to their personal Wiki pages. They are elected to ArbCom by open vote - you'd probably have to look at the questions and answers given during the election to find out what (if any) affiliations they reveal. That same WP:ARBCOM page leads to a document describing discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. You'll note that Homeopathy and Cold Fusion are specifically called out in that article, under the area of pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Topgrad, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read the section just above this - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentions further above which I'm linking to here (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Please remove the following text. ...a pseudoscience and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.

Replace it with. ... "a system and philosophy of medicine born from acute observations that substances ingested by humans have presentations of symptomatology common to themselves and when matched closely to a specific individual's symptomatic presentation can produce a curing effect. One of the first observations of this principle was from Hippocrates, commonly recognized as the father of modern medicine. "

Reason for edit: (Requesting more substantive changes and reliable sources.) Calling homeopathy an ineffective pseudoscience is not correct and does not do justice to one of the two basic and founding principles of medicine, the treatment with similar rather than opposite medicines. The break with modern science occurs within an aspect of homeopathy in which the remedies are diluted beyond Avogadro's number. This, however only takes place in the higher potency (more dilute) prescriptions and not with lower potency (less dilute) prescriptions. Homeopathy has always had, low and high potency prescribers advocating their respective positions. It would not be correct to advocate for either one within a definition of Homeopathy. Also, Homeopathy is not an archaic form of medicine as there are thousands of active practitioners today. As Homeopathy is highly criticized by allopathic practitioners and promoters, and also highly politically and competitively, contentious within and between its own practitioner base, it is best to state the principles and leave out the judgements. As to Homeopathy's efficacy, besides the thousands of successfully treated patients from every civilized country in the world, the principle of the "law of similars" is well born out as a true and scientific principle through common observation and, in principle, used in commonly accepted treatments for snake bites, hangovers, and in vaccinations (the main difference not in principal, but being the material strength of the dosage) (the more concentrated the dosage the greater the toxic risk). This is the reason for Hahnemann's dilutions, a desire to effect a cure and "do no harm". Cruscntrl (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we were born yesterday. Not Done. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cruscntrl, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read the section just above this - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned in the section above which I'm linking to here (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos:, it would seem you have not yet read the material I linked. Please do so. The above is certainly not reflective of an accurate reading. WP:RS pertains to all articles, not just those about CAM. WP:MEDRS interprets and clarifies the application of WP:RS in the context of medical assertions and all articles about medicine, including CAM. In every subject area, the underlying principle is that we should use the most reliable sources we can identify, and then reflect the thrust of what those sources say in our rephrased content. We avoid adding our own interpretation, per wp:NOR, wp:SYN, and various others. My comment above was definitely NOT a suggestion to complain, but to do the work of first understanding and learning to work within the policies which have been formed by consensus of the community over many years of discussion among a lot of intelligent, involved editors. Until one actually understands the policies and the discussion that formed them, one is unlikely to be able to make any constructive change to them. In short, one has to do the homework. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

We've mentioned Deepak Chopra in this article as a proponent, but in the biography we have about him here at Deepak Chopra, there is no mention of homeopathy, so I think we should delete his name from this article or add a sentence citing a reference for his statement about homeopathy in his wikipedia biography.—Khabboos (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all the proponents should be sourced properly in the article. I don't know why they're not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't found any RS to support him being specifically a proponent of homoeopathy so I'll remove the mention. Brunton (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Subsequent proponents

I think the whole "Subsequent proponents" section of the infobox needs revision. Help:Infobox says that the infobox should summarise important points from the article, and that it should not include material that "would not otherwise be included in the article body". What we largely have under "Individuals" is an assortment of individual homeopaths, only one of whom is mentioned in the article (and several of which are redlinks). I suggest that we remove any individual homoeopaths who aren't mentioned in the article from the infobox, and only include individuals mentioned in the article as important in the development and history of homoeopathy, for example James Tyler Kent, Royal S. Copeland (for his role in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) and George Vithoulkas (who is mentioned in the article as being given credit by some homoeopaths for the revival of homoeopathy in the late 20th century). The "Organizations" listed all seem to be manufacturers of homoeopathic medicines. Brunton (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we remove all the names of the subsequent proponents, as well as delete the names of all the "organizations" listed (just above that); none of them are WP:Notable.—Khabboos (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)