Talk:Homeopathy

References

Please keep this section at the top.

NCCAM and the "Linde letter"

NB: I've merged a number of threads about the same issue together here, to make it easier to follow what has already been said, and make sure that earlier parts of the debate aren't archived while the issue is still being discussed. Please continue discussion of this issue in this thread rather than starting new ones. Brunton (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is not clear. NACCAM reports under controversies that "However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies." They also state that they refund homeopathy while the Lancet through Shang says that there is no reason for more research since it is all placebo and impossible. Its kind of funny you dont want to accept that this is a controversial issue and that there is not clear consensus. The sources you are using state that not me --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed that that quotation does not come from the "Controversies" section, but from the section headed "The Status of Homeopathy Research". The "controversies" section says that it is controversial "because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science" while its proponents point to anecdotal evidence. Brunton (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate the accurate reporting of the scientific consensus. Indeed, it would be unusual if there weren't some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that had positive outcomes. The fact is, when taken together and properly weighted, homeopathy is found to have no effect above placebo, and is contrary to accepted scientific principles. By the way, have you previously had or currently have an account? Verbal chat (UTC)

What you say is only one interpretation of the reviews on Homeopathy. Other organizations like NACCAM as you see above hold a different view which for some reason has been eliminated. You keep reporting from NACCAM only the part you agree with. The other part about " positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies and the fact that they fund research for Homeopathy is not reported. That;s all.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the NCCAM article. It should be apparent to any independent reader that the organization exists for purely political reasons, not scientific ones.User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you object to the use of NACCAM quotes in the article (when these are used to debunk Homeopathy) then?--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any other objections. I will add this to the article later.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You will probably find that your changes will be reverted because it's quite clear that you haven't achieved any consensus for your proposed changes. Can I suggest that you put your proposal here on the talk page for "buy in" from the other editors who frequent this page? That way it can be discussed and consensus achieved. FWIW can I recommend that you get an account? --Shot info (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I've been otherwise occupied. I don't see that the NCCAM cites are used to "debunk" homeopathy, only to show that homeopathic remedies are placebos. If you think placebos don't work, you are simply wrong. Within certain limits they do, and it is well established in the literature. Why some editors here persist in devaluing the placebo effect is mystifying to me. But as a general practice of argumentation it is accepted that when a speaker or writer makes a statement against interest it is more credible than the reverse. That's not specific to wikipedia. If the head of a big pharma company said that Bach flower remedies were effective, that too would carry more credence than if they were touting COX-2 inhibitors. Clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to provide a rational response to my question above."Why don't you object to the use of NACCAM quotes in the article (when these are used to debunk Homeopathy)? and why you don't want to include its other statements about homeopathy;s efficacy and research in the article. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of my response above do you consider to be irrational? By my reading I responded directly to your question. Perhaps I'm missing the citation you find problematic: it would help if you would identify it.User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[undent] 69.125.7.24 - you say "the scientific consensus is not clear"; however, if you look at the whole of the paragraph from which you took your quotation, you'll find it expressed there, albeit with something of a positive spin: "Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed." There will always be a few apparently positive results even for a completely ineffective therapy. the fact that there are a few in favour of homoeopathy does not negate the rest of the evidence. Brunton (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but the scientific consensus is extremely clear. There is no evidence of any effect beyond the subjective placebo effect. You need to read the section above: Talk:Homeopathy#British_House_of_Commons_Science_and_Technology_Committee_report. There the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has made it very clear, and has recommended that all support for homeopathy be withdrawn. NCCAM happens to be a political group whose funding is based on them finding positive results for alternative medicine. All they have produced is negative results in almost all studies conducted over ten years at a cost of $2.5 billion! R. Barker Bausell, a research methods expert and author of "Snake Oil Science" states that "it's become politically correct to investigate nonsense."[1] Needless to say, their days are numbered. They just happen to be behind the curve in relation to the Brits. Even our own NPOV policy, in the section about Pseudoscience and related fringe theories, ends with these words:

• "Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy."

Those words are an added justification for why this article is placed in the Category:Pseudoscience. It fits the qualifications described in group 2 higher up in that section:

• "Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

There is no question that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". If it had a proven effect beyond the subjective placebo effect, we wouldn't have this discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a meaningful and good faith conversation? I m asking a specific question and instead of responding to what has been asked and/or said you keep repeating the same thing. You have to respond to what has been asked and argued and in order to make some progress.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality - trying again

So lets try again.

The Lancet through Shang says that there is no reason for more research since it is all placebo and impossible and no research is needed.

Nacam website states the following "Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed."However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies." Nacam supports homeopathy's research they pay for it. Also prominent researchers, who are quoted in this article, say in the Lancet that while homeopathy has not been proved as a therapy "Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."..." The conclusion that "physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. "

These are different views. Clearly.

The view expressed by NACAM and Linde is not in the article. Why? It is a simple question.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So? Propose the change that you wish to make, otherwise these discussions can be deleted per WP:TALK because they are not improving the article. Shot info (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:Don't delete my comments again. Not kind. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, part of me is starting to think that somebody is just here trying to prove a point :-( Shot info (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just classic WP:TE and WP:IDHT. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search for NACAM and couldn’t find an organization relevant to homeopathy or human medicine, so I don’t think they’re important enough for their appraisal of the situation to be relevant to the article. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 12:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Try NCCAM. — Scientizzle 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a neutral approach

I think that NACAM and Linde views cannot be excluded from the article.The objection from one editor that NACAM is a political group is not serious. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, is also a political organization; NACAM quotes on Homeopathy are used in the article. Linde is also extensively quoted. If you want to be neutral we have to include their entire view not only the negative part. I will make my suggestions below. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral doesn't mean "free of criticism". Linde has, I believe, retracted his conclusions (for both meta-analyses) and the NCCAM is heavily criticized for attempting to "prove" alternative therapies, rather than test them. The article should reflect the conclusions of the best research trials and theoretical commentaries. As evidence accumulates against homeopathy, the article should follow. The evidence is either against homeopathy, or sufficiently flawed that it can't be reported without criticism. The fact of the matter is, homeopathy seems to be winding down it's long life as research, particularly good research, continues to find it is as effective as placebo. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why 69.125.7.24 thinks that "the NCCAM view" is excluded from the article. The NCCAM page that has been repeatedly quoted says "Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies"; the lead of the article currently says "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence. While some studies have positive results, systematic reviews of all the published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy." The NCCAM page says that most of the research is negative, but there are some positive results, and so does the article. Brunton (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

NAcam and Linde are major reliable resources ( already in use ) and I don't understand why you dont want to read them. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with all the concerns expressed above. I wish people who participate in this discussion to try to answer some of these questions.

Brunton says that the article includes the Nacam view. This is false: Nacam funds homeopathy research and they say that and "some laboratory research report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies." This must also be in the article; it is not included so far.

Linde,who is also extensively quoted, and reports to the lancet that "Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."...and that " The conclusion that "physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. " has to be included.

Otherwise we just cherry pick the negative part of someone's opinion.

Please try to respond to what has been said or asked and try to read the article before you comment. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead of the article already states that on the whole the evidence is negative, but some studies have positive results, which is what your quotation from NCCAM says.

It is a little difficult to see where in the article most of your quotations from Linde and Jonas's 2005 letter to the Lancet could be included, as they are criticisms not of the Shang et al. paper but of the Lancet's accompanying editorial, which is not currently mentioned in the article. If they are to be included, then the editorial's conclusions to which they were a response would also have to be included. The one possible exception is the first quotation, which is at least about the paper mentioned in the article. Given the briefness of the discussion of Shang in the article, though, it might be difficult to include it without giving it undue weight; I'm not sure how much of an "overstatement" the conclusion was, given that it only said that the findings "provide support to the notion" that homoeopathy has no action beyond placebo - if it had said that it proved the notion, then that would certainly be an overstatement, but it didn't say this.

It would be easier for people to "respond to what has been said or asked" if you could reply in the original thread rather than starting a new one each time you post anything, by the way. Brunton (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...we don't need a new section on this. The NCCAM has been criticized for its naive view of homeopathy, and they are a funding agency, not a research body. Further, Linde has disavowed the conclusions of his study supporting homeopathy, and Shelton is explicit that Linde shouldn't be cited to support classical homeopathy because it's a flawed study. The conclusions are explicit and becoming more so - homeopathy has mixed results, no reason why it should be effective, and the better the quality of research, the less evidence there is for it being effective. We should be citing the most reliable reviews, in the most reliable sources, published in high-impact journals. Those continue to point to homeopathy being placebo-only. Please review the FAQ at the top of the page. There is no consensus for drastic changes to homeopathy being effective, and seeking "balance" is actually a way of putting undue weight on the opinions of proponents at the expense of the science. Not a good way to build an encyclopedia - the scientists are skeptics even if the public isn't but this is why we rely on scientists, not the public. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So you say that the readers should know about the conclusions of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in 2009-2010 that homeopathy does not work better than placebo but they should not know that Nacam ( a major organization in the US ) funds homeopathy research and that the researchers ( Linde and ) you quote all the time in the article state in the Lancet that "Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement." Isn't that misinformation and strong bias??--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen to somebody neutral who'd have to pay for it along with proven healthcare, or listen to somebody who has already pumped money into it. I'd call it not giving undue weight. Bevo74 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Linde et al is both old, and criticized by Linde et al themselves for being flawed an inaccurate. The NCCAM has been criticized for being a mouthpiece for its creator, senator Tom Harkin, who has himself criticized the NCCAM for 'failing to prove that complimentary and alternative medicine actually work'. Science tests, to mandate that it must "prove" something is an interference of politics into the search for truth. See for example, the criticisms section of that very page, or if you're interested in more reliable sources, the article quoted in the page from Science (though you may have to request a reprint from the author or go to a library). For that matter, the NCCAM is primarily a funding body, though they do claim to disseminate authoritative information (though lacking the pedigree and history of the other centers). Further, the NCCAM's own statement on homeopathy has a very interesting Key Points section, which has a second bullet stating "Most analyses have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition; although, some studies have reported positive findings. " And as a final point - the NCCAM is funding basic research into efficacy which means it's still uncertain whether it even works. It's not like it's comparing different types of chemotherapy for evidence of incremental improvement, or two different heart medications. Funding research something doesn't mean it's true, effective or even worth looking at. They're funding TACT as well, and in the past they have funded much research into many ideas that proved to be worthless. Homeopathy is only different because it has a substantial and vocal support base of already-convinced advocates who refuse to accept that there is no good research base supporting homeopathy's effectiveness, and at least one of them is a senator with enough power to force it down the research community's throat. The NCCAM giving a tepid "research base is equivocal" statement is worth far less text than the UK HCSTC conducting a thorough investigation in which they come to a conclusion that clearly states there is no real evidence supporting the believe that homeopathy is nothing but a placebo. While the NCCAM is mostly about giving money away, the HCSTC was mostly designed to reach an evidence-based conclusion. And they did. So I think the weight given is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NACAM is a reliable source?

Question for all: if NACAM is a non reliable source ( for whatever reason) why dont you object to the use of its quotes in the Homeopathy article? Please respond and don't change the topic all the time. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The limited quotes used in the meta-analyses section conforms with the mainstream point of view, thus giving due weight to the appropriate level of scientific support. However, they could easily be removed, and the ideas replaced with virtually any mainstream source. And frankly, it doesn't really belong in that section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight, accuracy and neutrality

There is a misunderstanding of Undue weight in this page: The importance of the reliable sources define the weight of a given view. "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. and also "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."It also says that the mainstream view should be empahszied. It does not say that the minority view should be excluded or eliminated. Taking from reliable sources only the quotes which express the sceptical view and eliminating or excluding the other views which are presented in the same reliable sources like the Lancet ( LInde letter) NCCAM website info ( a major organization in the US which funds homeopathy reasearch) lead to a heavily biased article. According to wikipedia this his not neutral writing. Please reconsider.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

NCCAM. It's not NACAM. If you're going to perserverate over this issue, at least start getting your argument precise if not accurate... — Scientizzle 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Most publications about homoeopathy, at least the ones that are supporting, aren't considered reliable (journals like Homoeopathy for instance). Also, WP:MEDRS applies - we should be basing the page, particularly any medical claims of effectiveness, on the most reliable sources. Again, that's not sympathetic journals publishing case studies - that's meta-analyses and review articles. The NCCAM itself basically says "there's no research basis, but lots of people use it". That's a pretty pathetic statement to make. The page should discuss what homoeopathy is, the theories, the history, but when it comes down to effectiveness, it should clearly state that the research base is very, very poor and all signs point to it being totally ineffective beyond placebo - with the research base narrowing as the quality of the studies increases, reaching the vanishing point when considering only double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with randomized treatment and placebo arms of high N and low or equivalent drop-out rates. Also, the "theory" section should clearly include discussions of how homoeopathy violates the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and dose-response in medicine, while showing all the characteristics of a good placebo (authority, age, ritual, demand characteristics, age, exoticness, "sciencey" looking) and a bad theory (mutually contradictory hypotheses, poor-quality evidence base, lack of falsification, special pleading, goalpost-moving). The only thing homoeopathy ever had going for it was popular appeal and claims of effectiveness - as those claims are systematically dismantled and published in high-quality sources, they should be discussed here. Science believes homoeopathy to be a strong placebo, and the answer of homoeopathy is to ignore criticisms or deflect them with tangents. We should use the examples and information of the best sources - the high-quality studies and reviews that indicate homoeopathy is no different from placebo, and no reason to expect it to be different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Linde letter" that 69.125.7.24 is so keen to include quotations from says in its opening paragraph that its authors (Linde and Jonas) "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". The letter as a whole is not terribly positive as far as homoeopathy is concerned - it merely raises some specific criticisms of the Shang paper (which were addressed by the paper's authors) and some rather more robust criticisms of the accompanying Lancet editorial, which is not even referenced in the article. Brunton (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

DMOZ

What's wrong with it.

The only discussion on it, as far as I can tell, is at Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 38#External links - Associations and regulatory bodies — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No matter what, an unbalanced DMOZ doesn't mean we should fill the EL section with a lot of links instead. We should choose a small number of extremely appropriate links. Visiting the actual DMOZ page, it does look like a couple hundred cheerleading links, and the only "anti-" section I could find is here, with only five links. Perhaps instead we include homeowatch, maybe the NCCAM link as well as it is supposed to be evidence-based (though reading through it, it looks more like a cheerleader as well - despite token acknowledgement of the utter lack of research base it still discusses it seriously). For NPOV, there should be a reasonable "pro-" site though given its antiscientific slant that could be difficult. Perhaps Ben Goldacre? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That particular DMOZ link goes to a one-sided collection of sites promoting homeopathy. It shows no semblance of balance on the part of that DMOZ editor. I'd be fine with having no ELs at all in place of the WP:LINKFARM, but in this case DMOZ simply fails to serve its purpose. User:LeadSongDog come howl 13:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump on board that bandwagon. I think we would be well-served to have some ELs, but I think we need to be much more judicious about it than the DMOZ appears to have been - they are universally positive in that particular link from what I can tell. I've replaced with homeowatch and the critical DMOZ page, but in the interest of NPOV we really should have something that is more "pro". That's a very tough call since the only people who really support it are the ones who make money off of it. For the love of Jebus, the WHO is against it!

Perhaps we could link to Ecch (pronounced like it sounds, and very appropriately so)? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that indicates ECCH meets WP:MEDRS? I'm particularly intrigued by its inclusion of this study which exhibits a profound lack of understanding of statistics as applied to experimental design.User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

External links don't have to meet MEDRS. In fact, such a link would be allowable on (only?) this article per WP:EL. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ECCH (prounounced "Ecch") is included in the DMOZ as one of the sub-links for Europe. I think the current set of links is adequate (still over-long in my opinion) but does give an adequate balance of critical to uncritical while reflecting the mainstream. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, BullRangifer. I don't much like that aspect of WP:EL, but this isn't the place for that discussion. If ECCH is seen as the best advocacy EL, for the purpose of illustrating such I'll go along with it.User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How much starting material is used in a homeopathic remedy?

How much of the original substance is used in preparing a homeopathic remedy? I'm not very sympathetic to homeopathy, but I'm tired of seeing people on my side of the fence cite 12C as the magic number beyond which there isn't any of the original substance (per Avogadro's number). I don't think homeopaths measure out 1 mole of the original substance; although that would depend quite a bit on what the original substance is. 1 mole of table salt isn't all that much (53g). 1 mole of the protein in Lachesis venom would weigh quite a bit more, although it's not clear how relevant moles even are in this case; I would suspect that most plant and animal derived homeopathic remedies start with a complex mixture of substances, not a single purified alkaloid or protein. So how much material do homeopaths usually start with? A few grams? A few kilos? This will only effect the point at which no molecules of the original material remain by a couple orders of magnitude, but as I said I'm tired of the anti-homeopathy argument boiling down to :"12C, Avogadro's number, end of discussion". Let's at least figure out how many (roughly) moles are used initially.192.104.39.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

Well, if they started with 100 moles, 13C would be the equivalent. If they started with 0.01 moles, 11C would be the equivalent. Both are rather extreme, the first because it would be needlessly large, inconvenient, and expensive, the second because for some materials it would be difficult to measure precisely (not that I think that would or should bother homeopaths). Since none of the literature (so far as I've seen) mentions 11C or 13C dilutions the question is rather academic. If they go past 12C they go way past it.User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The amount of preparation in the dose is probably more important in determining how likely it is that there is going to be a molecule from the "mother tincture" present. Remember that if the dilution process started with 100 moles of the substance, then a correspondingly large amount of solvent would be needed at each stage of the dilution - the important factor is the ratio between the amount carried forward at each step and the amount of solvent it is diluted with at each step (either 1:10 or 1: 100). However large an amount of the mother tincture you start with, the concentrations will be the same, because it would still need to be diluted 100-fold (or 10-fold) at each step. The mother tinctures themselves are probably not particularly concentrated: for example, for preparations made from plants they are prepared by steeping the plant matter in a water/alcohol mixture for a few weeks and then filtering out the solid matter (See Jay Shelton's Homeopathy: how it really works, p.20; Shelton describes the process as "like making tea except for the lack of heat"). Figuring out "how many moles are used initially" is going to be difficult, because it never (or rarely, at least) seems to be stated - homoeopaths appear to consider the number of dilution/succussion steps to be the important issue, not the actual amount of material present at the start. Brunton (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A little parenthesis, and then continue.... While this exercise is interesting, let's not forget that ultimately it's futile effort (as far as convincing true believers), since we're dealing with a subject (homeopathy in general) that defies logic and whose adherents will constantly move the goalposts. Now continue. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article so negative?

Why is this article so negative? I saw the table at the top, but can we still do something to change things? Is there any Homoeopathic Doctor writing this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Vittal (talk • contribs) 13:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is enough criticism available at 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism' (I got it on Pg.2 by searching Yahoo), so can we make this article a bit better?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page (or here). Homeopathy is scientifically improbable, unsupported by clinical trials and fairly unethical. That sub-page you have linked to is not part of the main page. If by "better" you mean "more supportive of homeopathy as an effective intervention for medical problems", we can not make the page better - there is a large body of reliable evidence that converges on the conclusion that homeopathy is nothing but a placebo. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read the FAQ at the top of this talkpage, it should help answer these questions. With specific response to the second question, most WP editors work under usernames that are pseudonyms for a number of excellent reasons. It is (nearly) impossible for ordinary editors to answer that question which should in any case be irrelevant. Policy on Wikipedia requires that we do not insert our own personal knowledge or opinions into articles, instead relying on the most reliable sources available and citing them as we write. User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On the 3rd search page, Yahoo gave me this web-site, "http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/index.html" (Google gives it on page 1 under, "www.britishhomeopathic.org "). I also got, "http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/evid/clinical-trials.aspx" and "http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354"

I also found, "Dr Peter Fisher: Response to Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the Commons Science and Technology Committee by Von H.Blog", which clearly shows there was a bias.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia articles on medical topics is written based on the most reliable sources we can find. This generally means peer-reviewed journal articles, particularly secondary sources reviewing a large number of primary publications (i.e. we base things on meta-analyses when possible). High-quality meta-analyses consistently point to homeopathy being placebo, with effects becoming vanishingly small as the research methodologies improve. Comments, even by well-known proponents, are not adequate to over-ride these types of publications. Theoretically, clinically, homeopathy is found to lack a research base to support it being an effective intervention. Random web pages are not accurate, you would need to provide peer-reviewed articles indicating homeopathy has merit, and even in that case it would be undue weight to substantially rewrite the article based on them. The scholarly consensus has resolved itself rather sharply over the last couple years to point to homeopathy being ineffective. Though the page can discuss the history, methods and popularity of homeopathy, ultimately in terms of effectiveness the page appropriately indicates that there is no evidence-based reason to believe homeopathy is effective at treating any medical condition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So please tell me how many homeopaths are involved in writing this article. Can I change my user name?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you how many homeopaths were involved in writing the article - no-one could and it is inappropriate to ask. Pages are based on reliable sources, making it irrelevant who wrote it. The only important thing is that the page is built on the accurate summary of reliable sources, that gives appropriate weight to the mainstream opinion. See WP:ENC, the five pillars and WP:NOT for more information on what wikipedia is and is not. The problem with parsing edits according to who made is that it is antethical to assuming good faith. In addition, it creates problems of advocacy and conflict of interest when users attempt to promote a topic rather than write about it neutrally. Consensus and a arbitration case have solidly established that the FAQ at the top of the page represents the best way to deal with homeopathy on wikipedia. Please respect it.

To change your user name, see WP:CHU. It is recommended that you use the template {{User Alternate Acct Name}} to avoid sockpuppeting issues and keep a history of your contributions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(again!)As stated above, editor names are pseudonyms, so we cannot know how many are homeopaths and it should not matter in any case unless they engage in advocacy contrary to WP:Advocacy or are otherwise in a WP:Conflict of interest. It is possible to have your username changed legitimately: see WP:UNC for guidance. The important thing is that it not be done for deceptive purposes, which would violate WP:SOCK. If I infer correctly that you are a homeopath, it is advisable that you pay close attention to these policies when editing on the topic. Indeed, you may find it best to first become familiar with Wikipedia editing in a different topic area that is less succeptible to disputes. Wikipedia has millions of articles that need work, you can even pick one at random with the handy "Random article" link on the left side of your browser window. Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The page cited by Dr Vittal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism) isn't actually an article, or (as has been suggested elsewhere) a "fork for criticism" (which would, incidentally, violate Wikipedia's content guidelines) - it is a subpage of this talk page, with what looks like an old draft (July 2007) of a criticism section for inclusion in the main Homeopathy article. Consensus has consistently been against removing the mainstream view from the article. Brunton (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Filll about deleting it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So wouldn't these qualify as reliable sources: "http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/index.html", "www.britishhomeopathic.org ", "http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/evid/clinical-trials.aspx", "http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354" and "Dr Peter Fisher: Response to Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the Commons Science and Technology Committee by Von H.Blog"-Dr.Vittal (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles you link to are primary sources from homeopathy groups; they can provide what those organizations say, but not a reliable third party view on homeopathy. In that, they are much like advertising - they can be used to say what the advertising claims for a product, but not for a notable review of the product itself. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One of them is to a journal article (from a journal which appears to be largely devoted to homoeopathy). However, just looking as far as its treatment of the comprehensive reviews, it quotes the conclusion of the Linde et al. 1997 meta-analysis that "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo" without, as far as I can tell, mentioning the 1999 Linde et al. reanalysis of the same data, which found that the earlier analysis "at least overestimated" the effects of homeopathy. Other papers cited may also not be as positive as it suggests - for example while the Linde and Melchart 1998 review of trials of individualised homoeopathy said that "results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo", it also said that the evidence for this is not convincing because of "methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies", and found that when only the methodologically best trials were considered there was no significant effect. Brunton (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail saying that this article is controlled by the sceptics and that anything anyone who is pro-homeopahy mentions is considered unreliable and everything negative is considered reliable and so he stopped editing this article. Is this true?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV for the policies which govern this, and every other, article on Wikipedia. A thorough understanding of these policies will benefit you and greatly reduce the need for you to ask questions of other editors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps also WP:AGF. Brunton (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The evidence from reliable sources is overwhelmingly against homeopathy and the article is maintained to reflect that. Any bias your friend thinks he sees is not a result of editors' prejudice but a result of the preponderance of the evidence. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, a common complaint by people who truly believe that homeopathy has some effectiveness beyond placebo, but are unable to justify their edits with reference to reliable sources. The page is controlled by skeptics only in the way that skeptics can justify their edits with the best-quality evidence (well-controlled, replicable, methodologically rigorous trials published in high-quality journals) while "proponents" (for lack of a better term) are only able to cite poor-quality evidence of dubious methodology that can not be reproduced by independent investigators, published in fringe, low-impact, blatantly partisan journals. Pro-homeopathy articles have been published in high-quality journals, but the results universally turned out to be unreplicable, fraud, or upon further analysis, unjustified. If you can find any high-quality articles the other editors have missed, please feel free to present them. The limiting factor is, and always has been, the poor quality of the evidence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Undiluted provings vs diluted remedies

Brunton, I notice you removed my distinction between an undiluted proving and a diluted remedy. Yes, there are exceptions, since some provings of very poisonous substances use diluted versions of the original, undiluted poison, but otherwise there is a clear difference between a proving and a finished remedy. Otherwise the proving would not cause any clear and consistent symptoms in the healthy test subject, since a placebo won't cause any consistent symptoms worth noting. There is also the difference that the proving is used on a healthy individual, and the remedy is used on a sick one. I realize I'm trying to use logic here, and in the world of homeopathy logic doesn't really count, but even homeopaths use logic some of the time, and their procedure for carrying out provings is actually a very meticulous and scientific process. It seems that you and some others are trying to keep out the fact that the writings of homeopaths often reveal that provings are usually undiluted substances, and leaving out this fact makes the article's description of what homeopathy really is very confusing.

Note that this doesn't discount that later on Hahnemann and other homeopaths did use diluted substances in provings, but that is not the whole picture, and diluted substances shouldn't be presented as the only proper provings. Provings are normally with undiluted substances, but for very good reasons there are a number of exceptions, IOW the original concept still stands and is in use, but there are exceptions.

Here are some examples which falsify the idea that all provings use diluted substances:

• "Homeopathic provings: Trials with healthy individuals who are given undiluted or lightly diluted doses of an unknown substance until it produces symptoms that are meticulously recorded and collated to form a database of symptoms." [2]

• "Most homeopathic remedies have undergone “provings,” or medical observations in which healthy individuals are given doses of undiluted homeopathic substances." [3]

• "Homeopathy treats the sick with extremely diluted agents that, in undiluted doses, produce similar symptoms in the healthy." [4]

• "It cannot be over emphasised that “provings” have nothing at all to do with efficacy, and are carried out by giving healthy people undiluted homeopathic stocks. [5]

• "Provings – Homeopathic remedies are established by testing a single preparation of material in healthy human volunteers. They take the preparations under controlled conditions. The physical, mental and emotional symptoms that developed in these healthy humans were painstakingly recorded in terms of the part of the body in which they occured, the time of onset, the severity of the symptoms, duration and the frequency with which volunteers experience each symptom. This information makes up what is known as a homeopathic drug 'picture'.

  Homeopathic remedies are prepared from highly diluted solutions of these preparations. Classical homeopathy teaches that as each proving yields a constellation of symptoms in healthy individuals, so it may be used to treat a similar constellation of symptoms in sick people." [6] (My emphasis.)

NOTE the difference between the first paragraph's use of the word "preparation", which in the second paragraph is made into a "highly diluted solution" before being used as a remedy on a sick person.

NOTE also the description of a "homeopathic remedy" in the source immediately after the above description, which also makes clear the distinction between an undiluted proving and a diluted remedy.

• "If a healthy person takes an undiluted full-strength substance into his body, that substance can cause a whole complex of symptoms.

  If a sick person takes that same substance into his body in very, very, very dilute amounts, then that form of the substance can cure those same symptoms.

  The diluted form of a substance cures the same symptoms that the undiluted form causes." [7]

• "Homeopathy works on the principle that “like cures like”. In other words, symptoms that substances cause in their undiluted state can be cured when that substance is diluted and shaken down (a process called succussion) to desired potencies." [8]

If we are to tell the whole story and tell the truth, and that's our job here, we must not hide this or tell only one side as if it's the whole truth.

On another note, the article doesn't seem to mention the "law of infinitesimals" at all, which is a great omission. It describes dilutions, but doesn't use the term "law of infinitesimals". It is one of the fundamental laws of homeopathy:

1. "Law of similars", which isn't a natural law at all, even though homeopaths usually declare it to be as immutable a natural law as gravity.
2. "Law of infinitesimals"
3. "Law of succussion"

The article should contain a section with an introductory sentence mentioning them, and then three subsections which describe them in detail.

On a lighter note, this skeptical article contains a hilarious description of homeopathy, including provings of plutonium. Very interesting.

Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that provings are carried out using undiluted substances is often suggested by homoeopaths (as is the idea that the dilution process somehow reverses the effects of the remedy - see their attempts to use hormesis to support homoeopathy), and therefore seems to be a widespread misconception, but all the provings I've so far seen indicate that diluted remedies are used. We have a RS cited in the article which states that most modern provings are carried out using ultradilute (i.e. over 12C) remedies. See also Hahnemann's Organon, aphorism 128. While Hahnemann originally used material doses in provings, he also initially used the same doses to treat his patients; the dilutions came later. Provings using undiluted substances seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Brunton (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct to let one source stand alone to exclude other practices, when other sources reveal that the picture isn't black/white? That's my main objection to the current content. Whether one or the other is the most common method isn't really that important, and it would be pretty hard to prove, but the article should reveal that both methods are in use. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but where this sentence comes in the lead it is talking about the basic principle of "like cures like". The principle is simply that diseases can be treated by remedies that produce the same symptoms, not that disease can be treated by attenuated remedies made from something that causes the same symptoms. As you say, we need someting about the "law of infinitesimals" in there as well, and the dilutions should be discussed with reference to this. Brunton (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Principle" is such a misleading word, isn't it? "Doctrine" would seem to be more appropriate, as only the true believers accept it. Likewise the "Law of similars" is rather more a canon law than a natural law. In respect of the idea that dilution reverses the effect, then diluting twice would restore it. If that were thought to be true, homeopaths would use only odd numbers of dilution stages, e.g. 11C or 13C, never 12C. Yet the reverse is the common practice. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy and research

Since I see no reason that the readers of the article should not know that Naccam continues to fund Homeopathy research I will add it to the article. I read all about undue weight and there is no policy against inclusion info from reliable sources.

"NCCAM continues to fund research in order to explore patient and provider perspectives on homeopathic treatment and the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies with various succussions (vigorous shaking) and dilutions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance aside from being a weasel-worded way of trying to imply that there is still merit to homeopathy research. In addition, your edit was unsourced, and ultimately adds nothing to the article. Would cancer say "The NIH funds cancer research"? I doubt it. There are lots of bodies that fund lots of research, none of which speaks to their legitemacy or effectiveness. The NCCAM probably funds a lot of things but that doesn't mean we include a note about it on every single page. But since it lacks a citation, I've removed it per WP:PROVEIT. In addition, per Sciencebasedmedicine.org, they effectively are not funding homeopathic studies any more. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LeadSongDog told me to go edit some other article and that's what made me go to the Naturopathy Talk page. BRangifer told me to post at the Wikipedia:NPOV/noticeboard and that's what made me post there. I missed some of your answers, so please tell me are these 'studies' reliable': Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy, published in BMJ. 1991; 302: 316-323, Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review on the effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of data from homoeopathic medicine trials, in: Report to the European Commission. Brussels: Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group; 1996. 195-210, Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, published in Lancet. 1997; 350(9081): 834-843, Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the art review published in J Alter Complement Med. 1998; 4: 371-388, Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials, published in Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 56: 27-33.

What about the studies on Childhood diarrhea and seasonal allergic rhinitis [14]. Allergic rhinitis [15], post-operative ileus (16), rheumatoid arthritis [17], protection against toxic substances [18], Asthma [19], fibrositis [20], influenza [21], muscular pain [22], otitis media [23], several pains [24], side effects of radiotherapy [25], strains [26], NET infections [27], Anxiety [28], hyperactivity disorders [29,30], irritable bowel [31], migraine [32], knee osteoarthritis [33], premenstrual syndrome [34], pain association to unwanted postpartum lactation [35], prevention of nausea and vomiting associated to chemotherapy [36], septicemia [37] and analgesia post-tonsillectomy [38].(the numbers in brackets are the number of studies with respect to each condition mentioned in the feg pdf document I have been posting about)-Dr.Vittal (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The BMJ article is from 1991 - nearly 20 years old. The European Commission report isn't a RS, and is 14 years old. The lancet article has been repudiated by Linde , and is 13 years old. Cucherat isn't saying anything to support homeopathy as anything but placebo. Please also see the analysis of these sources below and at talk:naturopathy. Please review these comments in detail. I see no reason to either discuss them further, nor include them in the page. For the most part those sources labelled 14-38 are old, frequently single studies, and per WP:MEDRS should not be used in favour of newer studies that are meta-analyses. The community has limited patience and time; this has been dealt with repeatedly and there is no honest way of dealing with homeopathy except to indicate it is a historical intervention that works only as a placebo. Please review the policies that have been cited and refer to them when justifying edits. You do not have consensus to cite those documents and use them to adjust the page. Finally, please contain the discussion to a single page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reviews and analyses Dr. Vittal cites are concerned, they may be reliable, but only for the conclusions that they actually came to.

Kleijnen (1991) found that "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias", and called for more "well performed trials"; not conclusively positive (and almost 20 years old - accepted for publication in December 1990).

Cucherat (2000) is apparently a republication of Boissel (1996), and concluded "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials"; it also noted that "studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies" and says that "further high quality studies" are needed to confirm the results. As with Kleijnen, this is not an unequivocally positive result.

Linde (1997) is more positive in its conclusion that its results "are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo", but needs to be treated with considerable caution in view of the same team's reanalysis of the same data with particular attention to study quality (Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB: Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6.), which effectively retracts the conclusion of the 1997 paper with its finding that it "at least overestimated" the effects of homoeopathy. The first and last named authors of those two papers have since written that "our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven".

Linde (1998) studied trials of individualised homoeopathy. While it found that when all the trials it found were considered there was a significant positive effect for homoeopathy, this vanished when only the best quality trials were considered. Once again, this is not an unequivocally positive result as it suggests that apparently positive results may be a result of bias.

These studies are not as positive as is being suggested. Brunton (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, now a lot of those well-performed trials that were called for have been done. What homeopaths don't cite are those well performed trials that were negative. And for specific conclusions - homeopathy is not useful for osteoarthritis [9]; not proven consistently useful for ADHD and childhood diarrhea and no better than placebo for adenoid vegetation, asthma, and upper respiratory tract infection [10], upper respiratory tract infection [11]; only poor-quality evidence for fibromyalgia [12][13][14], otitis media [15] and IBS [16]. I could go on, but this is a waste of time. If any claims want to be made for specific conditions, the specific reference should be supplied, with some sort of url being ideal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from NPOVN

I had posted that I observed that the articles on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as its fork for criticism ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianity, Islam and Hinduism also. I got these replies on the Talk:Homeopathy page:-

The page cited by Dr Vittal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism) isn't actually an article, or (as has been suggested elsewhere) a "fork for criticism" (which would, incidentally, violate Wikipedia's content guidelines) - it is a subpage of this talk page, with what looks like an old draft (July 2007) of a criticism section for inclusion in the main Homeopathy article. Consensus has consistently been against removing the mainstream view from the article. Brunton (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Filll about deleting it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So wouldn't these qualify as reliable sources: "http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/index.html", "www.britishhomeopathic.org ", "http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/evid/clinical-trials.aspx", "http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354" and "Dr Peter Fisher: Response to Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the Commons Science and Technology Committee by Von H.Blog"-Dr.Vittal (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles you link to are primary sources from homeopathy groups; they can provide what those organizations say, but not a reliable third party view on homeopathy. In that, they are much like advertising - they can be used to say what the advertising claims for a product, but not for a notable review of the product itself. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail saying that this article is controlled by the sceptics and that anything anyone who is pro-homeopahy mentions is considered unreliable and everything negative is considered reliable and so he stopped editing this article. Is this true?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV for the policies which govern this, and every other, article on Wikipedia. A thorough understanding of these policies will benefit you and greatly reduce the need for you to ask questions of other editors. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I somehow feel there is a bias in that article, so can we do something?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel there is bias in any article, you need to provide a high quality secondary source, like a mainstream newspaper or a scientific journal, which reviews the topic in question and presents the various views. If the relative weight this source gives to a view is disproportionate to ours, or if it presents the view in a different light than our article, you can then make a case that the WP article has a bias. Crum375 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 has studies which prove Homeopathy is effective (except for the Shang et al study); "Dr Peter Fisher: Response to Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the Commons Science and Technology Committee" shows that what Peter Fisher said/showed was not considered at all by the Committee, yet the report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee has been put in the article; I also object to words like Quackery and placebo therapy to describe Homeopathy.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) a

You are missing the point. Per NPOV, an article must focus on the majority view of a topic, while also describing notable minority views. The best way to assess the relative weights to assign these views is to rely on an overview of the topic published by a mainstream high quality secondary source, such as a widely respected mainstream newspaper or scientific journal. This overview should be structured roughly like our article: it should highlight the majority position, while also describing the notable minority views and how they are received by the majority. The source you a referring to does not seem to be a well known or widely respected mainstream publication. Instead, it appears to be advocating a minority view only, without providing the larger perspective. The point is not to find some obscure publication which touts one minority position, but a mainstream widely respected one (e.g. Nature or The New York Times) which describes all notable views, putting them all in perspective for us. Basing the relative weighting on such high quality sources would help satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and other content policies and guidelines. Crum375 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vittal, you claim that "what Peter Fisher said/showed was not considered at all by the Committee." That's not true at all. It was considered very carefully. Peter Fisher isn't just any doctor, but the Royal Physician for the British Royal household. What he said didn't amount to real proof, that's the rub. His "evidence" for homeopathy didn't stand up very strongly against the much more powerful and accurate evidence against it presented by mainstream scientists. Keep in mind that this was the greatest showdown of all time for homeopathy. Never before has there been such an accumulation of evidence and claims presented by all the most significant players at one time. Homeopathy lost big time, so much so that the Committee recommends withdrawing all support for it in any manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Vittal, on what basis do you "object to words like Quackery and placebo therapy to describe Homeopathy"? Do you deny that homeopathy has been described with those words in numerous verifiable and reliable sources? Do you wish to remove such POV from the article? Which policies would you cite to justify such deletions? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery describes what Quackery is, but since most (I know there are some lay Homeopaths in the U.K.) Homeopathic doctors are licensed, Qualified doctors and since they do produce results, it is wrong to describe them like that.—Dr.Vittal (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Vittal, you have not answered my questions. Licensing has nothing to do with the matter (many, if not most, quacks are probably licensed medical professionals), and to confuse you even further, this has nothing to do with whether homeopathy is or is not quackery, but with whether individuals have been quoted in verifiable and reliable sources as calling it quackery, placebo, and even pseudoscience. Do you deny that this has happened? I'm not asking whether you think such accusations are true (obviously you wouldn't), but if you are aware that such statements have been made. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375 (I'm sorry I don't know your real name), all the studies mentioned in the feg.pdf document have been published in reputed journals (Lancet, BMJ etc.), so it should be 'reliable'—Dr.Vittal (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of a document is determined by the document itself, not the reliability of any other documents it cites. See also the note about the document's interpretation of meta-analyses on the Talk:Homeopathy page, which is the appropriate place to discuss this. Discussion of the studies you refer to is already included in the article, with reference to better quality sources (incidentally, the first and last named authors of one of the studies that you claim "prove Homeopathy is effective" have commented, "Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"). As for the comment about "quackery", see the comments above from Crum375 and Brangifer, and remember that the fact that some homoeopaths are licensed does not change the mainstream view of homoeopathy, which is adequately sourced in the article. Now let's take this to the article's talk page if you want to discuss it further. Brunton (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's take some studies mentioned in that pdf doc.:-

Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ. 1991;

302: 316-323

Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review on the

effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of data from homoeopathic medicine trials. In:

Report to the European Commission. Brussels: Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group; 1996.

195-210.

Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, et al. Are the

clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled

trials. Lancet. 1997; 350(9081): 834-843.

Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a

state-of-the art review. J Alter Complement Med. 1998; 4: 371-388.

Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of

homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 56: 27-33.

Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JAC, et al. Are the

clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled

trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet. 2005; 366: 726-732

Aren't any of these studies reliable?

What about the other studies (like Childhood diarrhea and seasonal allergic rhinitis, Allergic rhinitis, post-operative ileus, rheumatoid arthritis, protection against toxic substances etc.) that it mentions?

-Dr.Vittal (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Brunton - most of the article in the web-page you linked to actually criticises Shang et al for 'overstating' their assumptions that homeopathy is placebo and that Linde's work was better.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was published as a response to the Shang paper (although many of the criticisms were aimed at the Lancet's editorial rather than the Shang paper). But what does it say about the 1997 study you are citing? It also says that "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", by the way. Brunton (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Again I must invoke WP:PARENT. This commentary and these studies were already brought up elsewhere, and have already been commented on. Please centralize discussion in one location - chances are talk:homeopathy is the best place. Bringing up the same material in multiple locations wastes time. If need be, ask individual editors to direct their comments to a single page where the discussion is taking place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This forum shopping is a serious violation and this whole thread should be hatted and redirected to Talk:Homeopathy. Vittal's advocacy should also stop. Seriously, this all smells of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this matter has been resolved, because nothing has changed. I believe that the studies I posted about are good and reliable.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But the interpretation you are trying to impose on the studies is not. See, for example, what has been posted about them in the section above headed "Homeopathy and research". Brunton (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here per comments about forum shopping. I don't think there's anything left to discuss - Dr. Vittal, you may think what you want but you are unable to support your points without bending or breaking the rules. You have no consensus for this, and we are only supposed to ignore the rules when it improves the encyclopedia. It does not, it would merely make it a soapbox for an unscientific, ineffective dogma. If you can't come up with any other reason besides "I want it my way because I don't like the way it is" then you should not make any changes. Until you can indicate that the page is substantially out of keeping with the policies and guidelines, you should consider this matter closed and leave it; to do otherwise is tendentious editing, advocacy, inappropriate use of personal opinion and POV-pushing, even if civil. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You guys have been in this 'business' for some time, so are there any 'studies' that you consider 'reliable'.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some/most of you are allopaths, pharmacists, their sympathisers or are on the payrolls of some Multi-National Pharma Companies.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many studies that are reliable - unfortunately they are universally negative. There is no scientific reason for homeopathy to be effective beyond placebo, and clinical studies support this conclusion. If you do not like this conclusion, that is not an issue wikipedia can, or should, resolve.

Your accusation against other editors is for one thing uncivil as it is an ad hominem argument, and for a second thing fails to see why the editors oppose substantial changes to the critical tone of the page - it is scientifically unsupported. It is simply the pharma shill gambit, which has never been and never will be a substitute for peer-reviewed evidence of homeopathy's efficacy. The 'pharma shill' gambit has been used many times in discussions about many complimentary and alternative medicine circles as an effort to reduce the staggering weight of evidence against many of these interventions. It is not, and has never been, convincing. Homeopathy is just as profit-driven as the pharmaceutical industry, the difference of course, is that pharmaceuticals have both a science-based reason to believe they are effective, and placebo-controlled studies to substantiate this clinically.

If you can not support your assertions with well-controlled, well-designed, convergent, secondary sources supporting your beliefs that homeopathy is effective, you should not be making them here. You certainly should not be blaming other editors for the failure of the scientific literature to support homeopathy as an intervention. Now that the discussion has essentially fallen to name-calling and personal attacks, I see no reason to continue it. Please note that wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. It is an encyclopedia based on verification of text using reliable sources to portray a neutral understanding of a topic giving appropriate weight to the mainstream scholarly point of view. Homeopathy may be popular but the scientific consensus is that it is merely an effective placebo with no evidence supporting its use beyond this. That is the reality, that is the community consensus and that is what you must understand if you wish to continue editing here. Polite POV-pushing is still POV-pushing, and can result in topic banning or blocks. Please consider all of these points before you decide to post further information or discussion on this topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I for one am none of the above, but I still find that thinly-veiled question offensive. There is a great deal wrong with each of those groups, but none of them would be improved by the abandonment of the scientific method in favour of homeopathic doctrine. Indeed, many of their faults would benefit from more scientific rigour. Too often it is their "business sense" that drives their decisions instead, which sometimes leads them to go along with the placebo pushers. See the shelves in almost any major chain drugstore for evidence, since you don't like to rely on properly published literature. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WLU, please calm down - I did not know I would be considered uncivil. I'm sorry if I have hurt you (or anyone else) - I apologise humbly. I think it's better I stop thinking of editing this article.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Every single post you have made we have responded with policies, guidelines or supplementary sources, as well as polite discussions, all pointing out why your approach is problematic. Your response was to accuse us of having a biased agenda in which we are deliberately ignoring evidence in favour of homeopathy. So yes, perhaps my post was sharp, but my patience was, and is, at an end. I consider this issue dead. Apparently you do as well. Please do not revisit this page without a source or policy based reason to adjust the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)