Talk:Homeopathy

Apostrophe needed

Under "United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2015 hearing," in the second list item, "products" in "the products claimed active ingredients in plain English" needs an apostrophe. It should be "the product's claimed active ingredients..." I was reading it as subject + predicate sentence construction (plural noun = "products" + past tense verb = "claimed") and it didn't make sense. Took me a minute to figure out what was meant. 2602:304:AB1E:E619:8043:3ECE:4D8D:8C17 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland

The 2016 information was correctly removed: this is a political, not an evidential response, the evidence has not changed, no new evidence assessment has been performed, there is still no evidence it works, but lobbyists have managed to secure funding (with a few basic safeguards for patients). That is possibly relevant to prevalence and provision, but is not in any way relevant to efficacy, because it doesn't even pretend to address it. The shutdown of NHS hoemopathy, on the other hand, is relevant because it is entirely the result of evidence assessments. For the same reason, if the NHS adds homeopathy to the prescription blacklist that will be a major development. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable interpretation of events. Politically, making any sort of change is almost always more difficult than leaving things as they are and allowing time for "more study" (and, ideally, another election cycle...). If the Swiss manage to actually demonstrate efficacy, that would be a significant event. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2016 information was correctly removed as it was in the wrong section. The information that was there, and is there this morning, has a link to a citation, which is incorrectly quoted. I amended this to show, in abbreviated form, what the linked page, published on Jan 1, 2012, said: "Interior Minister Didier Burkhalter announced that five therapies previously struck off the state insurance list – meaning they would not be reimbursed – will be reinstated as of 2012 as part of a six-year trial period. The sting: all must prove their “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017.

The therapies include: anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine.

Back in 2005 the interior ministry rejected the therapies, arguing they failed to meet the legal requirement of “scientific proof” of the three efficacy criteria. The reversal in policy follows a nationwide vote in 2009 in which two-thirds of Swiss came out in favour of including the therapies on the constitutional list of paid health services."

The current statement is incorrect as it says: the Swiss Federal Health Office have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding. I added the sentence "The Swiss Federal Health Office allowed a period of five years to enable homeopathy to prove its “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017."The funding has continued to be in place from January 2012. So at the time the current statement was inserted, the funding was still in place and will continue uninterrupted.

From May 2017, it is fully reinstated and paid for. This information was published by the source already quoted — swissinfo.ch — on March 29, 2016. It includes: "After being rejected in 2005 by the authorities for lack of scientific proof of their efficacy, complementary and alternative medicines made a comeback in 2009 when two-thirds of Swiss backed their inclusion on the constitutional list of paid health services.As a result of the vote, these treatments are covered by basic compulsory insurance as part of six-year trial period from 2012-2017. However, they were all required to prove their “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017.

"In a statement released on Tuesday, the interior ministry said it had come to the conclusion that it was “impossible to provide such proof for these disciplines in their entirety”.

"They will thus be treated on a par with other medical disciplines, when it comes to health insurance.

The ministry plans to continue allowing reimbursements of treatment costs by compulsory health insurance, provided they are administered by certified medical doctors."

Your validation for removing the information that I put "this is a political, not an evidential response," is supported by a comment about the UK NHS. The closing of certain homeopathy provisions in UK is a political not evidential response. Individual Health Trusts voted on whether to keep hospitals open. They decided where to put their very limited and stretched resources, not on the empirical evidence of patient outcomes for the hospitals; evidence from which can be found here http://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/clinical-outcomes-studies/ Two hospitals remain funded by the NHS.

The central policy behind Wikipedia is to portray information in a neutral and objective way — I was trying to assist by amending incorrect information. Most of the rest of the article seems factual though the statement here "Efficacy

No individual preparation has been unambiguously shown by research to be different from placebo" is certainly incorrect. One Swiss hospital study, specifically conducted to fulfill all research criteria clearly shows the remedy does the job it was prescribed for. Few people are likely to know of it I assume, as when offered to the Lancet, the editor declined is as "of little interest to our readers".

Some items under Regulation and prevalence may need updating as they don't reflect current practice in some of the European countries stated.

Talkinghorse (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Talkinghorse

I understand that the lobbyists have successfully persuaded the politicians that their beliefs should not be subjected to tests that they cannot pass. This means nothing: the reason you can't prove that homeopathy works is that homeopathy doesn't work, and the results of political machinations do not change that. There is no new evidence. The evidence still says that homeopathy is bogus.

It is false to assert that your one study refutes the fact that no individual preparation has been unambiguously shown by research to be different from placebo. The result is consistent with the null hypothesis. Every outcome of every homeopathy trial, is consistent with the null hypothesis. If this were not so, there would be a cataclysmic shift in the science of matter.

As Ioannidis rightly points out, P=0.05 is not a valid test for entirely implausible interventions. It is quite possible for all of the positive results ot be false, and extremely unlikely for them to be anything else as (a) there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work since like does not actually cure like and symptomatic similarity was based on miasmal theory which has been known to be wrong for over a century; (b) there is no way it can work, since its claims are inconsistent with all relevant scientific knowledge; and (c) there is no proof it does work, including not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively demonstrated to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

You are trying to use one study to rebut three Government-level reviews of the totality of evidence, despite the fact that those reviews incorporated all valid evidence, whether positive or negative. Simply put, that's not how it works. You are also showing all the hallmarks of a sleeper sockpuppet, by the way. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how the evidence for homeopathy actually relates to the incorrect text that I edited. I was neither disputing the correctness of otherwise of the statements about whether it works or not, nor how. I was correcting the statements about whether it was funded. The information you state above is also incorrect in part: and (c) there is no proof it does work, including not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively demonstrated to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

I offered you an example. Of course nothing should be subjected to tests it cannot pass. However if it can prove that a valid scientific test shows something to be true, the whole argument against saying it is false is invalid. This is a basic principle of Mathematics and Logic.

I have looked up "sleeper sockpuppet" as it's a term I am unfamiliar with. I have not edited in some time, because I was part of team gathered together in North Wales in 2014, to create local information which was then accessed via a QR code displayed in various locations in the area. The team was managed by Robin Owain info@cymruwales.com who was employed by Wikipedia in Wales. The last contact I had with the team was when the local county council was requested to issue a content release note as a bot removed the content the county council asked to be included. I have not lived in Wales for some time and now live in Austria. I assume that covers the sleeper part of your allegation. I have awoken over time to correct such things as a link to the current Runcorn–Widnes Bridge that was in a description of the Transporter Bridge demolished in the early 1960's and there may have been other occasions when I noticed something minor that was incorrect too.

The sockpuppet aspect is easy to refute, as I have only ever had one account, used from time to time over a number of years.

I look forward to receiving your agreement to making the corrections I suggested. I will not alter anything else, without running my proposal through you here first.

Talkinghorse (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Talkinghorse

The only reason homeopathy cannot pass the tests of objective science, is that it's bullshit. You might as well say that the earth being flat should not be subjected to tests because it cannot pass. The test is perfectly valid, the idea is not.

The changes you made served to obscure the fact that homeopathy is objectively bogus, according to the Swiss Government's evidence process, which agrees with that of the UK and Australia, and also the more recent review by the US Federal Trade Commission.

The article title is tendentious: "Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine". No, they can't turn it into legitimate medicine by paying for it, that would be legislative alchemy. It's not legitimate medicine. I see no byline on the article, it seems ot have been written by one of the many quackery apologists who are active in Switzerland. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"The only reason homeopathy cannot pass the tests of objective science, is that it's bullshit." I am astounded. Could you explain how this statement is compatible with Wikipedia Policy: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, …?

"The article title is tendentious: "Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine". No, they can't turn it into legitimate medicine by paying for it, that would be legislative alchemy. It's not legitimate medicine. I see no byline on the article, it seems ot have been written by one of the many quackery apologists who are active in Switzerland." Might I ask then, why you include an incomplete quote from exactly the same source? Both are from the official english–language Swiss Government information outlet. If the Swiss Government spokesman chooses those words to express the opinion of the Swiss Interior Minstry and they are published in a government sponsored publication, we can surely assume their credibility; particularly if the man in charge has been chosen because he has a Swiss PhD in Law. If not, anything else from this source is called into dispute.

The Swiss do not say they are turning it into legitimate medicine by paying for it, but because they do not yet have the means to disprove its inefficacy. The one piece of research evidence in the Swiss ADD / ADHD double-blind study, where the research team proved under rigorous scientific conditions that homeopathy is effective in hyperactive children is sufficient to cause them to say that.

Talkinghorse (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

You will notice that this is a talk page. There's no requirement to adhere to the stricter standards of article space. The correct statement in scientific terms is that homeopathy is a belief system based on extrapolation from a single incorrect conclusion, whose principles have been refuted for over a century, and for which there is no plausible mechanism, whose supporters have engaged in relentless pseudoscience for decades in order to obscure the fact that every single relevant scientific finding is entirely inconsistent with their belief sand claims.

To save time and bytes, we can use, on a talk page, the shortcut: bullshit.

The article title is tendentious, there is no byline, the Swiss have not validated homeopathy, they have just decided not to have the fight with the quackery shills, who are well funded and lobby assiduously - this is hardly a surprise as any intrusion of reality-based policy will be fatal for their lucrative business. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathic hospitals cost £1,000,000 each to fund. Patient benefit studies from the remaining three homeopathic hospitals show 70% of follow-up patients reported improved health, 50% referring to major improvement. The best treatment responses were reported in childhood eczema and asthma, and in inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, menopausal problems and migraine in adults. Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. "Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university-hospital outpatient observational study". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2005; 5: 793–798. Clover A. "Patient benefit survey": Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. British Homeopathic Journal, 2000; 89: 68–72. Richardson WR. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. British Homeopathic Journal, 2001; 90: 158–162. This is good value compared with the wastage reported from NHS estimates of unused medicine it prescribes: £300million every year.

According to the NHS information on their website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#available: Homeopathy is usually practised privately and homeopathic remedies are available from pharmacies. The price for an initial consultation with a homeopath can vary from around £20 to £80. Homeopathic tablets or other products usually cost around £4 to £10. Could you please supply your evidence of the vast sums homeopaths get to bribe governments from the small amounts their work makes?

Talkinghorse (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

Sorry, what's the point of this discussion? Homeopathy is obvious bollocks and that must be the context for everything Wikipedia says about it. If something odd is going on in Switzerland it mustn't undermine the obvious facts about this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It takes a special kind of optimism to read the NHS documents on homeopathic hospitals as any kind of endorsement. A handful of CCGs in the UK still fund homeopathy, two more (Wirral and Liverpool) stopped last year, and Glasgow funding is also apparently at an end. The official NHS page on homeopathy - the very page you cited - puts "treatment" in scare quotes. You cited the Faculty of Homeopathy earlier as if they are a neutral source: they aren't. They are engaged in a rearguard action to protect their business and beliefs from the inevitable. Like does not cure like, dilution reduces potency, miasms don't cause disease, homeopathy is nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And the Swiss government cannot change that magically by making a decision. Talkinghorse, you should read Indiana Pi Bill, which describes a similar attempt to change reality by voting on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My reference to the NHS document was in respect the the amounts they quoted for a homeopathic consultation and the cost of the remedies prescribed. I asked for the evidence that showed how they could produce large sums to influence politicians.

I gather none of you have had time to go through the thirty RCT experiments here http://researchinhomeopathy.org/database/clinical-research/ — these are just the Clinical Research ones, there are hundreds of others. Nor are you aware that the country I live in includes homeopathy as part of the training for all doctors, vets and pharmacists. As the evidence submitted to UK Parliament when Homeopathy was being considered shows in Hansard, seven french universities teach homeopathy to their doctors and 25,000 french doctors prescribe it. There are 60,000 in Germany and 20,000 in Italy whereas UK has just 500 homeopathic doctors. I really suggest you read the Hansard report of the debate https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2010-06-02/debates/1006037000001/IntegratedHealthCare you will see that the picture you present of Britain, in regard to homeopathy is incorrect.

In addition I should remind you that nine million organic farm animals in the EU cannot be admitted into the food chain if they are treated with anything other than phytotherapy (herbs) or homeopathy. Almost all receive homeopathy and have done so for many years.

I doubt if I have to ability to override your bias, but I am shocked that personal opinion is allowed to influence what is published as fact. It is difficult to imagine that "[Dogs] can detect parts per trillion- that’s the equivalent of one drop of blood in two Olympic –sized swimming pools,” (2x 2,500,000 litres) according to Dr Claire Guest co-founder of the group Medical Detection Dog, but the NHS were prepared to put their money on it. Because it cannot possibly be explained how they do it — like detecting heroin which has not smell — isn't evidence that it doesn't happen.

Talkinghorse (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

Collecting studies with positive results and ignoring the others is called cherry picking. It is a rookie mistake. The correct way to do it is meta-analysis, which starts with all available studies but takes into account the quality of the studies.

You should also read up another rookie mistake: Argumentum ad populum. Homeopathy does not magically stop being bullshit when enough people believe in it.

And while you are at it, read Dunning-Kruger effect. Everybody here knows more about how to do science than you do. Your way of reasoning shows everybody here that you are extremely ignorant in that regard. It's like a boxer slipping before the first enemy contact and falling out of the ring. No contest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

How a meta–analysis can take in all available studies I cannot imagine, though it would be good if it could. Certainly it would prevent selective inclusion or exclusion, publication bias and the dusty file drawer. Then how many meta–analyses do you need? Linde Lancet: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. Oh, of course, wrong answer, let's do another one.

Why I am required to 'do science' to correct a misquote from a source on a page baffles me. I am not here for sport, just to correct a simple error, and support the neutrality that Wikipedia supposedly upholds.

Talkinghorse (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse