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)

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)

[Section below merged with thread above about same subject]

Hi. I m restoring my edit. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#contoversies The Naccam in the USA funds Homeopathy research; obviously they hold a different view from the British. Of course this should be reported. For the same way you report that the British or Shang think that it is all placebo and not research or practice should be funded.

According to the NPOV every point of view which appears in reliable sources ( Linde in the Lancet, Naccam and other studies as the new user suggests should be reported. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I think that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. Several users have said so. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, there is no such thing as "The Naccam", I think you mean "the NCCAM". Second you seem to misconstrue what a "source" is. It refers to a specific statement in a specific paper, not the entire journal in which it is published. WP:MEDRS makes clear the characteristics of the best sources. We don't try to balance high quality sources with opposing low quality ones. We try to reflect the balance of the best sources available. User:LeadSongDog come howl 03:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WLU links above to a report of the Director of NCCAM stating that "in the last two years (under her directorship) the NCCAM has not funded any studies of homeopathy" (if you had replied in the same thread rather than starting a new one you might have noticed this). While this might justify inclusion in the article of a statement that NCCAM is no longer funding homoeopathy, it is certainly enough to cast doubt upon your unsourced assertion that they continue to do so, so I'm removing it from the article. Incidentally, I notice that this time you've put the comment in the article in quotation marks. If you are quoting from someone, why not state the source?

And please don't start a new heading every time you mention this subject - I've merged the thread with the earlier one so people will find it easier to follow the discussion. Brunton (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If the "new editor" mentioned is Dr. Vittal, then clearly you have not read the responses to his/her comments, which demonstrated that his/her suggestions were not substantiated or warranted based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the sources. Also, per WP:PROVEIT, your edit did not include a citation. Since it lacked a citation, it can be removed by any editor and it is up to the replacing editor to find a citation to verify the text before replacing it. Also, an agency funding research can't be compared to the comprehensive scientific and clinical review undertaken by the UK S&T committee, which was an effort to determine whether it is worth funding further research. Noting the S&T committee's findings is noteworthy, noting the NCCAM funds research is meaningless and an effort to weasel-word in the suggestion that homeopathy is scientifically justified. This is not the case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:50, 10 April 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 April 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 April 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 April 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 April 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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)

WP:NOTFORUM - 2/0 (cont.) 15:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have only made a cursory look and I have to say the evidence is what it is. The best I can find is anecdotal evidence supporting homeopathy for the remedy ( or if you prefer treatment) of specific diseases. At the same time, many of the studies I have reviewed that stand to challenge homeopathy tend to place focus on disease, and a remedy based on the disease as opposed to a remedy based on the totality of symptoms and symptom modalities. Given this approach breaks from the theory of homeopathy it is altogether expected that the results would be negative. Most diseases present a variety of symptoms with different symptoms presenting in different individuals. Because the practice of homeopathy is supposed to be symptom driven, one would expect different symptoms and symptom modalities to necessarily result in different remedies despite a single diagnosis. Those studies with a decent sampling that reflect a single homeopathic remedy should be considered dubious on that basis alone Generally the term "standardized" remedy would indicate this to be the situation and probably should be dismissed for methodological reasons. That notwithstanding, studies where different homeopathic remedies, based on symptoms. were applied the variance in results between the placebo group and those receiving remedies was not statistically significant. This holds true for both classical homeopathy (Use of a single remedy that best fits the totality of symptoms and symptom modalities), and non-classical homeopathy (use of multiple remedies necessary to address the totality of symptoms and modalities). One area that does not appear to have been studies to any extent is whether or not homeopathy showed a greater effectiveness in alleviating symptoms than the placebo, all were geared at treatment of disease. The temporary relief of symptoms might explain the positive results found in anecdotal evidence and could identify a viable use for homeopathy. If homeopathy were to be useful in alleviating symptoms while the actual disease was treated by clinically proven means, because the remedies themselves are generally harmless, they might be a viable option to patent drugs, and potential side effects, that might be used to alleviate symptoms. Once again this was a cursory look at the information but I might warrant some further discussion. Ndma1 (talk) 01:42, 10 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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)

IF you review the sources in the Medicine Article you will find that out of more than 40 citations only about 10 third party and most of those relate to history. Three are scientific journals and the remaining 32 are primary sources from conventional medical groups. Other than a small section at the end there is pretty much not criticism. If you were to apply your argument with a balanced scale would that not make the Medicine article much like advertising? Conversely if 32 of the 45 sources in the medicine article link to primary sources for medical groups, why is there a problem using similar sources for the homeopathy article? It is difficult to escape the appearance of a double standard here! Ndma1 (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, etc. Brunton (talk) 19:51, 10 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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)

To an extent I agree, however much of modern of medicine is axiomatic. Approaches originating often through trial and error, that existed long before EBM and have yet to be put through the riggers of the scientific method. With almost 800,000 deaths annually due to medical mistakes or complications of one of 16.4 million annual unnecessary procedures or hospitalizations modern medicine seems just a little worse than 'placebo pushers' - placebos are generally harmless! With statistics like this, I do wonder why there is essentially no criticism on the Medicine Article! Ndma1 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have reliable sources for the above figures, so why not add them to that article? User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer to medical errors is to correct the medical errors. The answer is not to treat with unscientific placebo. That worked when all medicine was actively harmful, it doesn't work now. Your comment ignores the benefits of modern medicine and only counts the risks, which is a logical fallacy. Also, there is an entire article on medical error. However, overall this is irrelevant. It is the same flawed argument used by creationists against evolution - a false dilemma. The failings of the medical system in no way validates homeopathy either as an approach or an alternative. If you want to criticize medicine, do some reasearch, don't post on a talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was only comparing the content of the articles. Why are Medical Errors, and other criticisms maintained in a separate stub instead of included in the article on medicine? Isn't that called a "POV fork", something that is discouraged on wikipedia. I was not presenting the notion that homeopathy is right because of medical errors or that one should accept homeopathy because of medical error. I was pointing out that the rules that are being applied to the homeopathy article (no POV Fork, criticism throughout the article, preference to third party independent sources rather than associations that exist to promote the subject , etc.) do not seem to apply to the Medicine article. You state "Your comment ignores the benefits of modern medicine and only counts the risks...", my point is the Medicine article only seems to talk about the benefits of medicine in ignores or at best glosses over the risks. (apparently the risks are covered in a POV Fork). The point is not one is superior or inferior to the other, the point is the rules do not seem to be applied evenly to both articles. Ndma1 (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps discussion of alleged failings of the Medicine article should be taken to Talk:Medicine. Brunton (talk) 07:54, 13 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) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 13 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)

MD Anderson Cancer Center Study on Homeopathy

This isn't going anywhere and it's only growing more contentious. Long-standing editing policies (WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE) indicate that a primary source should not be used to counter the ample secondary sources available in a mature field such as this. Further suggestions to improve the article should be made in a new section where they can be discussed without being buried here. — Scientizzle 13:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
published in Feb 2010 International Journal of Oncology - Very strong evidence for biological effect of homeopathy at 30c dilution. It doesn't seem that the editors of this page are aware of the most recently published study on homeopathy from the #1 rated cancer research institution in the US (US NEWS), MD Anderson. A recently published article in the Feb. 2010 International Journal of Oncology showed almost irrefutable evidence of the biological effect of a single 30c Homeopathic. (It is a bit comical that the wiki itself seems to poke fun at the implausibility of a 30c dilution having any possible effect and it happened to be one of the exact dilutions used in the study) This information, generated from one of the most rigorous in-vitro studies ever performed on a homeopathic substance provided a unique vantage point of not only the fact that a 30c homeopathic dilution has a biological effect, but specific data about what processes were being up-regulated and down-regulated by the influence of the homeopathic as the breast cancer cells began to commit apoptosis. It seems odd to me that probably the single most rigorous piece of scientific analysis related to homeopathy has not made it to the wiki page. My assumption is the editors are at least industry experts related to the topic and as such would have now integrated this information into the wiki. I am one of those that believes that every view point should be shown, however, this new data, from one of the most respected traditional scientific institutions in the US, sheds significant new light on homeopathy and frankly makes the many assumptions listed by "experts" in this wiki as questionably presented. Lastly, this data also certainly opens the door to many viewpoints related to the "laws of chemistry" as they relate to living organisms and levels of potential interaction. I hope this is helpful in providing information that may be useful to the editors of this page. I have provided a link that has an abstract of the studies as well as the actual citations at the bottom. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717447 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC) While interesting, per WP:MEDRS we prefer reviews. This needs to be an in vivo study, and it needs to be replicated before it can be taken for good. It's such an extraordinary claim that it needs extraordinarily strong and reproducible evidence before it will be accepted by any scientist. Let's see what the future brings. If it turns out to be valid, it will be included in the article, and the laws of many scientific disciplines will need to be radically revised. It will also hit the headlines like 9/11 did. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The International Journal of Oncology paper is critiqued here and here. Its lack of statistical analysis, for example, would appear to make it somewhat less rigorous and irrefutable than Skycop12 thinks it is. Brunton (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Indeed, this is one of the worst studies I've ever seen published. I read it when it came out and was gobsmacked at how poor the science presented actually was. I guess the International Journal of Oncology is a low-tier journal for a good reason...of course, my opinions of the study are naturally WP:OR, but this is such terrible science it should be avoided at all costs... Since it's a primary study, we really can't use it, either. There are ample reviews and other secondary sources from which to draw conclusions. — Scientizzle 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Orac knows. The best part, I agree, is the graphs. They should be compared vertically. Notice how, when compared vertically, you can't actually see much difference between them. Yeah, it's too early to proclaim victory based on this one, poorly-done trial. We shouldn't be citing the MedScape article as it's basically a news report on a single study, and we shouldn't be citing the single study because it's a single study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I can understand all of your points, and I think a more thorough review would be very interesting. I am unclear why you think we shouldn't be discussing a new study or citing it WLU, my impression is this is the talk page where we can discuss it, and then the information that is gleaned/reviewed would be woven into the wiki and study then cited as the source. I am also unclear on what you mean by "declaring victory" unless you have a side that is trying to be victorious? I would ask, "victorious about what?" as I am not sure how an encyclopedia topic wins per se but I guess that is a rhetorical question - although it does give me some insight into your position. My only point here is that this is the most recent piece of data available on the topic, from a highly respected research institution, published in a peer reviewed journal and that a neutral and competent analysis of the data should be integrated to the review of the topic of Homeopathy and then cited to this research. Although, everyone can have their opinion, the facts are it is the best and most recent source of real data and everyone's opinions about the data quality hold far less weight then the data itself. I would have to say that the concept of in-vitro versus in-vivo would seem to be more related to "treatment efficacy" in humans as opposed to simply talking about biological effect - which can certainly be tested in-vitro. The request for in-vivo data is not in tune with the topic of simply determining the potential for bioloigcal effect. It is clear that translation from the lab, to animals, to humans, changes things and certainly from a treatment perspective, but cited evidence of biological effect is something that the current wiki on homeopathy completely lacks - and the lack therof seems to be the slant of the entire wiki. Frankly, the almost basic premise of this article is that homeopathy has no effect and is therefore a placebo at best. Please don't take my position as something akin to "homeopathy has now been proven to work as believed in humans" as the data is certainly incomplete from that respect. However, an encyclopedia, providing what is put out as "kmown information" that does not include the most recent data from a highly respected institution, in a peer reviewed journal, is just a position paper (which I guess is how you are being "victorious" WLU as opposed to a presenter of all available information. Additionally, even the two cited critiques (and yes, I should have said almost every scientific paper is critiqued and refuted by whatever the other side happens to be)of the study by Brunton are posted by people that seem to in general be antagonistic towards the wiki topic and in general do not take a balanced view. An example would be the first critique starts with the sentence "Homeopaths are irritating" as the opening line, proceeds to make fun of the "magic water" theory, and then the author goes on to complain for a paragraph that he couldn't get a copy of the study and had to have it faxed to him (I bought the study in 10 seconds so taking an entire paragraph to complain about the authors own inabilities seemed to be more of a rant than a review). I am not sure if Brunton read the full study or the full "critique", but taking something written like that as a "valid scientific critique" makes me cringe if that is being used as a valid "source" to Brunton. I am not saying antagonists are always wrong, many times they are right, but leading with that type of statement and for wiki to take that as something akin to a "balanced review of the study" seems to be amiss. Even having said that, and even looking past the jaded and emotional rants of the author, the biggest issue brought up by the reviewer is certain stats that the author thought should have been included - that may or may not have been processed by MD Anderson in their internal review and analysis but implying they "hid them" in order to "validate" their data seems absurd. Anyone who reads the study can note that they were simply looking for change in the control versus the homeopathic. There is no question that occurred, the argument of this "review" in attacking industry standard test variabilities was akin to saying "I wasn't speeding because I am not sure the cops radar gun was calibrated" which, may be true, but is highly unlikely. As for almost EVERY scientific paper I read, I would certainly enjoy having access to the raw data and being able to run every statistical analysis I would like to have seen, but the study provides ample data as well as graphs to show the differences. The fact that it wasn't presented or at least in a way that was desired by that critique provider, does not invalidate a test nor does it even make clear that the analysis wasn't done but was simply not included by the authors. Next, the reviewer goes on about MD Anderson making claims related to the 19% cure rate of the Indian Homeopathic Techniques and then the reviewer states "Gee, I wish I could cite claims like that in my papers!" and how that data isn't good, etc etc etc. However, anyone that actually reads the study can see that the information related to the Indian protocol was simply given as background information and that by no means was MD Anderson trying to validate or make any statement supporting the validity of those claims. Another two paragraphs wasted by a reviewer that appears to have not even really read the study and was simply looking to attack rather than review. These "critiques" were painfully emotional full of nonsense and simply attacks. In any case, there is ample evidence, at least to MD Anderson and a peer-reviewed journal that a biological effect occurred, that the control of the diluent was accounted for, and that even when ran against taxol, the effects were similar. Although everyone gets an opinion, this is the most recent and most reliable source of data. Anyone has the right to attack the study, but certainly, from a wiki perspective real data, in a real journal, from a real research institution, should trump a random secondary opinion as a source for the encyclopedic review of the topic. I am new to this wiki, but I am surprised at what appears to be the hostility towards the topic. No need to be hostile. Wiki is meant to provide balanced and neutral information. Certainly, in light of very good NEW data, from a top research institution, published in a peer reviewed journal, provides a much different "background" to the premise that invades this wiki article that everything related to homeopathy is just placebo. This data, until effectively refuted by a repeat of the study that shows it is not replicatable or the authors themselves somehow change their opinion of their own conclusions, puts this whole wiki in question as to validity and neutrality. Scientizzle - I am not sure how to respond to your comment that presents no facts or information, but I guess your thought is, "it is bad" in your opinion. Again, I am unclear why secondary sources would remotely trump data from one of the most highly respected research institutions in the world publishing study data in a peer reviewed journal irrespective of a potential critique (although I haven't seen a good one of those yet, but will be looking). The facts of this new data existing, irrespective of any of the "positions" here on this board on whether homeopathy works or not, is the most recent and probably highest rated source of data for THIS ENTIRE TOPIC. This wiki currently contains opinions, anecdotes, etc. that are of far less quality then this data. The editors of this wiki need to review this entire wiki in light of this new data as the "conclusions" of much of what is currently in it, is now based on outdated information or appears to, at a minimum, be in question related to this new data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC) It is my professional opinion as a scientist who has read, written, and evaluated plenty of academic literature, that this is one of the worst papers I've ever seen. I would say that if the results were interpeted as showing no effect of the remedies and "refuted" the claimed efficacy of the homeopathic remedies. It's simply terrible work and it actually offends me that something like that can make it through peer review. That said, it's clearly only my opinion of the work and I am not arguing for or against inclusion on that basis. Rather, there are ample secondary sources (such as meta-analyses and literature reviews) upon which to base this article. WP:MEDRS indcates strongly that secondary sources are to be preferred, and it's simply not a good idea to present a primary source (such as a single study) to counter claims of secondary sources. This is long-standing Wikipedia policy and the best way to assure a stable article that accurately weights the relevant scientific claims in the context of the scientific community. It would be similarly inappropriate to cite a single study that found no effect of homeopathic remedies as a counter to a secondary source that evaluates the literature of the field. I hope this help you understand. — Scientizzle 17:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Scientizzle. That is helpful. It is certainly difficult to give weight to anonymous posters credentials which always makes this process interesting. We can agree to disagree on the study claims, as I said, I would like to have the raw data, however, I am still of the opinion that the basic premise of biological effect seems pretty clear. I do agree that the actual data would have been far better then the graphs to allow us to better ascertain this information. In any case, the reason it seems to be so critical to me is the prevailing wiki theme seems to be that homeopathy is simply placebo. Placebo is not relevant in the lab on a test bench so unless this study is an outright deceit and lie, it is the most recent and highest level of evidence in homeopathy today. We may all argue the merits of its scientific purity, but even it is only slightly "true" that would completely negate any notion of placebo as a potential mechanism. Continuing to use placebo as an overriding theme, in light of new data, just seems incorrect and deceitful. This does not mean there may be other answers, does not mean homeopathy is proven to work in humans, doesn't prove a lot in and of itself. The one thing that does seem hard to argue is placebo unless your position is that the study was just an out and out lie which is simply not a reasonable or balanced view of the work. With respect to the meta analysis and secondary sources, I agree in most cases. However, with the lack of scientific measures with respect to homeopathy and the age of the evidence that was used in all of the old meta analysis as well as the questionable sources of the individual studies included in the meta analysis gives me pause. Frankly, one very recent, high level study from a strong institution, in a respected peer reviewed journal, is potentially better then everything that has been done in homeopathy to date. Irrespective of our differences on the quality of the study, there are very few homeopathic studies that are this recent, from this caliber of institution in a reasonably well respected peer reviewed journal. One of the greatest benefits of the wiki, is the fact that it can react and mold very quickly to new information and data. Certainly, more information, additional studies, and increased focus in this arena is desirable for the wiki to be "correct" in its discussion. However, based on the historic trend of good data generated in homeopathy that may not happen for quite a while. Ignoring this level of data, when the other meta analysis and secondaries were completed in its absence, at a minimum puts at question the validity or conclusions of those metas with respect to new data. After re-reading the wiki, I can see many lines where at a minimum the wording should be changed, for example, "Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance; however, there are no verified observations nor scientifically plausible physical mechanisms for such a phenomenon." Irrespective of the "mechanism" for what might or might not exist, whether it is the water or not seems moot, the statement of "there are no verified observations" seems to be at odds with current data. A verified observation is a low hurdle, and I doubt any argument can be made with respect to whether it is or is not the water with any true scientific data. Something more along the lines of, "There is disagreement even among modern homeopaths as to the mechanism of action of homeopathics as well as what is left of any original molecule with respect to a chemical signature or some other active mechanism that may exist in a homeopathic that no longer has any measurable amounts of the original substance. In addition, there is conflicting information as to whether or not this phenomena can possibly exist with historical data providing little to no evidence of the possibility while more recent data has shed some light on the potential for the homeopathic phenomena to exist." Although I am sure that could be far better written by many here, that seems to be a more accurate portrayal of the reality of what we know and don't know then what is currently written in the wiki. The current wiki seems to imply that there haven't even been verified observations of the potential for a homeopathic to even exist - although the sentence is tied to the water memory issue. It just seems a bit misleading in its current form and certainly at its placement in the intro section to the topic as an "overall" statement about homeopathy versus what it is which is a very specific, small, and controversial point even in the homeopathic industry of water memory. I can't really understand why that topic would even be introduced at an "intro to the topic" level discussion. If an overall mechanism of action discussion is warranted in the introduction, it should certainly be more along the lines of what I wrote. Going from high level intro, to a very specific, one-off concept of water memory as the mechanism of action seems to be misguided. I don't disagree with the statement about water memory, it is just very odd placement for that level of detail if it needs to be included. I believe that the current wiki should be reviewed and adjusted in light of current information, and in addition, the writing and placement of certain topics, as I noted above, seems out of place and should be adjusted to match its place in the article and the discussion. If an editor thinks the water memory discussion is material, ok, but it should in no way be in the introduction. The third paragraph in the introduction adequately provides the reader ample information as to the prevailing and general scientific view of homeopathy. A far better place for a more detailed topic like that would be in section(4) Medical and scientific analysis and criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Oh look, a long screed I'm not going to read. Per WP:MEDRS, specifically the section on respecting secondary sources. This single study is not worth spending time on. I see no more blue links, therefore no more sources to review, so I'm not going to bother reading it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I'll respond only to a few points because this section is getting bloated very quickly. Placebo is not relevant in the lab on a test bench Not accurate. A placebo is simply a control, and a "placebo effect" is any result not attributable to the investigated intervention. Control treatments commonly have non-zero effects on measured outcomes at the lab bench, which is why they're vital to determine the actual effect of the intervention. The paper in question has serious problems with its controls--they're obviously and fundamentally inappropriate based on even the inadequate information given in the methods section. This, and the complete lack of statistics, are two of the most egregious flaws in the study. Frankly, one very recent, high level study from a strong institution, in a respected peer reviewed journal, is potentially better then everything that has been done in homeopathy to date. While a high level study (definitely not) from a strong institution (agreed) in a respected peer reviewed journal (journal ranks low in typical citation rating metrics, generally 3rd quartile) is probably a valuable addition to the field, we don't use such primary reports to counter secondary sources. It would be similarly inappropriate to use a single study (example: from Harvard, published in PLoS One, found no effect of homeopathic remedies in vitro) to present the argument in the other direction. Would you be asking for the inclusion of this citation if the results were the opposite of the authors' report? (or would you evaluate it as kindly?) Regarding any specific suggestions or concerns you have beyond the International Journal of Oncology article: it would be best if you could present concise suggestions for changes that make use of good-quality citations. Don't bury your suggestions in tl;dr posts...If you start a new section with a proposed change that meets WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, & WP:NOR, you'll likely get plenty of valuable feedback. — Scientizzle 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I see WLU. Par for the course I guess, no response because you can't read a 1/2 page of discussion on brand new data? Your take is that the most recent information, performed by one of the most prestigious research institutions in the US, is not worth spending time on or even having one page worth of discussion? Maybe it would be better for you to find other places to spend your valuable time - this is the most significant data related to this Wiki topic in over 10+ years. I am sure you haven't even read it. Here is a blue for you [2] and I am not sure why wiki would be based on the principle of, "whereas editors can update Wikipedia at any instant, around the clock, to help ensure that articles stay abreast of the most recent events and scholarship." When your take is the most recent event and scholarship should be ignored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC) well said.(I did not understand why the previous editor was banned. What was wrong with his/her edits? Any specifics problems? Are you going yo ban everybody who disputes the neutrality and accuracy of this article?)--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Skycop12 - the section is 23,000 characters long. Perhaps you should consider that a priori there is a guideline that prohibits the use of primary research sources. It is our policies and guidelines that keep wikipedia reliable and not swamped with soapboxing and pseudoscience. It may be work performed at a prestigious institution, but it's published in a fourth-string journal that was released way to recently for it to have any significant impact. Instead of lecturing me on wikipedia policies, you should read them. Thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I guess if you consider a 1/2 page to be soapboxing I can't argue. I wanted to present new information and see if we can understand what it might mean and see if anyone has identified quality secondaries about the source at this point. WLU your opinion is clearly to ignore the new data, fair enough if that is your method. You have to agree that Wikipedia is designed to be recent to keep people abreast as my blue above notes. Your reference to [[3]] is misplaced as the material that would be quoted as a finding of the study, such as, a direct quote (can't link unless you own article), "The findings demonstrate biological activity of these natural products when presented at ultra-diluted doses." Although it is recent, and can be viewed as a minority opinion. With respect to the [[4]] source policy, a primary source can be used with caution. An example in the policy says that describing the facts of what happened in the primary source can be included, but an evaluation of meaning cannot be ascribed without a secondary source. So yes, a primary source can be used. The 4th string journal comment is just your form of review I guess and provides no relevant information. In any case, we need more input from more editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I'm glad this study was posted here, because this page generates such intense discussion there's no room for grey area and that's how it should be. After all, isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Skycop, kudos for posting it but I wouldn't have introduced it with "very strong evidence." You also said it seems odd research such as the MD Anderson study does not make it on the page. I don't think it's odd, it's pro forma regarding this article so far as I see it (and that's not saying much). Let's look at this from a standpoint of a layman (in other words, this writer). The study was conducted and there was an independent and dependent variable. There was a control.One variable had an impact on the other, an effect that was measurable. Now, I have to give credit to the scientists here, the naysayers, whom have presented some impressive counter-claims to this study. I really can't understand numbers as well as you guys, sorry. So I'll say that your interpretations of the data are likely much closer to a standard that is acceptable in the general scientific community. That being said, I don't think the study is bunk, even if it isn't suitable for the article. After all aren't the rationalist/minimalists supposed to leave emotion out of a valid analysis? There I go, using scientific jargon and proving I'm out of my depth! Jim Steele (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Not my opinion, wikipedia's policies. Don't like them? Try to change them, or seek another online venue. Or start some research to test whether homeopathy works. You obviously haven't read the policies I pointed to. Read them first then comment. We also aren't looking for secondary sources that discuss this particular study - again, read the policies before commenting. You have no idea what my opinion is. A third time, read the policies. I'll point to a new one - WP:UNDUE. There's no reason to hold this one study up as if it were suddenly the proof all skeptics of homeopathy were waiting for that suddenly proves it's not just placebo. We don't need more editors, you need to read the policies and guidelines, and the FAQ at the top of the page. Finally, if you are trying to find out what a study might mean, you are in the wrong place. To everyone involved - this single study should in no way be used to adjust the main page, per WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. Essentially, with this single study, there is nothing that could be said to change the overall focus of the page. The policies clearly support them. Read the policies. If you don't understand how they apply, I can explain them, but I'm not going to bother if you don't read them in the first place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Arbitrary break The above discussion has taken a decidedly unpleasant tone. It might be helpful for the participants to take a little break and focus on something else for a little while. There's nothing here that can't wait a few days (or months). If a real well-researched breakthrough should be published, it certainly would get confirmation when reviewed in the quality literature and would be eligible for inclusion per WP:MEDRS. If the Frenkel et al. paper eventually turns out to have been that breakthrough, I'll be astonished, but I'll support including it. Meanwhile, it is irrelevant. User:LeadSongDog come howl 03:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, I read the rules, again, now I will comment per your suggestion WLU. I am unclear how making big lists of blue links to guidelines that end up showing the exact opposite of your conclusion is helping, but OK. Let's review: WP:UNDUE : An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. What aspect of Homeopathy would be more important then the current debate as to biological effect? There are very few, if any, current "aspects of the subject" in this wiki what would be higher ranked then whether or not homeopathics create a biological effect. If your point is MD Anderson does not qualify as a "reliable source" then more then 1/2 of the current references should be taken down. WP:MEDRS :Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as well as less technical material such as biographies. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source, not all the material is equally useful I am not sure how this Wiki guideline is a reason why this article should not be considered when it says, "almost all such material will count as a reliable source." It is clear that it IS a reliable source and should be included (if it meets the other criteria). WP:PSTS :A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. The descriptive value of simply what was documented that occurred can be used, qualifies as a reliable source, and is certainly not being given undue attention as the subject talks to probably the most important aspect of this wiki. I dn't see any value in commenting on the Fringe and Redflag references when we are dealing with MD Anderson and a peer reviewed journal. In any case, as Scientizzle said, I need to produce an edit that meets all of those requirements for there to be more serious feedback. Also Scientizzle, I see my mistake with respect to my use of the term placebo in my earlier post, thanks for the clarification. WLU, this is clearly an emotional subject for you for which you have very strong opinions, I'll try and make sure that I follow the guidelines as best I can, even though we seem to read the same things and have differing conclusions. Also, LeadSongDog is right, a bit more time will allow for comment by other sources. Will let it sit for a while, but even as it stands, this new data may be useful in updating the current wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC) You contradict yourself when you write "a bit more time..." and "even as it stands..". No, as it stands it can't be used at all. Wikipedia isn't a blog or a pop gossip journal, much less some type of "scientific" National Enquirer for the publication of unreplicated primary research. We have higher standards here. If it turns out to be true, we'll add it. If we always added such sources that are favorable to homeopathy, we'd constantly have to remove them when they were found to be junk science, fraudulent research, etc., as has been the case with pretty much all such "research". No, we have learned from experience and choose to wait for independent confirmation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) The specific section I pointed to in MEDRS was on respecting secondary sources. This article may quote primary and secondary sources, but it is a primary source, one that makes an extreme claim but lacks the extreme proof. Ergo, it should not be used to change the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, one last post then will move to another forum. I do feel like I need to respond to those last items as they are so extreme. WLU, extreme claims are subjective. The claims in here don't seem that extreme to me, nor did they to MD Anderson, but you think they are Ergo so they must be. Please don't crown yourself final arbiter of subjective items. Brangifer, you are seeing a large flow of primary research from US institutions regarded as highly as MD Anderson published in peer reviewed journals about Homeopathy? That are favorable? That would "constantly" have to be removed? Can you link some of the more recent ones from the last year that would have required so much work? Also, I have proved above in going through WLU's objections, guideline by guideline, that it IS allowable information, unless you can link something other then "it would take to much work" as the reason it would be excluded. If you don't want to do the work, find a different topic that you enjoy? "MD Anderson Study = Pop Gossip Journal," by Bull Rangifer. Can you link me a reputable secondary source? Is that how I do the "Higher Standards" thing you mentioned? I have already shown this information could be included, at least related to the objections that have surfaced so far. I still have a lot of work to do to see if it will be or should be included in some format. Why did this get archived? It is a two day old discussion about the most recent data in Homeopathy? Ok, will start a new topic later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.246.1 (talk • contribs)

Subsection regarding MD Anderson CIMER review

This review from MD Anderson's CIMER is a thorough, transparent, well documented review discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each study reviewed. It predates the recent Frenkel et al. paper but it will serve to show what a good systematic review looks like. It discusses how many papers were considered, how it parsed them for inclusion on the basis of having methodological strength, sufficient size for statistical power, human subjects, controlled design, etc. What it found was that the best studies (Jadad score of 5/5) came up blank. Two small studies (Balzarini et al. and Oberbaum et al.) of Jadad score 4/5 found only very weak evidence of symptomatic relief. It's a shame this isn't published in a proper journal, it's good work for an in-house publication although it is missing its list of authors and date of publication. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a recently published evaluation of the evidence from Cochrane reviews of homoeopathy: Ernst E. (2010): Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us? MJA 2010; 192 (8): 458-460. Brunton (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the MD Anderson topic. Review data that is prior to this study being published or does not include this study in the review may be more appropriately posted in a different location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was including it (following on from LeadSongDog's post above) as another example of the sort of non-cherrypicked data that the article should be using as a source. How do you think a single in vitro study, that claimed positive results without including the statistical analysis that would be needed to establish significance, would alter the conclusions of an analysis of a series of systematic reviews of clinical trials? Brunton (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UT

Conclusions

The conclusions of the review: Conclusions are based upon the 2006 collaborative review of controlled trials16, in which five of the six trials suggested that homeopathic remedies were beneficial. However, only two of these trials reported statistically significant positive results: relief of chemotherapy induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation20 and transient relief of radiation dermatitis19. These findings need replication in large studies with study designs that minimize bias--69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How it could be included in the article?--69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You refer to the CIMER review's conclusions. It really has very little to say. They looked hard, but only found weak evidence of any action and that was in trials that lacked for rigour, hence they say those need to be repeated, better structured and with bigger cadres, to see if they have anything to them. User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They stated their conclusions above. 5 to 6 were found to be beneficial and they suggest replication of the 2 trials which reported statistically significant positive results. Is this very little? --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's just the small part of what they said that you quoted. Please read it all. Once you decipher their footnote system (which is a bit odd) you'll find the real content is in their #19 and #20. But what it means requires reading between the lines. Which anonymous and pseudonymous WP editors like us can't do verifiably. So instead, we rely on unambiguous statements in reliable sources. User:LeadSongDog come howl 02:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the entire conclusion of the review not something I cherry picked

Conclusions The conclusions of the review: Conclusions are based upon the 2006 collaborative review of controlled trials16, in which five of the six trials suggested that homeopathic remedies were beneficial. However, only two of these trials reported statistically significant positive results: relief of chemotherapy induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation20 and transient relief of radiation dermatitis19. These findings need replication in large studies with study designs that minimize bias----69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So it really doesn't add anything to the peer-reviewed reviews the article already cites, which found that the evidence is at best inconclusive. "These findings need replication" seems to be about as good as it gets for homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, at best you could say that two modalities have some supporting evidence which requires confirmation in better studies.

The moving goalposts of homeopathy is one common complaints about it - when the evidence comes in, and it is negative, the response is not "Oh, well then, we should move to a more effective modality", it is "oh, well, more research then". Because it is bought into as a faith-based system rather than an evidence-based one, the assumption that it works is never challenged, it is simply assumed that the evidence just isn't in yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not interpret or edit the conclusions of the study. I just included their words in the article. It seems that you prefer your own interpretations of the study than the original quote ( the entire conclusion). If you were confident that you summarized it correctly without bias you would not advocate for its exclusion.

That's why several editors consider this article heavily biased. You just exclude every study that looks positive - the same way homeopaths would cherry-pick only the positive studies to prove efficacy. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of {{POV-check}}. 69.125.7.24, your proposed additions have been flawed in numerous ways (citation, format, accuracy, redundancy, relevance). That other editors have rejected your edit does not make the template valid or necessary. Dropping a context-free chunk of copyrighted text about inconclusive research findings into the article doesn't move us forward. — Scientizzle 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good faith edit. You did not address my specific concerns. You did not give time to the community to respond. No copyright was violated. I will revert it.Give time to people to respond.

You seem to be a super user: you block editors and edit the same time. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The term is administrator or sysop. I didn't "address your concerns" because I have yet to see a concern worth addressing. Copyright was violated by a direct copy-and-paste with no attribution...twice.[5][6] It's of no use to anyone to add context-free content to this article, let alone content that's not peer-reviewed. — Scientizzle 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BRD - discuss before you revert now. This isn't a positive study, it's an equivocal review article. The ultimate conclusion is " The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." It's inappropriate to state it as positive. Plus, it's no reason to tag the whole page based on a single article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a positive study (although it is similar in its conclusions to other studies that homoeopaths often portray as positive - see for example Edzard Ernst's comments about evidence submitted by homoeopaths to the House of Commons Committee) and it is not peer reviewed. The article already cites and discusses peer reviewed and published reviews with essentially the same conclusions so as Scientizzle says in an edit comment on the article this study is redundant. Brunton (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, the CIMER review is redundant. With the volume of peer reviewed metaanalyses and literature reviews that exist we have ample sources from which to draw reasonable conclusions representative of the field. Adding another review that isn't peer reviewed isn't necessary, and its findings (very few good-quality human trials with the majority failing to reach statistical significance and no verified replications) are consistent with the reports from higher-quality literature. — Scientizzle 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Now why didn't I say that? My "It's a shame this isn't published in a proper journal" just wasn't explicit enough, I suppose. Thank you, Scientizzle.LeadSongDog come howl 16:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah LeadSongDog, you could have saved us a lot of trouble had you not been so cryptic...jeez. ;) — Scientizzle 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent information would be superior to the older reviews you keep citing as the "ample" evidence. Frankly, homeopathy seems to have a very small body of work and for UTC, WLU, and Dog, they simply want to keep their biased view as the overriding position of this article irrespective of new information. The fact that a good secondary source mentions in its review, a minority position positive, instantly conclusing it should not be included is not in accordance with wiki standards - especially in relation to making sure the minority view is given its say.

There seems to be so much pride as to "standards" and blue links when new info comes in, yet, when you do a review of the article, this standard has not been applied. Like the no. 10 citation, is an unknown author, unknown date, no peer review, but because it advocates the position of the 4 most vocal people on this board, it remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The #10 is by the UK NHS, the national health body for the UK. It is a suitable source per WP:MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read what the CIMER review says? "Conclusions are based upon the 2006 collaborative review of controlled trials16"; reference 16 is this review. Its conclusion? "Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care." The six trials considered were not just those of best quality - they were simply all the controlled trials available, and were of variable quality (the remaining 36 human trials they found had to be excluded because they didn't even include a control group). Hence the comment about the need for "replication in large studies with study designs that minimize bias". What we have here is yet another review which fails to conclusively establish efficacy. It is barely more recent than Shang et al, and considers a very small set of trials. Incidentally, if you think "the most recent information would be superior to the older reviews you keep citing", how about the one published this year and already cited above? Brunton (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Conclusively establish efficacy" is not the standard. The prevailing standard of this article is that it is placebo. Some authoritative bodies agree with that, other recent studies and secondary sources would suggest otherwise. Unsubstantiated in many respects, needs more trials, inconclusive, controversial. Yes, homeopathy is all of those things according to the information we have. However, leaving out good information, that qualifies as a good secondary source, that contradicts other good information, even as a minority position, should be presented in what IS a controversial topic. Disregarding additional information is misrepresenting and simply deciding what information you think is the best versus providing a well rounded review of current information. A "small set of trials" is material when the entire library of studies with respect to Homeopathy in the last 20 years is relatively small. It seems to show a significant bias relative to a specific view as opposed to a neutral view that SHOULD show the minority view as well. I am guessing I don't need to but in the three blue links to the wiki rules to make that true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.244.224 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

the "prevailing standard" of the evidence is that it is placebo, or at least indistinguishable from placebo. The review in question is not just considering a "small set of trials", but a small set of trials of varying quality. And it does not, as you seem to think, contradict the larger peer-reviewed analyses already included in the article - its results are entirely consistent with what we already have. Homoeopaths often portray these as positive results, but they are not (see for example the comments from Professor Ernst linked above). Brunton (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor who might be also aware that some of the best scientists (Linde) who are quoted extensively in the current article dispute that the "prevailing evidence is that homeopathy is placebo : "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.". ( saying the same time that homeopathy has not been proved as a therapy.) Lets try to be more neutral here. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding heavy metals in homeopathic medicine:

According to Ayurveda, "the practice of adding metals, minerals or gems to herbs, increases the likelihood of toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic in the remedy." Are similar minerals ground into the starting solutions for homeopathic medicines? It could be. (Adacus12 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

No. This is certainly not any kind of standard homoeopathic practice, and I suspect that it would be strongly condemned by any homoeopath. In any case, the remedies are often be so dilute as to contain none of the starting solution. While some remedies are made from toxic starting materials, the remedies themselves will be sufficiently dilute to be harmless. Brunton (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre on homeopathy

This is a handy reference for anyone who wants to claim you can't do experimental trails on homeopathy (and for refuting the claims in general). I wish he'd written it up in a scientific journal, it'd be fantastic as a general reference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One should also try to hear what famous homeopaths say about its efficacy and research since the article is about them; Maybe that way we can avoid to provide one sided information.

The facts about an ingenious homeopathic exp that wasn't completed due to “tricks” of Mr J Randi http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)