Talk:Homeopathy

Metaanalyses and lead

I tried to add this and user Tim Vickers reverted it. Please justify.

• File:Ajpe07tbl1-1-.jpg

--Dana4 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a copyrighted image, only the journals in this list are under a Creative-Commons licence on PubMed central. I'm deleting this image as a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Addhoc: COuld you please justify why did you cut the "Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. It is one of the 4 sentences of the conclusions. --Dana4 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Although that is a nice chart, it is quite busy. I am not sure it belongs in this article. If I understand, the biggest problem is that when studies are double-blinded, or large, or other more stringent measures are applied, homeopathy always seems to fail. So people try to come up with reasons why homeopathy still works just not in the presence of more careful controls. Ah well...--Filll (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i cant see the graph can anyone else see it or is ti just something wron giwth my computer?Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was copied from a copyrighted journal. The image has been deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

very well. then the problem is moto and we can just al for fend about it right now. Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Filll, glad to see your kind remarks about Peter Morrell below. I will AGF, but I want to make certain that you (and others) know that there are a LOT of high-quality double-blind trials that show that homeopathic medicines are effective. It is time that editors stop making ill- and un-informed statements such as the one Filll made just above. Here are some worthy of your attention:

-- Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.

-- Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957. (Oscillococcinum has been shown to be effective in treating influenza, though not in its prevention)

-- Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476. (This is the FOURTH trial by this group of researchers at the University of Glasgow. Reilly concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trials don't--you choose!).

-- Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. [1] (This study was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital, published in the leading respiratory health journal in the world, found "substantially significant" results, and is notable enough to now have two universities planning to replicate it.)

One final note about Filll's comment about "large" trials. The problem with most of the largest trials in homeopathy is that they only use ONE homeopathic medicine for every patient without any degree of individualization of treatment. While using ONE medicine is sometimes effective (as in Oscillo or in the above trial on COPD using homeopathic potassium dichromate or Kali bic), these instances are the exception to the rule. By the way, for unknown reasons, the Shang (2005) comparison of studies "overlooked" the two of three LARGE and positive Oscillococcinum trials. I guess that they had to make room to fit that one study on weight-loss (that had a negative result...what a surprise). DanaUllman^Talk 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I will confine my comments for now to the Frass study and Oscillococcinum. You have just confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArsenicum_album&diff=192719779&oldid=192510465) that the words you placed in quotation marks were your own not quotations from the paper itself. It would demonstrate "good faith" if you would now explicitly confirm this. When you are citing a paper, it is sloppy practice, at best, to place words in quotations that are your own not the authors'. You have been told before that this study was not appropriately performed to bear the weight of interpretation that you require. Your confusion seems to reside in the fact that a pre-treatment group difference that is not statistically significant may amplify through the study, indeed this paper is a very good example of this problem. That completely undermines the validity of interpreting the low p-values in the way you have done. A better choice of words, to describe the p-values rather than "substantially significant" is "probably erroneous". The protection against it with such a highly heterogeneous patient-group is either to control better for the confounding variables and/or to recruit larger numbers. You have been told this before as well. Bear in mind the fact that of your having to rely so heavily on this single study speaks volumes for the sparsity of apparent positive effects for homeopathic therapies in controlled trials. The existence of a few apparent positives amongst a mass of equivocal and negative findings is exactly what one would expect from a therapeutic modality that is entirely placebo so that occasional positives will turn up due to bad study design and statistical fluke, aided by our old friend publication bias.OffTheFence (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Oscillococcinum, perhaps you would like to remind us of the clearest 'positive' statistical finding reported by the Cochrane review. I think other readers will find the answer most illuminating.OffTheFence (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT to Taylor et al, Reilly may have concluded that either homeopathy works or that RCTs don't but this is a false dichotomy. Others have concluded that the trials do not support the authors' conclusions [2] Acleron (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear OffTheFence, in due respect, you seem to be misinformed about the CHEST study. The chart in the article that compares the treatment and control group had no statistically significant differences. You chose to use the term "highly heterogeneous patient-group." To what are you referring, and whatever it is, ask yourself if this difference in a couple of patients was significant enough to lead to the big (actually HUGE) differences in results. Please respond to this. I used the terms "substantially significant" because the results were just that ("Group I" was the treatment group): The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]).

As for the Oscillococcinum trials, the fact of the matter is that the Cochrane report found that there WAS a beneficial effect beyond a placebo effect and that they referred to it as "promising." Acleron, your comment reminds me of the guy who claimed to fly and shows skeptics that he is able to do so. However, skeptics insist that because he doesn't fly as high or as fast as a jet, it is no big thing. Oscillo had an effect. Skeptics insist that there is "no evidence" for homeopathy. The Oscillo trials prove this wrong, especially in the light of the fact that these trials were replicated by independent researchers and were large trials (By the way, the imfamous Shang (2005) comparison study in the LANCET only chose to include 1 of the 3 large treatment trials...if he would have followed his own guidelines, he would have included all 3 of them.)

As for the critique of the four studies by Reilly...is that critique the only one you got because it is totally inadequate. Two of the Reilly studies were published in the Lancet and one in the BMJ...and you think that one short letter on one study is a killer? Not in my book. DanaUllman^Talk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllmanTalk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried scrolling down to the bottom of the 2000 BMJ Taylor et al. paper (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471)? You'll find a commentary on the paper and the conclusions that can be drawn from it right there. Brunton (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't, to use your overly emotive language, think it a killer, it was an apposite response to your unreferenced quote. You used a false dichotomy in that comment and now you use a strawman argument. Scientists and skeptics, yes they can be the same, would love proof that existing theories are wrong, such is stuff of Nobel prizes, but it happens very rarely. Analogy is useful in teaching but not in real science, a fact that pseudoscientists find hard to handle. Your analogy requires but little modification:- homeopaths leap off the ground and even after their feet meet the earth they still claim they have been flying.Acleron (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on the use of questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is homeopathy controversial?

I posted this question before intending to open a RFC so the whole community could read and an administrator deleted it. I would like to open it again. Whats wrong about RFCs? - assuming that the talk page is an appropriate place to discuss this.

According to many reliable sources Homeopathy is considered to be a controversial subject. [3] some scientists regard it as pseudoscience and others find the results of the studies promising ( even if they regard them inconclusive or unconvincing ), positive and encourage the scientific community to be open minded. [4]

[5].

1. Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393

2. The authors conclude that the small number of randomised clinical trials conducted to date, although favoring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212088

3. Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy Interpretation : Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy. [6]

4. NCCAM ‘s funding research on homeopathy. [7]

5. [8]

6. However, homeopathy continues to be one of the most controversial CAM practices for children or indeed any other patient group. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/inside.asp?AID=4251&UID=

7.. Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).

Why the following wiki rule of wikipedia is not applied in this case ? Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

Only fyslee answered to this question saying that the reliable sources do nor show a division in the scientific community about homeopathy. Suggestions from scientists who argue (in reliable sources [9] ) that scientists should be open minded about the possible value of homeopathy show a clear dispute and controversy. But besides that reliable sources above themselves characterize homeopathy controversial - it is not my own assumption. (More info here) [10]Please comment. --Area69 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A few dissenters do not a controversy make. The moon landing is not controversial. Evolution is not controversial. In both cases you can find examples of experts who deny them (insert scare quotes as necessary). There are dissenters to pretty much every scientific theory, but that doesn't necessarily raise it to the level of a controversy. To do that, it needs to be a good proportion of scientists.

Now, in the case of homeopathy, why might there appear to be a larger proportion of scientists who support it? Well, it has to do with medicine and medical research being run a bit differently from other types of science. First of all, there are institutions such as the NCCAM which have a prior bias in favor of anything alternative. This makes it a lot easier to get funding to run a study on them. Catch is, to run a study on, say, homeopathy, you don't necessarily need a degree in traditional medical research. So you have studies run by people who in other fields wouldn't qualify as scientists at all, but medicine's a bit different. This leads to many studies being performed by people with a pro-Homeopathy bias. Even if the study shows no results of any significance, you can count on them to spin this positively and say it's encouraging. They'll point to whichever aspect of their study looks best, even if it isn't statistically significant, and say that further research should be done in that area.

Let me be honest here. From a scientific perspective, almost no CAM therapies are controversial. There are a few exceptions where the jury is still out for the moment, such as Acupuncture, but for the most part CAM therapies are resoundingly rejected by the mainstream (there are also a few therapies which are actually accepted by the mainstream, though these tend to lose their CAM label over time). It might be fair to say that there's a controversy between the groups, I'll give you that, but that's a bit different of an issue, and not the connotation we want to give off by labeling something as "controversial." --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments about Infophile's previous paragraph.

I think using the term controversial to mean "disputed within the scientific establishment" (or words to that effect) is giving the term a remarkably narrow meaning.

When I read the title of this section, "Is homeopathy controversial?", my reaction was "Is this some kind of a joke?" When the article on a subject has been under heated discussion/argument for 98.6% of the life of the article, I think the subject is controversial by any reasonable measure. (98.6% - a statistic I derived by pulling numbers out of a hat until I got one that looked about right.)

I thank Infophile for raising a remarkable point: "there are also a few therapies which are actually accepted by the mainstream, though these tend to lose their CAM label over time". This describes a process whereby alternative medicine is continually marginalized. I.E., alternative therapies which prove highly or indisputably effective are no longer labelled "alternative". Perhaps this allows the medical establishment to continue to use "alternative" as a derogatory label, because some of the most successful parts of alternative medicine are no longer labelled as such.

Wanderer57 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that's the meaning we should be using. If not, then we're faced with the problem of having to declare subjects such as evolution controversial. There's certainly a notable controversy when it comes to a large section of the American public (and much less, though still notable, for most other developed nations), but none within the scientific community. When it comes to legitimate attempts to determine the nature of reality, anti-evolutionists just don't have a leg to stand on. This is why the article presents evolution as being unambiguously fact. Among the scientific community who studies related subjects (chemistry and medicine mostly), Homeopathy is just as soundly rejected as Intelligent Design. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I think our difference here is about word use, not about the underlying facts. The normal everyday meaning of "controversial" is not "disputed within the scientific establishment". For example, the Wikipedia article Controversy does not even mention scientific opinion or scientists. Giving the word "controversial" a special narrow meaning is confusing and inaccurate.

It reminds me of Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less". Wanderer57 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Wanderer57 here. It might not be controversial within a tiny group (allopathic doctors and scientists), but in society at large, it is quite controversial. This talk page is evidence of that. --Filll (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, could be. I'm still wary of a Teach the Controversy-type situation, to be honest. Maybe my analogy to evolution isn't quite appropriate, though. Medicine is certainly a much less clear-cut area. Then again, that comes with the fact that almost all alternative medicine is controversial by definition (and some might extend that to mainstream medicine as well), so what do we gain by pointing it out? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that western medicine is not universally accepted. Asian countries have medical systems that are very different from allopathy. Homeopathy is part of the mainstream medical system in India. The US-centric bias is not really consistent with NPOV. —Whig (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

---

infophile again : this is not my opinion. All the reliable sources above regard homeopathy as controversial including NCCAM. No one can seriously argue for its exclusion – after all it is already used in the article to support a specific point of view. Therefore categorizing homeopathy as pseudoscience violates the wikirule.

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories.

Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.This is obvious. I intend to open a RFC about this. --Area69 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links Need Updating

Several of the external links provided out-dated information. I suggest that the link for "The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy – Article from the American Council on Science and Health" should be deleted because its most recently updated article is from 2000, making this information at least 8 years old. If this link were to information on history, its dated nature would be somewhat moot, but because it claims to be a link for research, it should not be a part of this article unless the series were articles were more current. Second, I have the same recommendation for "Quackwatch." Although this site lists various articles by the date they were "posted," the vast majority of articles were written in the 1990s, as is obvious by the references in each article. Also, because the Quackwatch site is notoriously POV, its link in the External Links section doesn't support NPOV that we try to achieve.

Whether there is consensus to delete these sites or not (I look forward to this dialogue), it seems imperative that we add several external links here. When reviewing other articles on "alternative medicine" on wikipedia, there are consistently links to leading non-profit organizations of practitioners and/or consumers who advocate for it. In this light, there should be links to leading American, British, and European organizations, as well as links to the leading academic journal in the field and to a site that is an information-dense site on homeopathic history (sponsored by a non-profit organization). I propose the following External Links: -- [11] National Center for Homeopathy (NCH) -- [12] American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH) -- [13] British Homeopathic Association (BHA) -- [14] European Committee for Homeopathy (ECH) -- [15] European Council for Classical Homeopathy(ECCH) -- [16] Homeopathe International (HI) -- [17] Homeopathy, the leading academic journal in the field, published by Elsevier DanaUllman^Talk 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to note that in one breath, you say Quackwatch shouldn't get a link because it's POV, while in the next, you argue for the inclusion of various sites that in your own words "advocate for it." NPOV works both ways, and in any case, there's no rule against having external links to sites with a POV. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem in talking about Quackwatch is that "anti-homeopathy due to a basis in sound science and legitimate medical practices" is considered some sort of "bias" or "POV." It's like saying that biology textbooks are "POV" about evolution because they present the obvious conclusions of the available evidence and don't give space to creationist hogwash. The idea that there should be any sort of "balance" between provable facts about homeopathy (such as its actual working being completely impossible) and pro-homeopathy snake oil pitches is ludicrous. This fundamental misunderstanding about NPOV and the attendant appeals to democracy and endless arguments over nonsense on the talk page is the elephant in the room with this article; until we resolve it (ideally, by declaring a clear and final "homeopathy is an unscientific belief which will be described here in the manner of other pages which describe religious beliefs, pseudoscience, and scams, and not as any kind of legitimate medical practice") and bar people who insist on evangelizing for magic from the article, the article will never approach any reasonable standard of quality, no matter how many pointless tangents about side issues are argued about without addressing the major, fundamental problem. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottomline is that this is an article on homeopathy. Reference and links to its leading non-profit organizations and its leading journal should be a part of this article in the External Links section, just as it is in other alternative medicine articles. Whether you think that homeopathy is a useful OR useless treatment, reference to its leading organizations makes sense. Are there any level-headed folks out there? My concerns about some of the skeptics' links is that they are out-dated, and because these sites claim to discuss research, how would you feel if the Lancet only reported on research that was 8 years old (or more)?

DanaUllman^Talk 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does this leave Linde et al. (1997) and Linde et al. (1994), for example? Brunton (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious fact is that this is an encyclopedia article on homeopathy, not a webstie devoted to "debunking" therapeutic modalities that are not part of current mainstream perspectives. External links to the associations that are related to homeopathy should be included, and I would expect that to be an obvious statement also.

Any discussions that are merely editorializing against homeopathy do not help our coming to a consensus on how best to improve this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can keep dismissing correct science as "editorializing" or "what I think," it doesn't change the fact that it is correct and you are blocking any progress on this article by insisting that it treat your well-disproven religious beliefs as true or potentially true. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy. I do not believe you are being very helpful in coming to a consensus by simply repeating your opinion, which I find extreme. If you have further evidence that has not yet been presented here, fine; but otherwise we all have to work within the totality of the evidence that we have available to us. Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The explicit conclusions of Western science are not "my opinion," nor are they subject to debate. They are objectively correct facts, and anyone who disagrees with them is either misinformed or ill-intentioned. The fact that we're even discussing this is insane.

People who believe in homeopathy need to get off this article. Fundamentally irrational people are by definition beyond rational discussion, and can do nothing but impede progress. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Science is a method, not a body of objective facts. What you are proposing is a religious belief in scientific orthodoxy, and you are placing it beyond rational discussion. It is an objectively correct fact that people use homeopathy. We should try to document what it is and why people use it from all significant perspectives backed by verifiable, reliable sources. —Whig (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you do not have any new evidence, then? Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the statements above, for about the 500th time in a row, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. If we were managing this encyclopedic enterprise reasonably, people who persist in promoting an agenda that is against the principles under which Wikipedia is organized and operates should be summarily sanctioned. Until people here understand what NPOV is, there will be big trouble here. I do not mean to be uncivil; I am just stating a fact. Learn what Wikipedia is about, not what you want it to be or you think it should be. It is what it is. So we have to operate within the parameters that are set out for us. --Filll (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Randy really needs to get a grip. Above all he should stop getting uptight about the truth and just dispassionately pursue verifiability. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not take your concerns to WT:NPOV and you can discuss with other editors what the policy means. —Whig (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the kind of response that should be sanctioned. I am afraid I am arguing for us to follow the rules of Wikipedia and NPOV, and some of the homeopathy proponents are arguing frantically for us to ignore NPOV, or to change its meaning. This will not lead in a positive direction, so I would ask everyone to please reconsider this path. Remember that this article is under probation, so people can be sanctioned for "stone walling" and other very minor infractions which would normally not be any cause for concern.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see why the recommendation to enlist the help of WT:NPOV should be sanctioned? Anthon01 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to right the ship...

Folks, let's get off the track of hurling insults. WP:EL has a few relevant points to consider:

• "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
• "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews [should be linked]"
• There are many links to be avoided

Please, everyone, keep all of these in mind as we discuss moving forward.

Now, Dana, I'm not opposed to linking to a major homeopathy organization or three, but I'm hesitant to approve of six links. I've not (yet) looked directly at any of these sites, so I won't comment on their appropriateness, but considering WP:EL, is it necessary to have them all? Probably not, and we probably shouldn't.

Linking to Homeopathy doesn't seem too unreasonable, but we should avoid "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content." How much is available for free?

As for your recommendations to remove the ACSH & Quackwatch links, I strongly disagree. To turn it around, how much of the content of the homeopathy organization websites is "at least 8 years old"--let's be honest, homeopaths will hang onto a piece of "positive" evidence for just as long as anti-homeopaths will present negative stuff. It's not like groundbreaking research in the last 8 years have proven Barrett and others wrong... — Scientizzle 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since homeopathy is still largely based on work done by Hahnemann in the 18th century, I think the inclusion of other people's work from eight years ago is perfectly acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Scientizzle for realizing that leading homeopathic organizations/journals have a place here in this article on homeopathy (I admittedly feel a bit funny thanking you for acknowledge the obvious, but in the light of some editors have much more extreme views, I still thank you). And Tim, I understand your point, but if we want to keep the link to the American Council, we should not call their body of information "Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy" unless they make a more sincere effort to remain up-to-date on this subject. Also, there is a difference between historical reviews and research reviews. The American Council focuses on the research, and because it doesn't do a good job here, I feel it should be deleted. To clarify, Hahnemann first coined the word "homeopathy" in 1807. Please don't refer to his work as 18th century. As for selecting which homeopathic sites to have in the External Links section, none of them require anyone to pay to access the vast majority of their information. Secondly, all of the sites (except the one for the AIH) are information-dense sites that are regularly updated. I suggest that we insert them all, except for the AIH site. I encourage people to visit these sites to evaluate them yourselves...and I hope that some of the reasonable skeptics will police some of the more extreme ones. Let's keep this place friendly [WP:AGF] and provide good wiki-information. DanaUllman^Talk 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While Hahnemann may not have coined the word "homeopathy" until 1807, his investigations of the effects of cinchona bark took place as early as 1790, and he published an essay extending his findings on cinchona into a general principle in 1796 [18]. It doesn't appear unreasonable to refer to this work, on which he based homoeopathy, as 18th century. Brunton (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a good measure of sources on all sides, including extreme sources on both sides. It is impossible to write a reasonable article with reasonable sources unless we include the extremes as well. So if there are really crazy homeopaths out there making crazy claims, let's see them. If there are scientists who say it is all nonsense, let's see them. If there are homeopaths who have a less extreme view, they should be represented. If there are scientists who think there is something mysterious here, lets see it. Censoring any of this material will not do anything positive for our readers. Remember, we are not here to present homeopathy in a good light or any particular light besides NPOV. And if 99% of the scientific community thinks it is pure garbage, then we need to have that described with evidence. If 30% or 50% of all homeopaths do not agree with vaccination, then that should be described, with evidence. And the ratio of "pro-homeopathy" to "anti-homeopathy" material should be in proportion to the prominence of the belief, which of course we can discuss and measure or estimate in various ways. But it is clear that this is a WP:FRINGE area and we should follow the appropriate guidelines.--Filll (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally link to extreme sources, only significant views are to be included in Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well by that measure no scientific evidence in favor of homeopathy would be presented. And I think that is not helpful. And I think by that measure we might not describe the uses of starlight or Berlin Wall in remedies. And I think that is not helpful. By that measure some might argue that any mention of homeopathy in the US aside from a historical context should be elided. And that I do not think is helpful. I think there is a place for extreme views held by a minority in some circumstances, particularly when the entire topic is an extreme view held by a minority.--Filll (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A significant number of people use homeopathy in the United States. In California it is fully mainstream, in fact. If you don't understand or agree with the NPOV policy, I'm sorry. —Whig (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Our best data show that in the US, homeopathy is used by about 2% of the population at large. Using as a measure of prominence research dollars or consumer spending, it is probably even more minor. By number of practitioners, it is probably more minor. By any reasonable measure, it is a WP:FRINGE belief in any country except for India, and even in India it is pretty minor compared to allopathy. The homeopathic products sold in the US like HeadOn, Zicam and Oscillococinium do not even advertise themselves as homeopathic remedies. The fact that they are homeopathic remedies does not even appear on the packages of the packages I have seen. If this is not a sign that homeopathy is not mainstream and is a minor WP:FRINGE belief, I do not know what is. And you can claim all you like that I do not understand NPOV, but I have not seen any evidence of that. Show me with direct quotes from WP policies how minority positions are not supposed to be presented in proportion to their prominence.That is NPOV.--Filll (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's mainstream in California. Certainly it is not mainstream in Pennsylvania. —Whig (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The continued erroneous belief and insistence that "the ratio of 'pro-homeopathy' to 'anti-homeopathy' material should be in proportion to the prominence of the belief" for an article in Wikipedia will never result in getting this article to academic NPOV standards. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As an academic, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "academic NPOV standards". Give me a link in an academic peer-reviewed mainstream journal that discusses "academic NPOV standards". NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, and does state that the proportions of pro and anti material should correspond to the prominence of their beliefs. That is WP NPOV, like it or not.--Filll (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Open any encyclopedia and you will immediately see what the academic standards are: unbiased presentation of the subject matter. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the source of your confusion. Wikipedia does not make a neutral presentation of the subject matter, and Wikipedia does not strive for an unbiased presentation of the subject matter. Wikipedia uses WP:NPOV as its standard, which is NOT unbiased and NOT neutral. NPOV balances various views , and tries to include all views, neutral and nonneutral and extreme in proportion to their prominence.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not just a binary, there may be a diversity of views and any of them which are held by a significant number of people should be represented in proportion to the prominence of those views. This does not mean only prominence in scientific terms but prominence also in the public eye. We have millions of people in California using homeopathic medicines, and all Wikipedia can tell them is they must be stupid. —Whig (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is, that an unbiased presentation of homeopathy will state that homeopathy does not work, is scientifically impossible, and is a form of medical fraud practiced by con men. That's not "bias," it's the truth. The bias is when people distort that truth to protect their own cognitive dissonance and evangelize for magic. This is EXACTLY the same thing that goes on with evolution-related articles--there is no "bias" or "value judgment" in saying that evolution is a fact and creationism is a lie. That statement is true, and anyone seeking equal time or "fair" representation for creationism is seeking to introduce bias and falsehood. So it goes for homeopathy. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. the amount of evidence pro is, and has always been, greater than the amount of evidence anti; it is the nature of the beast (the quality of this evidence involves a less easily quantified judgement call). Also, surely it is not the number of believers versus disbelievers that is important as most people probably would admit to being 'dont knows'. Should we be concerned with the relative numbers of those with informed views then probably the pros would have greater numbers again. In the final analysis, we should be discussing both views using the evidence available and linking (internal and external) to the relevant sources that help readers to understand the topic and any 'controversy' better, hopefully without giving space to those with extreme views governed only by their gut instincts. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with having more pro-homeopathy sources and discussion in this article. And it has always been so. However, the contrary pro-science and pro-allopathy position must be represented, and contant efforts to get rid of it will end us up in big trouble and turn the article into a promotional vehicle for this WP:FRINGE treatment, which is completely against Wikipedia principles.--Filll (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to include both and characterize them neutrally, without saying that one of them is correct and one of them is not. —Whig (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Also, Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. As I have said, continual efforts to do this will not be positive in all likelihood.--Filll (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig: I expect that Filll has studied the NPOV policy as carefully as you; perhaps more so. The problem isn't that he doesn't understand it.

The problem is that you have two different understandings. Generalized disagreement will not resolve this. Specific discussions might.

It seems to me that the article might be thought of as having three components, as follows: (I'm not suggesting the three components need to be presented in three separate "clumps".) The components are meant to be an organizing principle.

• Description of Homeopathy, including history, underlying theory, current practise, how widely it is used, how regulated, etc, etc. This should be factual and objective material, not opinion-based.

• Positive opinion material about the importance, value, etc of Homeopathy.

• Critical negative opinion material about Homeopathy.

Viewed this way, the balance between positive and negative opinion suggested by NPOV is a balance between the last two components. The objective, "fact-based" material is not subject to the balance.

Whether this is any help, I don't know. I hope so. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that discussions over what NPOV means might better be had on WT:NPOV. —Whig (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wanderers position. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure of the proportions that are appropriate, but one thing is clear; there must be a solid measure of "anti-homeopathy" material and sources in the article. This might seem unfair, but it is totally inline with Wikipedia policies. There are other Wikis which do not require this, but from everything I have read and understood, one cannot rewrite articles on WP:FRINGE topics to exclude the mainstream views. And no, pro-science and pro-allopathy is not some extreme minority POV. It is the mainstream view. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has advocated removing anti-homeopathy material, and that would still be the case even if the anti-homeopathy material were the minority view. No need to invoke WP:FRINGE which may or may not have any bearing here at all. However, we do not need to link to partisan, unreliable sources regardless of their view. —Whig (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion started with the advocacy of including 7 "pro" links and removing 2 "anti" links...and there's been plenty of prior such advocacy. Don't play dumb. — Scientizzle 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual links may be appropriate or not, that is not the point. Nobody has suggested excluding all criticism of homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has explicitly suggested excluding all criticism of homeopathy, because you are far too well-versed in gamesmanship and dirty pool to actually come out and say what you want. But this discussion started over a line of reasoning on Quackwatch that goes "we can't include it as a legitimate anti-homeopathy source, because it contains material that is disparaging towards homeopathy, therefore it is biased against homeopathy." It's setting up a line of reasoning which would automatically exclude all criticism of homeopathy by using the fact that it is criticism as evidence for bias. I'm not the only one who can see what's going on here. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I regard this as a personal attack. —Whig (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that's another one of your clique's tactics--report anyone who tries to engage in discussion with you on the talk page for "attacking" you by disagreeing. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday. I have watched this going on on this page for a good 8 months. I wrote huge blocks of material that were folded into the current version; probably more than anyone else currently on this talk page.

You cannot start by saying "it is not fair and neutral and unbiased that these critical articles and this critical homeopathy debunking material be included" and then when you are called on it, claim you never said it, the same way you did the last 500 times you said it. It is obvious what is going on. The fact that you are complaining at all in this way over and over and over and over and over and over is a bad bad bad sign. Frankly, it stinks to high heaven. And maybe we need to call in an admin to start some blocking if this continues.--Filll (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are quoting, Filll. If you're going to engage with strawmen, there's not much point to continuing the discussion. —Whig (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it impossible to believe that you do not know what we are referring to. This sort of "playing dumb" to obstruct the discussion on purpose probably falls under the category of "stonewalling" which I notice others have been blocked for on this page. But just in case you missed what started this discussion, perhaps you remember this?--Filll (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, why do you bother? This appears to be an exercise in futility as the ship already sank. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think Whig is right. In the midst of a reasonably civil discussion, Randy Blackamoor came in with an attack statement about "gamesmanship and dirty pool". Then unfortunately Filll seemed to escalate the problem. Justifying an attack on Whig over an edit made by another editor does not make any sense, except perhaps as a diversionary tactic..

I also think that bringing back the apocalypse scenario, "the ship already sank", is unhelpful. Of course, approximately half the people who read this will think my comments unhelpful.

Yes yes, keep wringing your hands about how "uncivil" people are for pointing out your obvious Wikipolitics and tactical debating, and how magically all the people who want the article to be anything short of a total magic-endorsing piece of insanity are "uncivil" and need to be banned. Have all sorts of other crazy people come out of the woodwork and drop their monocles in shock, and gang up on the few remaining people who are trying to stop the hordes of idiots. It's nothing that doesn't go on at this article every week. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Blackamoor: I reject your description of my comments as "Wikipolitics and tactical debating"; I also reject the suggestion that I labelled an entire class of editors as "uncivil" and suggested they be banned. I made a specific statement to the effect that you had made an "attack statement" about "gamesmanship and dirty pool". Wanderer57 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemens, I just came out of the woodwork and I dropped my monocle on shock at how far this discussion has strayed from trying to improve the article. I suggest that further discussion of the topic "uncivility and gamesmanship (or the lack of thereof) on wikipedia" be held by leaving messages on each other's user pages, so it wouldn't clutter this page, it wouldn't suffer interruptions by monocle-dropping editors, and it wouldn't scare away people that try to contribute to the article and give up seeing this sort of conversation being held here. Oh, yeah, and WP:TALK, too. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of people whose "contributions" really ought to be "scared away" if the article is to be improved. As it stands now, we have a gang of pro-magic, anti-rationality people who are placing warnings on talk pages of anybody who disagrees, having sympathetic administrators ban people for objecting, and handing out "barnstars" to each other like candy for their valorous service to the cause of being retarded. It's a concerted effort to bully sane, anti-homeopathy people off the article. That's who's being "scared away." If the situation were possibly reversed, and the people who want to deny reality, pretend that magic memory water cures disease, debate in incomprehensible moon language, pretend that posted evidence was not posted, and engage in Wikipolitics of all kinds, were the ones being intimidated, it could only be to the article's benefit. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In this polarized debate, it would be very refreshing, when someone on "side A" writes something that is inappropriate in one way or another, to have someone else from "side A" call them on it. Also, of course, the other way around. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried; hasn't been refreshing I'm afraid. Pete St.John (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. And so it all comes down to: If you believe that NPOV should be followed, you are wrong. If you believe that the position of science and allopathy should be mentioned, you are wrong. If you try to have a discussion with a homeopath, you are wrong. If you believe in science and reason and evidence, you are wrong. If you try to discuss this in a reasonable way with the proponents of homeopathy, you are wrong. If you do anything at all that the pro-homeopathy cabal does not like, you are wrong. So you lead us to a very very ugly place. Yep, the ship has sunk and the only thing now left to do is drown the survivors. Thanks for making your position clear. So nice and reasonable. So willing to WP:AGF...but not really. But so be it. I will not bother with this nonsense any further. You proved your point. Unfortunately, the consequences might not be so positive. --Filll (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: in my note just above, I wrote mostly about civility. Nothing about science, anti-science, NPOV, or even homeopathy. I don't see how your comments can be meant as a reply to mine. Yet, based on the sequence, they appear to be.  ??? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have had enough.--Filll (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that coming from Filll, especially since Wanderer57 is such a civil guy and his idea for changing this article is very sound. I support it...and further, I'm ready to contribute some important references to meta-analyses that are presently not a part of this article. In fact, I have a proposed reworking of the controversial second paragraph. What is the best venue to propose these suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with sandboxes. DanaUllman^Talk 04:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy...this ship is sure wobbly...

I've taken a look at the links Dana provided and I have some notes. Thanks, Dana, for reasonably suggesting that the AIH site needn't be included.

• National Center for Homeopathy seems okay, though its incluson of a "store" to sell wares knocks 'em down a peg in my book.
• European Committee for Homeopathy looks good
• European Council for Classical Homeopathy is reasonable as well
• Homeopathe International looks like a crappy old-school html website, with flashing advert all over it (and a "Boutique" to boot)
• British Homeopathic Association and Faculty of Homeopathy looks fine

Given that WP:EL suggests that links should avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", and avoid "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" or "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising", I propose that we eliminate Homeopathe International from consideration. If we keep the other four, it covers North America, the UK & Europe without getting too long of a list. Remember, we don't have to provide this information, it exists to provide additional information beyond the Wikipedia article; there's no obligation to link these major organizations, but the four I think are okay do provide info without overselling products. The rest of the organizations can be found using Google, to which I assume a Wikipedia article-reader is likely to be vaguely familiar. I'm leaning against including the journal link since "a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." — Scientizzle 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle... 'Tis a pleasure to collaborate with you here. I'm glad that you agree that at least 4 of the above sites are worthy. I want to also include the NCH site becuase it is an information-dense site with a wide variety of practical information on the subject of this article. Its "store" represents only a very small part of the site. As for the site for Homeopathe International, the flashing ad is a distraction, though this site is one of the most information-filled sites on the history of homeopathy (and it includes many articles by the widely appreciated wiki-editor, [Peter Morrell]]. That said, I'm willing to compromise and omit it, though I'd love to hear others' thoughts here. As for the journal, "Homeopathy," this IS a subscription-based academic journal, though it IS the leading academic journal on the subject of this article. I will love to hear from some wiki-experts on their thoughts on wiki-policy on this subject. DanaUllman^Talk 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The journal Homeopathy provides Abstracts of its articles and occasional free full content via Science Direct at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14754916 . This is still a useful link. Martin Chaplin (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the environment is so poisonous now that no one can dare comment, or at least will do so at tremendous risk. So thanks but no thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

while Homeoapthe internatinoale has a lot of important sources that do so to be hlepful, if the advertisements and general character of the site ais noisome to wikipedia then it should be removed. There is a nolot of redundancy on the Intenret so it is possible that the same information could be found plagiarized somewhere else. if someone can find a plagiarist or borrower site that fits WP's criteria for external links then we should substitute that in for the Homeopathe Interntionale website.

I also recomend against the removal of the website metnioned by Scientizzle that sells products unless absolutely necessary. Smith Jones (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we use plagiarized sources. —Whig (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WHY NOT? ui have compowered the rules a dozen time and i see nothing that explicitly prohibits tuing plagiaried or borrowed sources as an alternative for commercial sites when writing about homeopath.y. that choice is in perfect compliance with all known wikipedia regulations and consensusesSmith Jones (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Copyrights for more information on our policies. Specifically: However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. —Whig (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much as DanaUllman's references seem reasonable, the problem is that they are all with a Point Of View, ie they are biased. Contrary to the homeopaths' statements, there are no organisations who balance this view. Balance probably isn't the word to use because as others in this discussion have noted the majority of scientists and evidence based medical doctors find homeopathy lacking in effectiveness. However many blogs and forums have detailed discussions about the various clinical trials that are advertised in those references. These trials are the sole claim of the homeopaths that homeopathy works because the mechanisms put forward for homeopathy lack any credence. I suggest that if the DanaUllman references are used then references to BadScience by Ben Goldacre, LeCanardNoir by Andy Lewis, The New England Skeptical Society mainly led by Steven Novella and Orac at Respectful Insolence should also be included at the very minimum. Acleron (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Acleron: You say: "the mechanisms put forward for homeopathy lack any credence". I'm not going to agree or disagree with that statement, but can we agree that it is a statement of opinion on your part? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that we do not generally use blogs as reliable sources, and I don't think that WP:BALANCE is a policy superseding WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, before those new homeopathic organizations were added, virtually ALL of the external links were to skeptics' sites. Are you suggesting that Randi is an advocate or Stephen Barrett is? Only the history book was not from a skeptics' viewpoint. The fact of the matter is that articles on wikipedia have external links to other primary sources of information...and without these links, this article would be POV to the max. DanaUllman^Talk 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still insisting that the conclusions of mainstream science are "POV" or need to be "balanced" with the rantings of crazy people. This is neither correct nor in line with what the Wikipedia NPOV policy states. There should, in fact, be mostly links to people who do not believe in full-blown insane nonsense like homeopathy, with a few links to those who do believe in such things to provide citations for descriptions in the article of what homeopaths believe. Again, this is like calling a biologist an "advocate" or a "skeptic" or a "POV pusher" for talking about how evolution works, and demanding "balance" by bean-counting for creationist websites. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Following Randy Blackamoor's comment above, I've banned him for 7 days from all homeopathy related pages. Addhoc (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to all concerned if you could explain WHY you have banned him? He has not said anything above that he has not said before several times. Irritating though that may be yet he is surely entitled to express his view and has he actually insulted anyone? Furthermore, he has not tampered with the article. Purely from a sociological viewpoint his view, extreme though it is, should be heard IMO. thanks Peter morrell 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, yes I agree he has made a large number of similar comments, and, if you look at his talk page, he has received warnings for these comments. Regarding his 1 week ban, I don't think his conduct was helping to improving the article. Remember, this page isn't a free-for-all debating forum, but is supposed to be civil, productive discussion on how we can improve the article. Finally, in keeping with this page being purely for discussion on how we can improve the article, if you want to continue this discussion could you do so at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents. Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: As suggested by Addhoc, I have copied the above two paragraphs HERE, and added my opinion. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This probayshun thingee is werkin real good, i'n'it?

Bottom line: until both sides (ain't no middle 's far as I can tell) accept the fact that items "unpalatable" to their view must be here, this nonsense will continue unabated. Personally, I'd like to see everyone but Filll and Peter be banned from editing the article. No offense to the rest of y'all, but ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wandere57, homeopathy relies first on 'The Law of Similars' ie that a substance that causes a symptom in a healthy person, when diluted to nothing will cure that symptom in a sick person. No mechanism known in biochemistry or the related medical sciences supports this hypothesis. The second problem is in the dilution which seems to require several mechanisms unknown to science 1) the substance conveys some information to water 2) when the substance is no longer present (commonly termed as exceeding the Avogadro limit) the information replicates itself 3) when the water is added to a lactose pill and dried the information transfers to the pill and 4) the information now back in an aqueous environment penetrates a cell wall and produces an effect. I could say 'the mechanisms put forward for homeopathy are unknown to science' if that makes it more palatable. But they still lack credence. Acleron (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada section

The information that appears under Canada is misleading in that the wording "...homeopathy is not officially recognized by the Federal Food and Drug Act..." is not appropriate. It would be the same as saying that the Federal Food and Drugs Act doesn't officially recognize Ritalin or psychiatrists since they are also not officially named in the Act. The recognition or regulation of the practice of medicine, whether physician, vet, homeopathy or other is provincial jurisdiction and not federal, and there are 2 provincial governments that recognize homeopathy. Homeopathic medicine was regulated under the Canadian Food and Drug Act and many of the remedies still carry DIN (Drug Identification Number). In 2004 homeopathic medicines came under new regulation in the Natural Health Product Regulations, which are federal and are under the Food and Drug Act. In the guidance documents associated with these regulations it is recommended that a homeopath be part of any clinical trial for a homeopathic medicine. So the wording "not officially recognized" is not accurate and misleading. This information is easily verified by going to the Government of Canada website and searching for either "Homeopath", "Homeopathy" or "Homeopathic Medicine", there are lots of references. Jennyd7777 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)jennyd7777

Thanx for the clarification. I support you deleting the incorrect info now. Perhaps give your suggestions for replacement language here before inserting into the article. DanaUllman^Talk 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

since the Federa Food and Drugs ACt does not explicitly mention or refer to or acknowledge or even mention homeopathy, why should a refernece to it even be shoehorned into this article? I recommend that User:Jennyd take it down, Smith Jones (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, homeopathy IS mentioned in that famous Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. In fact, that law was sponsored by the senator from New York, [Royal Copeland], who also just happened to be a homeopathic physician and former Dean of the New York Homeopathic Medical College. That law gave formal federal recognition to homeopathic medicines as "drugs," and later, they will primarily deemed "over-the-counter drugs" (not requiring a doctor's prescription, due to their safety). Copeland died within a couple of days after his bill was signed into law. A classic and great story for a bill that became one of the most important consumer rights laws ever passed. DanaUllman^Talk 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

okay im officialyl confused. tHe original post was talking about canada, but your comment metnions a Senator from New York. New York is in the UNITED STATES anwihile Canada is in the North America above the United STate.s are we talking in two directions here or am i Seirously misreading your posts? Smith Jones (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry for the confusion that I created. When you mentioned the Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act, I clicked on what was said about the US law. Please ignore it (for now). DanaUllman^Talk 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disingenuous? "not requiring a doctor's prescription, due to their safety". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim: This prob-babe-lee is a stoopid questuion but I've assed those befor. Will you please explain yur comment just above? Thankyou Wanderer57 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PS While I'm at it, I would like to know from Dana what the wording is of the "famous Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938" that he refers to. Is it on-line somewhere? Thankyou. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)