Talk:Homeopathy

Homeopathy and hormesis

I have identified two papers discussing how homeopathy might actually be a subset of hormesis [1] and how it might be able to be "integrated into mainstream biomedical assessment and clinical practice." [2] I think it is OK to add this to the article because Human & Experimental Toxicology is a respectable journal with a decent impact factor, but I want to get some feedback on whether there is consensus on adding information sourced to these papers first. Everymorning talk to me 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We don't, per WP:MEDRS, base content on single primary-source articles. Where is the evidence that anyone but the authors consider these articles significant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought that, since they didn't describe original research or results, then they were, in a sense, review articles and therefore were compliant with MEDRS, but evidently this may not be the case. Everymorning talk to me 02:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct.These articles dont describe original research or results, then they are review articles and therefore are compliant with MEDRS. --Neb46545 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that they are two different things, and shouldn't be conflated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They will not if one uses the sources as MEDRS dictates.--Neb46545 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly call this [3] a 'review' - having looked at it, I'd say that 'speculation' would be a better description. It cites nothing resembling a description of any specific treatment for anything. It also seems to be based on an assumption entirely contrary to current understanding of homoeopathic 'remedies' in that it states that they operate in the low-dose range. It has been amply demonstrated that to the contrary, homoeopathic 'remedies' repeatedly diluted in the normal manner contain no 'dose' whatsoever. And regardless of whether this speculation complied with WP:MEDRS or not, we still have no evidence that anyone but the authors take the suggestion that hormesis and homeopathy are in any meaningful sense connected seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Homeopathy+and+hormesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=SE55VP2sFMaBsQTDtIEQ&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA I think that there is evidence that "hormesis and homeopathy are in any meaningful sense connected seriously"--Neb46545 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC),

Would not use, per WP:WEIGHT. I see no indication that this has been widely accepted (4 cites by google scholar, two self-cites, one self published book and one foreign language dissertation). The actual text appears to be nothing but speculation how it might work, and a "note" in one of the article stating "Some forms of homeopathy claim that clinical and biological effects occur when dilutions are made beyond Avogardro’s number. Clearly these are not hormetic effects..." basically seals the deal about how useless it is, as homeopathy generally requires high dilution past this level. Yobol (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Hormesis refers to low doses, homeopathy uses ZERO doses...none of the active ingredient left at all. The effect of serial dilutions is to leave (statistically) less than one molecule of the active ingredient left - ZERO amounts of it. Hormesis requires a significant amount of the substance to be present in order to trigger the reaction to it in the body without providing enough to do serious damage. If you look at the very top of our article on hormesis, there is a graph of stimulation/inhibition versus dose - and you'll note that the curve is below the line for very low doses...so even if homeopathy were to be applied in lesser dilutions where some of the active ingredient remains, hormesis would predict that it would have no effect. So, no....homeopathy isn't a "subset" - it's an entirely different thing and it's claims are actually contradictory to those of hormesis. So this is nonsense, and any suggestion otherwise is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and doesn't bear consideration without WP:MEDRS-grade sources to back it up...which you evidently don't have. SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside that those are principally speculative commentaries rather than proper review articles, and the issues with MEDRS and WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT) compliance already identified, it strikes me as immediately obvious that neither article actually draws the conclusion that homeopathy is "a subset of hormesis". In other words, even if those sources were acceptable, they wouldn't support the proposed addition to the Wikipedia article.

The first paper, Oberbaum et al., lists five major differences between hormesis and homeopathy in its abstract – a far-from-exhaustive list, incidentally – and then suggests (for no particularly good reason) the someone should try introducing homeopathic methods (like the magic bottle-whacking) into hormesis-based experiments to see if it can make hormesis more potent.

The second paper, Calabrese and Jonas, speculates that some fraction of homeopathic practice might work through hormesis-based effects; again, even its abstract notes that the relevant doses associated with hormesis are measurable and significant, "...unlike most forms of homeopathy." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonas of course is a believer. There is a homeopathist called Joette Calabrese: I wonder if she is related to Edward of that ilk? Guy (Help!) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of explaining to homeopathy believers why hormesis does not validate homoeopathy. We have an article: hormesis. Read it. Look at the graphs. Pay particular attention to what happens to the dose-response relationship as dose tends to zero. Compare and contrast this with the homeopathy claim that dilution increases potency. For bonus marks, read and understand bioavailability. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You can personally believe whatever you want about the above reviews - ( non sense etc) however they are published in high quality sources and a serious and unbiased encyclopedia should report their point of view, Not as a prominent view of course - but as something which exists in high quality scientific literature. --Neb46545 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They are, however, written by proponents, and clearly have not changed the scientific consensus view. Wikipedia is not an exercise in mining every single statement ever made for or against something. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Human & Experimental Toxicology is a low-impact venue (in the bottom quartile, which puts it into the long tail of scientific publications). It's not that it's necessarily an out-and-out bad journal, but no researcher goes out and buys rounds of drinks to celebrate "Our paper got into Hum. Exp. Toxicol!", either. A bit of speculative wishful in its pages doesn't a notable occurrence make. In other words, even if (arguendo) we were to set aside RS (or MEDRS) concerns, we thoroughly fail to clear the bar of WP:UNDUE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the abstract for the first cited article states that "hormesis is potentially a subset of homeopathy", not that "homeopathy is potentially a subset of hormesis", a simple twist of words which implies the accepted validity of homeopathy - an assumption which is unsubstantiated. It is also important to recognize that papers such as these are suggesting putative mechanisms of action for a phenomenon which has never been demonstrated to actually exist. If properly designed, executed, and statistically treated trials can demonstrate that homeopathy actually has an effect, then it may be time to discuss the putative mechanisms of action, but not before. Discussions of alien abductions are not polluted with theories of how extraterrestrials might have been able to travel faster than the speed of light to get here; there's no place for such musings in the absence of a foregone conclusion that such phenomena actually exist. -Puddin'Head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition to lead

An addition to the lead claimed that Swiss Medical Weekly had reported that "a report for the Swiss government, shows homeopathy is effective, appropriate, safe and economic". I have reverted this (unfortunately I somehow managed to complete the edit before I had completed my edit summary) because it doesn't adequately summarise the discussion of this in the article. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health has repudiated the version of the report in question, which is not the report prepared for the Swiss government but a later expanded version of it. When the original version of the report was submitted to the Swiss government 6 years earlier the "PEK" of which it was part resulted in the Swiss government withdrawing funding of homoeopathy. Additionally, the source used cannot be used to support the statement that was added to the lead per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE as a comment from it is being used, out of context, to support a statement it doesn't actually make; the source says that the report was "proclaimed by proponents of homeopathy" as evidence for homoeopathy, and the source is highly critical of the report, describing it as "scientifically, logically and ethically flawed". Brunton (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well done. The claim, endlessly recirculated by quackery apologists, is entirely false. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Right sources

I am going to show here some sources for use in this article, for those editors who want to talk well or righteouness about homeopathy. regards.

You can use this article for a right source:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10433939/Prince-Charles-and-homeopathy-crank-or-revolutionary.html

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The article above is an irrelevant appeal to authority. Opinions of the British royal family do not constitute expertise in any medical field. Notably, the article states, "Charles’s faith in alternative medicine is grounded in the teachings of the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung and German philosopher Kurt Hahn, which adhere to ancient healing processes emphasising the treatment of the patient as a whole. His speech prompted the BMA to set up an inquiry (which found, in 1986, no scientific proof that any homeopathic treatments worked), and cleaved an ideological rift between Charles and much of the medical profession that endures to this day."--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You can use this other article for a another right source:

• http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/11/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-homeopathic-preparations

--Pediainsight (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not seem to sufficiently understand the source material. The cited source starts off by stating that "raising awareness of homeopathy is the quickest way to dispel any belief in it". The source goes on to unambiguously state quite forcefully that homeopathy is not only ineffective, but also that it causes harm as a result of its proponents' neglect of legitimate treatments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I like this new source - let's use it with Jeffro's quotes. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It fails MEDRS by leaps and bounds. -A1candidate 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The article may be anti-homeopathy, but it goes into useful detail on the concepts and principles of the philosophy and give some examples of how it's used in modern society. So, the article would be helpful to add some detail to this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice article (and very painfully accurate about the ineffectiveness of homoeopathy), but it is an opinion piece by a homeopathic skeptic at the end of the day. It can be used with that caveat. Some of the links may also be useful, however. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To provide some context to my comments above, Pediainsight is a proponent of homeopathy, but does not appear to have read beyond the title of the article he's endorsing. The article rightly asserts the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, and I do not object to using the article as a source, but it doesn't "talk well or righteou[s]ness about homeopathy" in the manner inferred by Pediainsight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be wary - any proponent of homeopathy could (justifiably) cry foul with material discussing negative medical aspects sourced from the guardian. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It would depend on how the source were used. It would not be suitable as a source for a scientific perspective, but would be entirely appropriate in a section such as Public opposition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An article like this can be useful when it republishes information originally taken from self-published sources. Normally, we wouldn't be able to use those sources because they're self-published, but when they get washed through a newspaper article like this, it puts the information in the form of a reliable source. I appreciate it that everyone here is stating that we're not here to take a side on the veracity of homeopathy, since WP's NPOV policy prohibits us, as WP editors, from taking a side in WP's voice in the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - we go on what sources say and ensure we use reliable ones and weight accordingly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate: It doesn't matter if The Guardian fails WP:MEDRS - homeopathy fails to be medicine, after all. Marsh is a widely respected source on fraudulent claims. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Indeed, Homeopaths Without Borders – a group of doubtlessly well-meaning folk – are flying into places of crisis in the developing world carrying suitcases full of homeopathic tablets that contain nothing but sugar. It is not so much Médecins Sans Frontières as Médecins Sans Medicine." Ouch. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent CBC news coverage on homeopathic nosodes being touted in lieu of real vaccines may be useful. [4][5] LeadSongDog come howl! 01:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic seems to be heating up: [6][7] It appears that various provinces' Public Health Officers, heads of colleges, and Ministers of Health are taking strong positions against the licensing of these products. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

“Homeopathy has been proven to be no more effective than placebo.”

This is nonsense. Herbal medicine has been proven effective and used for thousands of years. Whoever wrote this Wikipedia page is obviously working for the pharmaceutical industries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane955 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not herbal medicine. Also, it's not about who wrote it, but based on which sources: those are indicated by the numbers that you can find after the sentence that you quote. Darkdadaah (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the rest of the article to find out what homeopathy is before you defend it as something that it has nothing to do with. You may also want to look into the notion of "proof" before suggesting that herbal medicine has been proven effective.-puddin'head198.11.31.81 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

true, this has nothing to do with herbs. This is a theory that the more diluted a medicine is (the less active ingredient there is) the more effective the treatment is. While it may be possible that herbs may play a role in some homeopathic treatments they are not the main focus.

--64.229.166.239 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be that some homeopathic 'treatments' used a herb of some kind as their starting point. However, whatever it was will be diluted by the homeopathic process to the point where there is none left - so any the connection to the original herb is gone. For that reason, you can't connect the occasional success of herbal treatments to the universal failure of homeopathy. It's an entirely unrelated subject. SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is nonsense, but I add that it is more than that: it is ignorance and disrespect. Very primitive and old-fashioned...It disrespects the millions of people that throughout time had amazing results with homoeopathy. Many allopathic physicians are also homeopath and they can testify about the efficacy of homeopathy. I would also add that placebo theory in what regards H. efficacy. About placebo I would just say: animals are great beneficiaries of h. treatments with great results and virtually no side effects. TSS. 93.108.50.46 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

JAMA

Please, use this quote for do a defense in this article about homeopathy:

An article published in the March 4, 1998, issue of JAMA observed: “For many patients suffering from chronic problems that lack a specific diagnosis, homeopathy may be an important and useful treatment option. If used within its limits, homeopathy could complement modern medicine as, ‘another tool in the bag.’”

--Pediainsight (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:MEDDATE. Not a review article. -A1candidate 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this a review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#cite_note-inquiry_4504-8? No- I wonder why don't you object to its inclusion to support the statement that Homeopathy is placebo ? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The quoted text ignores the context of the student submission from which it was taken, which does not claim that homeopathy is effective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You use this to support the sentence - homeopathy = placebo. This is not a review. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A seventeen-year-old quote cherry-picked from a short opinion letter in the medical students' section of JAMA (msJAMA) isn't really the sort of high-quality source we're looking for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

More particularly, the letter merely summarizes the claims of homeopathy - it offers no evidence of any kind to support these claims. The current introduction on the active Wikipedia page already acknowledges these claims and offers appropriate citations. Regardless of the (low) quality of the JAMA letter, it doesn't offer any value to the current Wikipedia article. - Puddin'head198.11.28.36 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this kind of quotation serves little purpose in the article (especially in the lead), Pediainsight has a habit of copying material from literature published by the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). His quote here, including his introduction to the JAMA quote, is actually lifted from the journal, Awake! of 22 October 2000, page 9. It states:

An article published in the March 4, 1998, issue of JAMA observed: “For many patients suffering from chronic problems that lack a specific diagnosis, homeopathy may be an important and useful treatment option. If used within its limits, homeopathy could complement modern medicine as, ‘another tool in the bag.’”

It is a direct copy and paste from that source, and Pediainsight should say where he got it rather than giving incomplete details about the source he claims to have found it in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and Pediainsight has alreasy been given the standard AE warnings; I suggest that he/she stops doing this, or a topic ban will be the inevitable result. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), of November 11, 1998, observed: “Alternative medical therapies, functionally defined as interventions neither taught widely in medical schools nor generally available in US hospitals, have attracted increased national attention from the media, the medical community, governmental agencies, and the public.”

What do you think about if we use this comment or content on the article? --Pediainsight (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First, this quote addresses the broad and ill-defined vacuum of "alternative medicine" and not any particulars of homeopathy. "Alternative" medicine is simply medicine which has not been shown to work or, in many cases, has been shown not to work. Second, it posits an appeal to popularity in an effort to substantiate a tautology - in other words, it suggests that, although "alternative" medicine is defined as 'alternative' because it is not acknowledged as effective by those who practice evidence based medicine, it has attracted attention from the media, the government, and the public. No one denies any of this. The question is, why should anyone care? It's no different than stating that the Kardashians are defined as vapid twits, but they attract attention from the media and the public. The statement is undeniably true, but it doesn't offer any substance that establishes the value of the Kardashians, let alone homeopathy. - Puddin'head198.11.28.36 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This latest quote 'supplied' by Pediainsight, including his introductory text, is copied verbatim from the same issue of Awake! (22 October 2000) as his prior attempt, but this time from page 3. Because Pediainsight is simply quote-mining JW literature that has in turn quote-mined JAMA, Pediainsight is paying no respect to the context of the material he's citing. The quote is not useful. Pediainsight, you have been told previously that you are supposed to say where you read it rather than dishonestly quote-mining JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pediainsight, you may also want to take a moment to ask yourself: "is this REALLY the best evidence that I can find - after 219 years - to support the notion that homeopathy is any more than a suggestion that Mr. Snuffleupagus actually exists?". I appreciate that such a statement may be perceived as offensive, but that is not my intent. I am only trying to point out the fact that the Wikipedia article, as it stands, simply reflects the aggregate best available evidence. The cherry-picking of poorly conceived quotes doesn't do anything to contradict 219 years of failure, particularly when that failure is coupled to an utter void of any plausible mechanism by which one could expect anything other than said manifest failure. - Puddin'head198.11.28.36 (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If homeopathy do not works, why is working now the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and others homeopathic hospitals in U.K, in Mexico, India, and why worked other hospitals in the past, in other countries on XIX - XX centuries? --Pediainsight (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for personal debate on whether homeopathy works. Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, bases content on published reliable sources - and by policy, the appropriate sources for medical content are review articles in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, and similar sources of recognised academic status. And the consensus amongst such sources is overwhelming. They state that homeopathy has no more effect than a placebo, and accordingly this article will say the same thing. Wikipedia policy is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is overwhelming ----------- if you do not count and of course edit out all reliable sources which don't support the notion that homeopathy has no more effect than a placebo Then yes ---you are right. .--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathic hospitals

Please improve this section and introduce it on the article:

In India, Mexico and U.K are working homeopathic hospitals. In U.K. there are four homeopathic hospitals; two are The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and The Glasgow hospital built in 1999.

--Pediainsight (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not an improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Details about India and Mexico not in cited sourced, but that is essentially unimportant, since the existence of an institution or product is not evidence of the effectiveness of the product or service. The existence of homeopathic hospitals is already mentioned in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As well, it's a very selective (mis)use of the cited source. The linked article appears mostly to be about how the number of homeopathic hospitals in the UK is dwindling due to sharply declining funding and homeopathy's (deservedly) poor reputation. In particular, the Glasgow facility has soft-pedaled its association with homeopathy (renaming itself from a "Homeopathic Hospital" to a "Centre for Integrative Care"), and offers a range of complementary and conventional medical treatments. The article discusses how adding further non-homeopathy facilities to the hospital's offerings (a chronic pain center) is one way that they might be able to keep their doors open. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Therefore your ideal readers should not know that "In U.K. there are four homeopathic hospitals; two are The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and The Glasgow hospital built in 1999" ? Is this irrelevant in a article about homeopathy ? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary in the lead, and certainly not in a manner that takes the cited sourceas a quoted sound bite taken out of context. The article expresses doubt about the future of the hospital, which probably wouldn't continue to exist if it does not introduce valid medical services. The existence of homeopathic hospitals is already indicated in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So the readers do not need to know specifically --- that 4 homeopathic hospitals exist? I wonder why? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The number of such hospitals in the UK certainly doesn't need to mentioned in the lead, as it is undue weight to a particular location, and intended as a misleading endorsement of homeopathy. Wikipedia is not a directory, and doesn't need to indicate the specific number of such facilities in any particular locale.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It could be included in the body of the article - Undue weight as "intended as a misleading endorsement of homeopathy." ? You must be kidding me. Only in this talk page stating facts can be regarded as giving ...Undue weight and or "intended as a misleading endorsement of homeopathy-- It seems that you are worrying that some readers might be thinking - hey they are people who go to 2 homeopathic hospitals in the UK-- Maybe homeopathy works or they are crazy? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are attempting to shift the goalposts. I quite clearly stated that it doesn't belong in the lead. The existence of homeopathic hospitals is already indicated in the article. The specific number is trivial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggested its inclusion in the body of the article. The number of the hospitals is trivial? I think it is reasonable the readers to know about homeopathy practice in detail in an article about homeopathy and not to be ignorant. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Another of the reasons that "the readers do not need to know specifically --- that 4 homeopathic hospitals exist" in the UK is that they don't. The Liverpool hospital closed in 1976 [8], being replaced by the Liverpool Department of Homeopathic Medicine at the Old Swan Health Centre, a GP practice. This has also been closed by the local PCT, and the doctors involved have formed something called a "community interest company", also based at the Old Swan.[9] The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital was transferred to the South Bristol Community Hospital following a report [10] showing reducing patient numbers, and the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital has been rebranded as the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine "in order more accurately to reflect the nature of its work."[11] The situation of NHS "homoeopathic hospitals" in the UK is only really relevant in the context of the declining usage of homoeopathy in the NHS, and is adequately covered in the appropriate article.[12] Brunton (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course compared to the current state of the article - you know editing out every reliable source which disputes the notion homeopathy is placebo - that's not so serious: why readers should know about the number of homeopathic hospitals ? We are trying to convince them that homeopathy does not work and no one cares about it anymore. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As you have been told repeatedly, the existence of homeopathic hospitals is already indicated in the article, and the article also indicates that there are proponents of homeopathy. The number of homeopathic hospitals is trivial, and you have already been informed that some of those mentioned in the source have either closed or had their purpose changed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"The article also indicates that there are proponents of homeopathy"? Oh this so neutral! - Ok - You guys are so kind. Thanks. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is to reflect mainstream views of the subject. Perhaps you do not understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Given the great preponderance of sources that report that homeopathy is not effective, the view to the contrary must not be given undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well - As I said the "preponderance" of sources reporting homeopathy is not effective is great because you choose to edit out all the other equally reliable sources which report quite differently --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion is a lie, and citing an archived discussion that I wasn't involved in is just stupid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is a lie and I m not so intelligent. Can't you tell? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with your false claim that I have edited out sources promoting homeopathy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to realize that the value of the meta-analyses you are promoting is dependent on the value of the data that they are analyzing and that, in light of several other meta-analyses establishing a lack of effect when considering the same pool of primary papers, and in light of the lack of any plausible mechanism of how homeopathy would work, it is reasonable to look at the quality of the studies that are informing your analysis of choice. For instance, your second source suggests that the inclusion of smaller studies yields results in favor of homeopathy. The problem is that most of those smaller studies are, often by the author's own admission, statistically underpowered. While this generally is interpreted as increasing the risk of false negative outcomes, it can also lead to false positive results, particularly in the case of claims such as homeopathic efficacy where there is little evidence to suggest that any real effect should be expected. Your proposed article also includes papers from Jacobs et al. (found here and here) which are either acknowledged to be underpowered by the authors or are based on a small sample size and do not give any information that would allow for one to calculate the power, but it ignores a larger, properly powered paper by the same group which found no evidence of effect beyond that of placebo. Running a meta-analysis on a collection of low quality, underpowered studies does nothing to inform any useful conclusions; it simply makes for a low quality meta-analysis. In other words, 1000 x 0 = 0. Better quality analyses which treat data from better quality studies find that there is no effect beyond placebo and it is these studies that should be included in the article. - Puddin'head207.93.211.50 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not you personally . It was the royal you. I meant the group which controls the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs)

I don't see why we can't mention the number of hospitals in the body, assuming that we know how many there are. Detailed information about specific countries would probably be better suited for Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. However, we should quite obviously not present outdated information, and if our sources indicate that the prevalence of hospitals are decreasing, that would be appropriate to include as well. Do we have a current and accurate source for any of this?

No group controls the article. WP policy controls the article, which is slated towards science and reliable sources. If you don't like our coverage, present better sources or find another wiki that has different policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with stating the number of homeopathic hospitals worldwide in this article if the sources give the number. By the way, if any of you here get frustrated with being stonewalled or hectored by some of the regulars here, don't lash back at them. Send me an email over my WP account if you'd like to talk about it further. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It was given before above, But sure (even it is a minor thing and it does not change the quality of the article from anti homeopathy propaganda to accurate information) it is something people should know. In my opinion anyway. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Two sources were provided; one from 1998 that was shown to be significantly out of date, and another that discusses only one homeopathic hospital ("Scotland's only"), and how it may soon be converted. Neither of these establishes "the number of homeopathic hospitals in the uk", which is what you are trying to add. Again: "Do we have a current and accurate source for any of this?"   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Here. By the way in reply to your comment "WP policy controls the article, which is slated towards science and reliable sources" : I brought several examples above which reliable sources have been edited out because they don't concur with the one sided information the article provides. This is not part of wiki policy of course. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Again... out of date. Two of those four websites our down, and other sources attest to them being defunct. We're not going to put incorrect information into the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If the source is old, you just put, "As of 2005 (or whatever it is on the date of that source) there were X number of homeopathic hospitals worldwide". Easy. I support adding the number to this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we then state that, as of 2015, most of theses hospitals cease to exist and have been proposed to have little value, as is indicated by their current operational status and the current literature.? Seems easier to just leave it out all together.-Puddin'head207.93.211.50 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cla Absolutely not... because it's not 2005 any more. Per sources, we could say there is one remaining hospital in the uk. I don't see any sources documenting worldwide numbers, and none sufficiently recent to indicate more than one in the uk.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's put in the text that there is one homeopathic hospital in the UK. What did the other source say about the numbers worldwide? It wouldn't suprise me if in countries like India or Brazil where homeopathy is widely practiced there are quite a few more. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The number of hospitals seems pretty trivial, particularly since exclusively homeopathic facilities do not seem to exist any more in Europe. Expanding information on the prevalence in general would be more informative, but that should go in Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, not this parent article. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Just how broad is the definition of a "homeopathic" hospital, and would we be in danger of overstating their number or significance? There's a substantial difference between a facility devoted substantially or exclusively to homeopathic remedies (warning, video contains humo(u)r) and one that happens to offer access to homeopathic treatments as part of a much larger spectrum of services. On its face, the phrase "homeopathic hospital" would seem to suggest the former—but as used in the UK example would seem to actually be much more the latter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in support of stating the number of homeopathic hospitals worldwide, but we have no current source for it, and I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that a "homeopathic hospital" focused exclusively on homeopathy. If it just includes homeopathy alongside a typical medical regimen, I don't see how the distinction between it and some other homeopathic practice is significant. We shouldn't try to match sources to content we want to add; we should derive content from the sources we have, and right now we have none. Until that changes, let's move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Placebo or not?

This is one only example. In reply to your comment -Puddin'head about the properly powered paper by the same group - this is false. This was not individualized homeopathy - You compare different things- The one shows no difference between placebo the other ( individualized homeopathy does show a difference] http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2000.6.131 Conclusions: These results are consistent with the finding from the previous study that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea. This is what I mean : if with different tricks one falsely summarizes the evidence then of course "all research" "taken together" (by distorting the findings and methods of course) shows that homeopathy is just placebo. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I did not say that these papers were addressing the same claim, only that the larger trial which found no effect beyond placebo was the only paper (that I could find) from this group that was appropriately powered. As you are correct in pointing out that this larger study was not looking at the same endpoints using the same design, it is entirely possible that this one is underpowered as well. The other paper you reference has a small sample size and does not offer enough information to determine if the study described was appropriately powered, so it doesn't really do anything to further your claims of efficacy. Second, when "individualized" homeopathy is studied, it is almost impossible to draw any useful conclusions since there are so many variables that get introduced. It becomes a collection of multiple, poorly designed studies of several interventions, each with exceedingly small test subject groups, being passed off as one large study.

There's no need to pick through the particulars of every study. If you want to propose inclusion of any in particular, then bring them forward. My post was simply intended to point out that there are good reasons why most of the studies proposed as positive results of homeopathy are not accepted as appropriate evidence - and that it has nothing to do with your implied conspiracy of agenda driven editors forming a cabal against them. -Puddin'head24.9.79.14 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't say conspiracy agenda. All these are stereotypes; it is not a secret that the editors here would exclude everything does not clearly state that Homeopathy is placebo. I gave examples above. Even reviews and meta analyses have been falsely summarized to state negative - even if some of their authors in reliable sources clearly state that their work supports the statement that Homeopathy might be effective for some conditions and not for others. Regarding individualized homeopathy -- the available reliable sources don;t concur with what you are saying: this is your personal opinion and it should not matter here. They concluded that "results are consistent with the finding from the previous study that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea". And one has to report this conclusion not to edit it out because in her personal opinion individualized homeopathy cannot be tested. This is not in agreement with wikipolicy it is ok for writing your own polemic article. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario, read WP:AGF; it's one of our five pillars here at wikipedia. These regular accusations you're making border personal attacks, and they are not acceptable anywhere on this site. You need to find a way to work with other editors, not against them. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps MarioMarco2009 should edit some Wikipedia other than this one: getting "conspiracy agenda" from the anon's comment requires some serious confusion.

The paper is a single study, so doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. In addition, although I believe individualized homeopathy can be tested, it's fairly clear that the study you mentioned and the inconclusive study it extended did not do so. To do it cleanly, you need a "triple-blind" (or possibly "quadruple-blind") study; the researcher, the homeopath, the subject, and the person preparing the "remedies" all must not know whether the subject is getting the "remedy" or the placebo before the results are tabulated. The abstract said "double-blind"; since "triple-blind" is needed, "double-blind" is inadequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks ? You must be kidding me. The only thing I said and I m saying is that it is NOT a wiki policy to edit out a meta analysis '"Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials." based on what one thinks about a reliable source.Is not true that authors in reliable sources clearly state that their work ( meta analyses and reviews support the statement that Homeopathy might be effective for some conditions and not for others and the article makes them appear saying that it is all placebo? This is not a personal attack. I think you are trying to attack me because you disagree. Please stop. If you don't want to discuss it just say so. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That paper fails. For starters, It is grossly out of date. It is not truly secondary. The authors overlap with the authors of this Boiron funded trial report on the same subject. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't say that their work "supports the statement that Homeopathy might be effective for some conditions and not for others". The letter to the editor you are alluding to[13] merely says that "there is some evidence" that homoeopathy works for some conditions and not others, and cites a narrative review of theirs to support this proposition (and a statement that homoeopathy works for some conditions but not others is not a statement that it works better than placebo - placebo works for some conditions and not others). You are misinterpreting the letter, which cannot be used to support a claim that homoeopathy work by taking this comment from it out of context, per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Quite apart from anything else, it opens with a statement saying that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". The review they cite also cannot be used to support a statement that homoeopathy has effects over placebo because it doesn't conclude that. Combining the two sources in this way would be WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Do you realize that what you are saying "and a statement that homoeopathy works for some conditions but not others is not a statement that it works better than placebo - placebo works for some conditions and not others" is completely non sense? The authors send a letter to the Lancet to dispute the methodology and the findings citing their work which in their words states what you there is some evidence for some conditions and you are saying that they agree that Homeopathy is placebo? This is what I mean gross misrepresentation of the facts. I m not saying that you are doing that in bad faith but you want so much the article to say what you believe about homeopathy that you twist the facts in your mind -- The fact the many other people think like that in this forum is really worrying. The same with the Jacobs meta analysis . II IS published in a reliable source and you edit it out purely because it does not agree with your point of view - How neutral is that? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin has already addressed this above MarioMarco2009 . Please do not repeat yourself ad nauseum. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

False. The jacobs paper is published as meta analysis. Not as a single paper. The rest Rubin says is his own ideas about -- something like thoughts on future of Original research. Interesting. But irrelevant. And he knows it. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In any case, Jacobs is the author of the primary study PMID 8165068. A selfie-review does not constitute a Wp:MEDRS. It does not matter what an unreliable source says, we ignore it simply because it is not reliable. You need to accept this basic principle in order to function on Wikipedia.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pediatric_Infectious_Disease_Journal is NOT a reliable source? It is published as meta analysis ...Wow.... And this is in agreement with wikipedia policy? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A meta-analysis authored by Jacobs, which pools three studies performed by Jacobs, does not satisfy WP:MEDRS - use independent sources. One author summarizing three of her own studies - of which two are described by the author as underpowered and one does not give enough information to establish the power - doesn't qualify as independent sources. - Puddin'head198.11.28.228 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not really a meta analysis anyway. To quote 'Because all three studies followed the same basic study design, the combined data from these three studies were analyzed to obtain greater statistical power.' That is not a meta analysis. That is combining data from three experiments as if they are one experiment. It is a primary study. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. Pooling and re-analyzing data from one's own chosen studies to get a significant result. This sort of post hoc search for significance should make readers veeeery twitchy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

it is not up to you to decide that. This is a clear violation of wikepedia policy, If such an exceptional source publishes it as a meta analysis then you have to accept it, You are an editor here not member of a scientific journal to decide if this is good review or even a review or meta analysis. It has been decided by the board of the journal. One has to report it if wants to neutral again according to wikipedia policy. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is very much of Wikipedia policy (as arrived at by the community) that contributors decide whether a source is appropriate or not, according to established criteria. Who else would you think would do the deciding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, this is false, You have to decide according to the written rules; you cannot decide that you will not follow the rules because in your personal opinion an x study is not good. If is published in a reliable source you have to accept it . Unless you have agree with other people to not follow the wiki policy, --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Which rules are you referring to? There are no Wikipedia rules whatsoever that determine that anything is a 'reliable source' in the abstract, and nor are there any rules that state that content 'must' be included. I suggest you take a little more time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before making demonstrably-false pronouncements about policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Mario, the editors you seem determined to disregard have over 2000 times your editing experience here. They are giving you sound advice. If you cannot accept that they are doing so in good faith, despite wp:AGF, then I suggest that you take the question to wp:RSN, which exists for the purpose of assessing the reliability of sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that the paper that took three negative studies, combined inconsistent endpoints and conjured a positive result out if thin air? It sounds as I I might be.

NPOV, Original Research and Lack of Citations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article is highly biased. It is now locked and therefore un-citated statements cannot be tagged as such. Two examples are given below:

Non-homeopathic treatment — patients may also receive standard medical care at the same time as homeopathic treatment, and the former is responsible for improvement

Cessation of unpleasant treatment — often homeopaths recommend patients stop getting medical treatment such as surgery or drugs, which can cause unpleasant side-effects; improvements are attributed to homeopathy when the actual cause is the cessation of the treatment causing side-effects in the first place, but the underlying disease remains untreated and still dangerous to the patient.

Both these statements are completely unsubstantiated and un-citated.

The quality of the article is poor in terms of consistent application of no original research rules (both within the article and with respect to other Wikipedia articles) but the tone of the flags at the top of the talk is that "the judges decision is final and no further correspondence will be entered into" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that these statements lack citation. This appears not to be the case - there is a citation to Jay W. Shelton's Homeopathy: How It Really Works at the top of the section. Have you checked it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a review - as you would say - Is it ? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We don't need a review article to source what science says about homoeopathy. The section makes no specific claims regarding the efficacy or otherwise of specific treatments. Instead it offers (in most cases blatantly obvious) explanations as to why people may perceive it to work, in the face of substantial evidence that (beyond the placebo effect) it doesn't. I'm quite sure that most, if not all of it could be sourced individually, but I can see no reason to do so, given that no source has been provided suggesting that any of it is incorrect. It should of course be noted that any remotely-credible study of the efficacy or otherwise of homoeopathic treatment takes the factors described into account as a matter of course, and accordingly isn't stating anything remotely controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes claims of efficacy or alleged mechanisms of placebo homeopathic remedies or whatever, You need reviews for that. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That "patients may also receive standard medical care at the same time as homeopathic treatment, and the former is responsible for improvement". Are there any secondary sources reviews of primary studies to support this statement? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that any primary study that failed to take into account that subjects were also receiving standard medical care would be complete and utter bollocks, I suspect not. Or are you suggesting that standard medical treatment fails to work if taken in combination with homeopathic remedies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I m not suggesting anything. You need studies to show this kind of effect. Placebo is responsible for treatment in standard medical treatment as well. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What 'kind of effect'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You need studies to show patients may also receive standard medical care at the same time as homeopathic treatment, and the former is responsible for improvement. Reviews per MEDs - Are there any? IF not the statement is not supported. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't need studies disproving the effectiveness of homeopathy - it is up to those promoting homeopathy to prove that it works. And the overwhelming evidence so far is that it doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you don't need studies disproving the effectiveness of homeopathy. It has been decided before even to read anything. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right, it has - by science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarioMarco2009: the default position is that any treatment does not work. See null hypothesis. Asking for a source that "disproves" a treatment is shifting the burden of proof and is not going to be accepted. Specific to editing at Wikipedia, WP:MEDRS applies to specific medical claims. A book source is perfectly adequate for supporting the statements that you quote at the start of this section. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I know I know- However since the placebo effect exists in standard medical treatment as well you cannot say what caused the effect. Placebo conventional treatment or homeopathy. Unless you study it systematically. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that, the reason "allopathic" medicine is accepted as useful medicine is specifically because it has been demonstrated to have a statistically significant effect beyond an appropriate placebo control. So, you give a patient something that has been proven to work, along with something that has never been shown to work and which has no plausible mechanism of action, and yes, the assumption is that any observed effect results from the proven intervention and not from the application of the absurd. - Puddin'head190.102.31.0 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Never has been shown to work is of course a fantasy. There are pilot studies before. The "No plausible mechanism of action" is a matter of point of view - Science does not work like that. Aspirin and several medications work and the mechanism of action is unknown. Most of the available drugs ate effective only for 45 percent of the patients. So you don't really know if it is the placebo effect or the allopathic medication. Thats way they have reviews. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

the Mechanism of action of aspirin is pretty well understood - it works primarily by inhibiting cyclooxygenase, both 1 and 2. inhibiting cox-2 gives it anti-inflammatory effects; inhibiting cox-1 is what hurts your stomach. yep. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. I meant to say was unknown-- When they started using it -. The mechanism of action of anti depressants is still unknown -does it mean that they have no effect? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amongst the antidepressants with unknown mechanisms of action? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course - the mechanism of action is still unknown. That's well known. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario, the mechanism of action is always nice to know, but in medicine that knowledge is not essential for the medicine to be used. What is essential is proven effectiveness above and beyond the placebo effect (even if it's only 45% above), and a good risk/benefit ratio. Homeopathy has an excellent risk profile because it has no risk, but it has no proven benefit when used alone, and definite risk when used instead of provenly effective medicines.

Its proposed mechanism of action is nonsensical. Its effects are unproven, and not above what can be expected of a placebo, making it an excellent placebo. The problem with deliberately using it as a placebo in actual clinical practice, instead of a proven product, is that it's unethical to do so outside of blinded RCTs.

If homeopathy clearly worked better than a placebo, we wouldn't engage in this conversation. To find any claims of efficacy, one must scrape the bottom of the barrel for poorly performed studies, anecdotes, etc.. The better a study is performed, the more clear it becomes that homeopathy is a pseudoscientific fake "medicine". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarioMarco2009: no, you just do not understand what "shown to work" means in a medical context. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I understand; also if you exclude all the sec sources showing some evidence for homeopathy then you get no evidence at all. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario, you are missing two important distinctions: 1) being able to imagine a mechanism of action does not mean that it is plausible. Achieving a biological effect by diluting something out of existence is not plausible; that is not a point of view but a tautology. 2) The medicines you are referring to have been shown to work in statistically significant, properly powered, properly designed, properly executed, and properly analyzed trials - homeopathy has not, that's the big difference. - Puddin'head190.102.31.0 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Plausibility"y is a really a non scientific concept. . Relativity was not "plausible" and it was regarded as pseudoscience - how plausible was that time mount Everest would be different than time at see level.? Before the war even later this would be laughable. According to recent research about anti depressants at least the studies showed not to be really powerful- but other medicines of course work, There are studies showing some effects of homeopathic dilutions published in first rate reliable sources ( sec studies ) disputing even the implausibility of high diluted remedies but they are not allowed to be cited and used in this article. I gave examples before.--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Relativity was never considered 'pseudoscience'. AndyTheGrump (talk)

It was - --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The article you link to does not say that relativity was ever regarded as pseudoscience; it says that some criticisms of relativity had a pseudoscientific basis. Brunton (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no content and no sources being discussed here. Per WP:NOTFORUM there is no point continuing this. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we open a Request for comment (RfC) Is a http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583 a reliable source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well- Lets start a (RfC). ( IT is kind of absurd to ask if a major journal publishes meta analyses which according to wikipedia are excluded by its definition for reliable sources and are not regarded as such -- but lets see how many editors agree to that) . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As I explained above, it is not a meta analysis. It is combining three sets of data as one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a major's journal assessment is what counts not our opinion, according to wikipedia. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't start a RfC like that, and secondly, there is no such thing as a 'reliable source' in the abstract. If you wish to propose specific text, and then ask for community involvement in any decision as to whether the source is reliable for that statement, you should probably ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - an RfC at this stage is premature, since you haven't even tried the noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I started correctly - Asking for other users about it. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, suit yourself - but don't complain when you get no response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source for what? Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To use in an article about medical practices and methods including homeopathy, --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't start an Rfc. You just asked a question. That's fine, but it's not what we call an RfC, which is a certain type of formal process to request outside input. RfCs generally concern very specific suggestions for article changes, not discussion about the reliability of sources (and "is X a reliable source" is generally an unanswerable question anyway). Either way, we have a whole noticeboard for that sort of inquiry, which you were already pointed to.

Look, Mario, there are so many things wrong with what you're doing it's hard to even have a discussion. In your mind, you are single-handedly battling an army of biased editors to right a great wrong, but as a very experienced editor here, I assure you that's not what's going on. You are on track for one of two things: 1) you will waste a bunch of time and become frustrated, or 2) you will continue to the point of disruption and be sanctioned. Neither have anything to do with the content of your suggestions; they have to do with your approach to editing. I'm not opposed to including reliable sources; I'm opposed to misrepresenting our sources. I'm also opposed to violating our policies. You need to become familiar with our policies (and accept some of the help you're being offered) before parading around as some sort of valiant white knight, rejecting any input which doesn't advance your goals.

Seriously. The very best thing you can do is to edit some uncontroversial articles for a little while until you become familiar with our policies, then come back here and make a new proposal. But if you won't follow that advice, then you need to go to WP:RSN. You can't just keep asking the same question here until you get the answer you want.

I'm hatting this discussion, as a duplicate of the one above, and one that very squarely belongs at a noticeboard created for this exact purpose.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No Jess. These are not good manners. You cannot close the discussion like that. This is not your personal web space. It is entirely reasonable to ask the other editors if a source is reliable It is not reliable only if it says something you want hear. This is the core of the neutral point of view. . And we can decide about the process of request for comment. A source is either reliable or not reliable. I would like to hear more opinions on that.Thanks. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jess is right. I miscounted the number of editors who said that Pediatr Infect Dis J. is not a reliable source. Even if think that this is absurd - and not in line with the neutral point of view one has to accept it. This is the reality according to wikipedia editors. . Thanks for listening. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:MEDRS is clear that we use the most recent secondary sources we can. A search of Pubmed shows that PMID 17285788 is the most recent review, and that is the one we use. It finds no effect. The proposed source is from 2003. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not so honest. By that rule you should object the inclusion of several other reviews in the article .Besides that this is NOT a meta analysis aboutHomeopathy for childhood diarrhea: but in general about Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments - Quite different. The one is edited out is the most recent about this condition. MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

discuss content not contributor You do not appear to have a policy/guideline based response. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not discuss you. The action is not quite fair, --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The more recent review covered childhood diarrhea, and concluded that the evidence "is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition". Brunton (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the specific condition the censored one is the most recent In general yes. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

this issue is done. there is no consensus to use this source. no point continuing thisJytdog (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

University of Toronto pilot study

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Section title was changed from: "University of Toronto homeopathy pilot study --63% had a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome, first occurring after a mean of 4.5 visits."  — Jess· Δ♥ 23:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A fair compromise. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a new pilot study.Links. http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2015/03/05/scientists-critical-of-u-of-t-homeopathy-study.html and the original pilot study. http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/368137 -----MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

How many times do we all have to ask you to read WP:MEDRS? This is, at best, a primary study. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You actually might want to read the Toronto Star Story, it is does not really present this woo in a positive light. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An uncontrolled pilot study showed a marginal effect after extended use? In a patient population that likely would have improved with time anyway? Shocking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A solid sample size of 35 children, studied over the course of an entire year in which they were not required to stop taking conventional medications. Strong find. Would you mind stop wasting everyone's time, yours included, with this inane crusade? Cannolis (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario, thank you for the link. Generally, it's good to provide a source alongside a specific proposal to change the article, so it's clear what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting we add this source to back up existing content, or to add new content? If you want to use it to support the idea that homeopathy is efficacious, then it would need to be compared to our other sourcing. Have you read through that? Here is one study we are currently using, for example. Notice how strong that source is? It's just one of many. If you're proposing something else, feel free to elaborate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well. I did not suggest that this proves homeopathy. Or it is a large study showing anything definite. I keep thinking wikipedia article not as medium to prove or to disprove something but as an article contributing merely to information than to debunking or propaganda for or against, That's why I submitted its criticism as well. By the way do not say marginal - even the standard drugs primary studies show many times marginal therapeutic effects- if we exclude the side effects. Maybe in current research section.? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario, sorry, I'm still not clear on the proposal. Could you provide specific wording you want to add or change? Right now we are not using "primary studies", as you put it, we are using sources like the one I presented above - a systematic review of systematic reviews.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I will think and let you know. ( Is n't funny that people here object Jacobs review on the grounds that she is one of the same authors ( meta analysis and primaries studies ) while they accept Ernst even if he is the only author of his review who is reviewing his ....own papers? Isn't that ironic? ) Wait a minute. ! --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

per MEDRS we do not use WP:PRIMARY sources - please read all of MEDRS, but in particular, the section called Respect secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mann jess: I think you might be unintentionally leading Mario down a dead end here - that source is so bad it is hard to imagine any context in which it could be used in this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I doubt that source will prove useful (which I did already suggest), but it's important that we take this one step at a time and encourage the right sort of behavior, especially for new editors. After all, we were all new once. Step 1) we find a source. Step 2) we propose specific changes based on it. The assumption that we can pronounce a source "reliable" or "unreliable" before even discussing the content it is intended to back up is pervasive in these last sections, and until that notion is dispelled, we will continue seeing problems. This source is reliable for the claim that a study about homeopathy was performed at the University of Toronto, and that 90 scientists (and two nobel laurettes) signed an open letter condemning it. Covering that may be undue, but at least we'd be past the question of reliability.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think according to what Im reading a source is either reliable or not. A meta analysis in reputable journal is reliable whatever the conclusion-- It is does not depend on the content you want to back up to be reliable. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be also reliable to mention with all the information you provided that the pilot study preceding this one found that The change in the median CGI-P T-score from baseline to the end of this open-label pilot study was statistically significant. The research methods are feasible. Future studies are warranted without endorsing the results as definite or proving anything. All these under current research and homeopathy. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you think that the WP:MEDRS guideline regarding primary sources is somehow not applicable to this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I m just completing Jess suggestion. I m not talking about effectiveness, but about status of current research. This is just plain info. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

we determine sources first and then decide what to say based on them. you are doing this backwards. the source is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and a pilot study, no, it does not meet WP:MEDRS. You also might find this useful [14]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my suggestion but if you don't want the readers to know plain info about the current research on homeopathy and the reaction by some scientists - then you don;'t have to include it. (Maybe readers should not know too much - just the info provided by authors who want to debunk homeopathy)--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mario, a source is not "reliable or not" divorced from a content proposal. A flat earth website is reliable for claims about what flat earthers believe, but not reliable for claims about whether the earth is, indeed, flat. This study is reliable for the claim that a study was done, but not reliable for the claim that homeopathy is efficacious. That's why I asked you what content you were proposing, because we can't judge if this source is "reliable" and then just put in whatever content we feel like. I'll be upfront (again), I anticipate there being other problems (like undue weight) with content derived from this source, but I'm doing my best to withhold judgement until I see what's actually being proposed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In general. If a study published in a first rate journal- major university --- says homeopathy might be effective should be reported or not? NOT as final judgment on homeopathy;s efficacy but as plain information. In particular the content proposed was to inform about homeopathy's current research not to show that it is effective or not. .--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, per WP:MEDRS we would not use this primary study even if its quality were better. VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

this issue is done. There is no consensus to use this source. No point going on and on. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. As I said - why readers should know about anything on current homeopathic research and controversies about it. It is your decision, --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not the decision of anyone here. It's the rules that underpin this encyclopedia at the most fundamental level. If it were just the opinion of a handful of editors, then you'd be right to rail against it, to seek consensus to overturn those people, to work towards getting the content you feel is right into our article. BUT IT'S NOT. WP:MEDRS is a hard and fast rule - and it applies to this article as it does to any other medical-related topic. The same thing applies to the WP:FRINGE guidelines since Wikipedias' arb-com group (our "Supreme Court") decided that Homeopathy, specifically, is (for sure) a fringe topic.

So continuing to dump these links and 'suggestions' without first doing due-diligence to ensure that they pass both WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE is wasting everyone's time here. Wasting time here constitutes WP:DISRUPT..."disruptive editing" and to make matters worse, you're doing it in an article which is operating under arb-com's discretionary sanction rules. That's a significant offense and really should get you at least a topic ban. So please for your sake as well as ours - when you find something that you think might be useful for this article, first do a careful check against the rules in WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE - and only bother mentioning it here if it passes those tests. Those rules alone ensure that these kinds of junk studies won't ever make it into the article - so you're wasting your breath anyway. Please stop wasting ours too - or we're going to have to seek formal sanctions against you - and that's something nobody wants to happen. SteveBaker (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I do believe that all the previous sources I provided are secondary sources by first rate journals and - per WP:MEDRS - they qualify. Regarding the last primary study and reaction about qualifies for information purposes not for proving anything. Reading WP:FRINGE I did not read anything like " please do not inform readers about current research - especially when this research causes so much controversy and reaction. This is my opinion. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

'Current research'? Hardly - and see WP:MEDDATE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Talking about the university of Toronto pilot study. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Going in order: Reanalysis of three studies by the same authors (misnomered as a meta-analysis by the same), a letter to the editor, and a review article from 2003. If you honestly still think that any of those three are secondary sources as defined at MEDRS after the discussion that you have participated in here, then you lack the competence to edit health-related articles. VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The qualification to be considered sec sources is granted by the editorial board of a first rate journal - not from anonymous editors on line. Since it is published as meta analyses in a reputable;e journal per Med is a secondary source. Maybe you can email the editorial board and tell them that they are ...incompetent. -----Why don't you object systematic reviews of systematic reviews by Ernst. He is the ONLY author who is citing his OWN papers. The review from 2003 qualifies for the same reason the 2005 Shang review qualifies. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 11:46 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The idea that a pilot study satisfies WP:MEDRS is laughable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that. Read carefully. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are we still doing this? Again, there is no proposal on the table. It's been made clear that the source is not MEDRS compliant, and Mario understands that he needs to make a concrete proposal, with a concrete source, to have a discussion. I'm hatting this - please make a new section to propose a change to the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Homeopathy not effective for treating any condition, Australian report finds"

Is this new? http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-not-effective-for-treating-any-condition-australian-report-finds 81.134.154.227 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The story says it was released today. So, maybe it is new. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a useful source as it fails MEDRS. However, the actual report is a "position statement published by major health organizations" and is a perfect, gold-standard MEDRS source. We should include content from the source and use it. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) For reference, here is a link to all the documents from the NHMRC. (PDFs at the bottom of the page for the various summaries, submissions, analyses, and statements.) The two-page summary is here. It doesn't pull any punches; the first sentence is "Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

An excellent report. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Right - it doesn't quite say "Homeopathy doesn't work" - but "can find no evidence that homeopathy is effective" , which is a slightly different thing. I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be referenced - it passes WP:MEDRS and it's definitely on-topic. Sadly, this is going to outrage the homeopathy apologists who frequent this list and offer links for the article that are repeatedly rejected...they are probably going to play the "bias" card. But for those people, we must again emphasize: We'll consider using anything on the subject if it passes WP:MEDRS. SteveBaker (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks great. How shall we proceed? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How about "<huge> HOMEOPATHY DOESN'T WORK </huge>" at the top of the page? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would object to such an approach. -A1candidate 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We knew that, A1c. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can find no evidence of that approach being wp:MEDMOS-conformant. ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The draft is already mentioned at the foot of the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.247.154 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, so I guess we can just change the reference basically. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The section "sytematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" could be erased then, and replaced with my suggestion? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I like that much to your surprise. This will give to the article a lighter and more accurate idea about its content , purpose and tone, Strong support, --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian homeopaths say that it was not a systematic review - raise questions -- high risk of bias against homeopathy ?

http://www.homeopathyoz.org/images/news/Open_response_letter_by_AHA_to_NHMRC.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Because Australian homeopaths couldn't possibly be biased themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

While the Australian government is not bound by the rules of Wikipedia when assessing research quality, they have complied with the simple objective standards of the scientific method and the assessment of the value of the supplied evidence. Page after page of discussion about homeopathy here on Wikipedia only exists because of the bend-over-backwards approach to fairness that is embraced by Wikipedia and codified in its policies. This accommodating approach is a good thing - perhaps the greatest value to be found in Wikipedia. But when homeopathy is assessed outside the bounds of Wikipedia's rules, the reviewing bodies are able to (and necessarily must as a part of due diligence) look at the real quality of individual studies. Unfortunately for the proponents, the bulk of the studies that suggest any effect from homeopathy suffer from a wide variety of clear flaws, including: lack of blinding, lack of randomization, lack of proper controls, lack of statistical power, lack of any plausible mechanism of action, publication bias, inaccurate reporting of ostensible science (Benveniste), and so on ad nauseum. As for Wikipedia's rules as applied to the referenced article, an opinion piece published by a group of homeopaths in response to an utter disembowelment of their art (which is based on the objective assessment of available evidence) is of no more value than an equivalent response by a group of unicorn veterinarians who take offense to a finding which states that tax dollars should not be spent on unicorn breeding. With that preamble out of the way, if you have specific sources that call into question the findings of the Australian position, and which satisfy WP:MEDRS, then please bring them forward - this article does not qualify. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(I don't think that the situation is so dramatic. Studies and reviews showing that there is some evidence that homeopathy is effective for some conditions published in high quality journals do exist - and its exclusion from this article is a clear violation of the policies.) Regarding the letter of course it is not a review but a reaction - one could add it as an objection by homeopaths not as the " true". . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please cite a systematic review that concludes that homoeopathy is effective for some conditions. Brunton (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Systematic review --Freital (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What does that review say Freital? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

From the conclusions in the abstract: "The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings". AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I knew that Mr. Grump, but I wanted Freital to read it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Better than nothing.--Freital (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course yes. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

But the paper's finding that the available evidence is of such low quality as to not allow for any reliable analysis is already stated in the Wikipedia article and sourced to others who have come to the same conclusion. So whether individual editors here feel it is "better than nothing" - apparently the gold standard of establishing homeopathic efficacy after 220 years of looking - doesn't come to bear on its inclusion in the article. It certainly shouldn't be included as evidence of efficacy. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is evidence of efficacy - which should be interpreted with caution. Why don't you write what they say? The problem with this unscientific attitude prevailing in this talk page is that you think you are doing original research.And you have to be convinced that homeopathy works for everything otherwise you will write it is all placebo. Weak evidence does not mean ---it is placebo - this is misleading, Report what THEY say NOT your thoughts about their review. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody thinks they are doing original research. However, you are demonstrating a classic case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are. Why don;t you try to respond to the precious concerns instead of talking with generic codes WP:IDHT etc. I suggested the study to be reported such as according to ...X homeopathy ....whatever. IF not explain specifically - give reasons not read this and that. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, there's no reason to add it since the efficacy section of the article already states the same conclusions: "In particular, reports of three large meta-analyses warned readers that firm conclusions could not be reached, largely due to methodological flaws in the primary studies and the difficulty in controlling for publication bias.[16][20][174]". This is simply a paraphrasing of the findings of the paper you are suggesting be added. While the paper being discussed states that there is a small effect seen in some subsets of the data, that conclusion is rendered moot by their more overarching conclusion that the data is of low quality and therefore unreliable. Perhaps it's worth discussing adding this new paper as a forth reference, though I don't know that it would add anything to the article. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I would add to the info that several reviews reporting positive but inconclusive - which is different than all is placebo. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

To state that "homeopathy is effective for some conditions" would require a systematic review that said, without reservation, that "homeopathy is effective for some conditions". If the only sources which say it is effective are ones that also, in their own words, say there are significant problems with the research, then we haven't met the burden required to overturn our existing and extensive sourcing which unequivocally says otherwise.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be true if you were conducting your own research project ; then you ( this is the royal you) should decide if the evidence is convincing enough to make such a statement. In a encyclopedia all the points of view should be just reported ( NOT asserted as true statements) according to their appearance and prominence in reputable journals. These are the policies for reliable sources. Unless we agree that we will not follow them in this article. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Using the totality of a source would not be original research. Selectively quoting from a source is not something we do here. The source you are suggesting says that the data is poor and more research is necessary. We can't just leave that part out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not even reply that. The "totality" of the source means paraphrasing in a degree that it is changing its meaning? Use their entire conclusion. Not editing out anything. "According to .....this study Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your notion of how things work here has been rejected by a number of very experienced editors. In short, you are wrong. Seriously, move on, this is wasting everyone's time, yours included. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That was quite an argument. It does not go by seniority/majority - Can you explain why citing the entire conclusion in the authors words is biased and your paraphrase is more accurate than the authors summary? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

MarioMarco2009, you have been told over and over again why you are wrong. Read WP:UNDUE, everything you need to understand is in the first paragraph. Okay, now that you still haven't read it --- GO READ IT. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dont tell me read this and that. Try to explain why why what I suggested is wrong specifically. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming you can read. Copying and pasting a section that reads like it was written specifically for you is pointless. GO READ IT!!!!!!!! --Daffydavid (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically for me ? The authors conclusions are written specifically for me? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

He's saying that policy page applies here. Inserting your proposed wording would be undue weight.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to report what exactly the source says without editing out anything ? Can you point out exactly where wikipedia policies ask for that? It not required to write about the study in detail just to no distort its meaning . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the abstract of what is basically just another study that has failed to demonstrate efficacy in the way you are suggesting would be giving it undue weight.

If you want the article to say that there is evidence that homoeopathy works for some conditions then, per MEDRS, we will need to cite a systematic review that has concluded this. That is what you need to produce here. Brunton (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I want the article to report the findings unedited-- not that it works or not. An encyclopedia and wikipedia should report the findings unedited not to conduct its own research. I think this introduces the less bias. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. We are under no obligation whatsoever to report every bit of inconclusive research that merely repeats what we already know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You claimed further up this thread that "[s]tudies and reviews showing that there is some evidence that homeopathy is effective for some conditions published in high quality journals do exist - and its exclusion from this article is a clear violation of the policies". If you are not proposing adding this to the article, then you shouldn't have posted it here. This talk page is for discussing changes to the content of the article, not for general discussion of homoeopathy or generalised complaints. See WP:TALK. Brunton (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a specific suggestion - based on the review above. Report the findings of the meta analyses study -- unedited. OF course you have to report all research and its criticism as long as it appears in reputable journals. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Devoting several sentences to every study ever performed would overwhelm the article. We are under no obligation to do that. This study agrees with what the article already says, so "adding it" would either 1) leave the article unchanged, or 2) incorrectly summarize the study.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And I assume you still haven't read WP:DUE. Quoting from the second sentence: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We are not talking about detailed presentation - How 3 sentences of the conclusion is a detailed presentation? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure how to respond to that without repeating myself... Have you read what other editors are saying? Can you summarize their position for me, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of them they are just saying read this and that. Nothing specific. I read the above about undue weight and I m asking the following "How 3 sentences of the conclusion is a detailed presentation" 3 sentences which is the entire conclusion can be regarded as detailed presentation - It is a really easy question . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't understood anything up to this point beyond "read this and that", then I see no benefit to continuing the conversation. Consensus is very clear on this issue, and I have other things to do with my time. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this very paper has already been discussed here, only a couple of months ago. Brunton (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you are point out a specific policy you should be able to explain why my specific suggestion ( including 3 sentences of the entire conclusion ) is not allowed. "should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" You don;t give any rational explanation to this - you just say we are the majority and therefore it is out. OF course I have to accept it - but this is once again one more violation of wikipedia ;s policies -- no wonder why people protest in this very talk page for bias and inaccuracy. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the conclusions of this study already appear in the article, albeit referenced to other sources, so there is nothing to be gained by adding the conclusions verbatim. I suspect you would not support any suggestion to write out verbatim the conclusions from every review that found no evidence for efficacy beyond that of a placebo - why should we afford this article that honor? Quoting the conclusions of this review, simply because it contains the words "small effect", would also be misleading since the broader conclusion of the paper is that the finding of a "small effect" is unreliable due to poor quality - it would give undue weight to a conclusion which the authors themselves have stated should be interpreted with caution. As for there being a difference between "inconclusive findings" and "no different from placebo", inconclusive findings demand that we default to the null hypothesis until conclusive results can be obtained. The null hypothesis for all of these studies is "no better than placebo". - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you are asking me - No I do not object "to write out verbatim the conclusions from every review that found no evidence for efficacy beyond that of a placebo" at all. the opposite, The entire conclusion of the review would give undue weight? Policies here say do not describe it in detail - and 3 sentences is not in detail for sure, Forget about the null hypothesis - you are not doing your own research but you report all the findings - you are not the judge- if an x treatment works or not but you have to report the findings precisely- as they stated not edit our whatever you think it is not in line with the majority view. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, Mario, then you will easily be able to link to the WP:PAG that says that, wont you, eh? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody here disputes what I m saying, - That editors should not be involved in original research trying to validate the null hypothesis. They merely report the available evidence according to its prominence. . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is trying to validate the null hypothesis, as it requires no validation - a study either finds evidence to reject it or does not find evidence to reject it. You have stated that inconclusive evidence is not the same as placebo equivalence, but in terms of the scientific method, it is the same thing because inconclusive evidence does not allow you to reject the null hypothesis (which, in any properly designed trial states that the intervention being examined is no better than placebo). It's not original research, I'm just stating how the process works. In fact, it would be original research - or more appropriately "spin" - to suggest that inconclusive evidence amounts to anything other than a failure to reject the null hypothesis (placebo equivalence). In regards to your current proposal, and as pointed out by Roxy, there is no WP policy which suggests that the results of every study ever done should be copied and pasted into the article verbatim. The conclusions of the paper in question have been posited before by other authors and they are already stated in the current WP article. There's nothing new here worth adding, other than possibly the additional reference. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The report has no 'prominence' to speak of - it appears not to have been cited in any recognised scientific journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In which case I withdraw my suggestion to consider adding it as a reference. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Puddin'head you are contradicting yourself - the null hypothesis process should not concern you or me. You suppose to report accurretally the conclusions - And positive and inconclusive does not mean - it is placebo in any language. If it did they would write it down ------- I m not suggesting anything but a simple inclusion of the extremely short conclusion of the study in the authors words.There is no spin not even one word I would add ---Wikipedia policies dictate that you should refer to the minority view just not in detail - it does not say edit it completely out. It seems that the majority here does not want the readers to even know that such reviews exist--- giving the false impression that all reviews say H = placebo. Which is almost a lie. I understand that I cannot change that myself but this is biased and misleading. Sorry I have say that. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy - request for clarification

The following statement found in this section may need to be clarified or rewritten:

Subsequent work by John Ioannidis and others has shown that for treatments with no prior plausibility, the chances of a positive result being a false positive are much higher, and that any result consistent with the null hypothesis should be assumed to be a false positive.

I would think that should read "any result NOT consistent with the null hypothesis should be assumed to be a false positive", since results which are consistent with the null hypothesis are not positive results and therefore can't be false positive results. There may be a better way still to word that statement, or I may be reading it wrong. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is magical thinking I m afraid. And also you are getting involved in original research. You should be concerned if the findings of the reviews you are talking about are reported accurately not trying to evaluate them and decide which of the reviews will be reported. There is a reason for the authors to use specific words; if you want to correct the problem email the editorial boards and suggest that they change their wording so it can fit with the wikipedia article. Just an idea!--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Say what? The concern is not with the findings of any sourced article, but with the wording used by the original Wikipedia editor who added the material to this article. Sometimes, people make typos when adding content to Wikipedia; it simply doesn't make sense to me as it is written and, since this could be on account of me reading it wrong or on account of there being better wording for the entry, I am hoping others will take a look and assess it. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)