Talk:Homeopathy

References

Please keep this section at the top.

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 [1] 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 [[2]] 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 [[3]] 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.[4][5] 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)

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 [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

None of which, of course, refutes the fact that Goldacre is pointing out how damned easy it would be to test homeopathy, or that most of the tests of homeopathy are deliberately or incompetently unfair, and the many high-quality sources that point out the best and fairest tests of homeopathy find that it's no different from placebo. Your post did little but demonstrate how homeopathy is an ideology, not a treatment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So...reading through the document, the bullet point is the test didn't go ahead. The source is meaningless for the purpose of changing the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The homeopaths sure to do like to resort to accusations of conspiracy.… — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 13:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be fair to homeopaths, it's really any purported treatment that lacks both evidence of efficacy and any reasonably plausible mechanism that cling to the conspiracy canard. In a Venn diagram, that would be a circle a lot bigger than just homeopathy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Frenkel review

[7] Peer reviewed, May/June 2010, Secondary Source. This new analysis actually is in direct contradiction to the viewpoint of this page in many respects. The current editors should review this new information in light. Of course, the 4 same people will say that even though it is a secondary source, peer reviewed, most recent data, written by an expert who has actually performed the studies, is not valid for some reason. I will just be interested to see the reasons. So imaginative in defending their "neutral" positions. I am kidding. In any case, this information is interesting. I guess if you can't spend the $15 bucks or your university doesn't have privileges to this, you shouldn't comment. I will have some edits in the near future related to this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.223.195 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the digest there, it appears to be another inconclusive study: "there may be a role for homeopathy ... such effects have not been demonstrated unequivocally" ... "Specific antitumor effects have not been shown in any controlled clinical research to date...", although it does say that there are positive results in "a few laboratory experiments." Can you provide the references for these "few laboratory experiments" which the paper cites? Unfortunately this journal doesn't appear to be held by the medical library I have access to (it doesn't appear to be indexed by pubmed either). Brunton (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not indexed yet likely because it is May/June edition of the journal - in pubmed the journal abbreviation for articles that have been indexed is Altern Ther Health Med. It IS odd to me that you quote three negative things that were part of the review, without the context surrounding them, but none of the other interesting things from the review. I will assume that is because you don't have the whole article not due to a bias. The negative information related to homeopathy is more than covered in the current wiki and is not new. However, this new, peer reviewed, most recent secondary source is a reasonable review and analyzes many of the meta reviews cited here but with the benefit of the most up to date data.

This is the only secondary source I am aware of which has analyzed all the most recent/current published study data relative to homeopathy, including recent 2010 studies(including MD Anderson). It also seems to contradict the overriding theme of the current wiki which is the absolute statement that all reliable secondary sources believe Homeopathy is Placebo. Although there is significant conflicting data and it is certainly correct to cite the evidence that shows a few older secondary source reviews have concluded that homeopathy lacks verifiable pharmacological effects, it is no longer a foregone conclusion that placebo is the only possibility. This article is the most recent peer-reviewed, published, secondary source which does not even mention placebo as a possible explanation or relevant factor in homeopathy - although by no means confirming the absolute efficacy of homeopathy either. In any case, it should be integrated but by no means displace the opinion of the other secondary sources that Homeopathy is placebo. It is not our job to decide who is right, just present the information.

Just for fun, I will add the context (put in the full sentence) to the lines you cut in above Brunton: "Several published outcome studies and some randomized controlled trials have shown that there may be a role for homeopathy in symptom relief and improving the quality of life in patients touched by cancer." "The data from a few laboratory experiments in cancer models show some beneficial effect of homeopathic remedies on select cancer cell lines." It reads much differently when you actually put the whole sentence in rather than cut as you did to make it seem as negative as possible. Please don't even comment/edit if you can't even cut lines without showing severe negative bias. We just need to present the information irrespective of our personal opinions.

I guess I could provide the citation list from the article per your request Brunton, although, the majority of the citations would be to primary published research, and any editors opinion/conclusion/value of that primary research versus the published peer-reviewed secondary source expert opinion of that research would be of little or no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be easier to evaluate the article's conclusions regarding the in vitro studies if we can see the studies it bases them on (the conclusions regarding clinical research seem entirely unremarkable).

I was quoting what appeared to me to be the major conclusions, as set out in the abstract at the head of the paper. I notice that you excluded the comment that the "effects have not been demonstrated unequivocally". Sorry about my use of ellipsis - I couldn't cut and paste so I was forced to rely on my typing (having failed to find a pubmed abstract).

Still, what we have here is another paper saying "some evidence, not conclusive, more research needed," - much like pretty much every allegedly positive review published in the last 20 years, from Kleijnen onwards - look at one of the passages you objected to my omitting: "Several published outcome studies and some randomized controlled trials have shown that there may be a role for homeopathy". Uncontrolled studies are not good evidence, and the reference to "some" RCTs being positive looks at least a little like cherry-picking if the paper doesn't take account of the trials which fail to establish a significan effect.

Incidentally, I notice that in the small section of the paper visible without paying it cites the conclusion of Linde et al 1997 that their results were "not compatible with a hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" without mentioning the effective retraction of this conclusion in a 1999 paper by substantially the same team of authors, who reanalysed the same data with particular attention to study quality. Perhaps it cites the 1999 paper "below the fold"? Brunton (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to a new section, previous was lengthy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Skycop, I don't read that extra context as really altering Brunton's original content - those are still very equivocal endorsements and the paper does not say "will treat" or "is effective". It's still "may" after more than 200 years of research and practice. Second, it does matter if this journal is pubmed indexed (I'll check later today but will note that pubmed does usually include many journals e-published ahead of print making me wonder why this one isn't). Third, it is a review of homeopathy and cancer; at best it gets a line stating "Homeopathy has been suggested for the treatment of secondary effects of cancer" or some such. It is not a generalized endorsement of homeopathy. Fourth, we do respect peer-reviewed secondary sources, but we also must take everything in context per WP:NPOV. This means reviewing all the relevant literature, which means we don't re-write it at the first appearance of a new review in a sympathetic journal. And finally - look what Moshe gives up. He's acknowledged that homeopathy is only useful in treating the symptoms of cancer. It is useful for quality of life. And all of this couched in terms of "may". This isn't an endorsement of the mighty power of homeopathy. This is rearguard action, where the main item has been given up (no more "it cures cancer"), and now they're trying to scrabble for what they can still claim in terms of symptom relief and quality of life. But still, if it's pubmed indexed it does have a small place verifying a tentative statement that it may be useful in treating the symptoms of and improving the quality of life regarding cancer. Now, real medicine isn't this tentative of course. Morphine is clearly stated as a demonstrated pain killer, tamoxifen actually treats cancer, etc. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't even find the article on google scholar let alone pubmed; when this appears official and can be linked using something other than scribd, then it's worth discussing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As expected. Brunton, it is not your job as an editor to validate the studies or basis of a peer reviewed secondary source - that would be the job of the peer-reviewed secondary source to do that and reach a conclusion, which was done. Your opinion would be irrelevant as the secondary sources opinion would be superior to your opinion whatever that may be. The review notes that homeopathy has a long way to go to PROVE efficacy in a specific area. Nobody disagrees. WLU, I don't know what doctor you go to but lets not kid ourselves or get into the "real" medicine debate. First, it is not relevant to this review or whether or not the article should be adjusted. But for fun, go ahead and look up Vioxx, or the recent meta on SSRIs and the billions that have been spent in prescriptions for these real medicines that "were proven" but have now been shown to basically either ridiculously dangerous or only placebo and this list could go a mile long. I can't even begin to talk about how we "practice" medicine once I give my patients more than one prescription, I am on my own with my sample of one for the patient treatment outcome possibilities - imagine the difficulty when they are on 5 or 6 drugs at once. Can you link me a study for that, even one? In any case, this type of argument is fruitless and goes nowhere in proving medicine or disproving homeopathy. Saying that "more evidence is needed" is basically the end sentence of every published study on the planet. I am unclear what your point would be except to assume you are saying we can't put in a minority view until all possible studies are completed? Ummm, ok? I agree with you though that this is not conclusive proof of an art that has 4,000+ ingredients and innumerable combinations of treatments. It simply states there may be some benefit for some things and more research needs to be done to get more evidence.

WLU, you post WP:NPOV because you think it supports excluding this review? I don't really understand as here is what I am reading:

Bias

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.

Notice the "all relevant sides" of a debate.

Undue Weight WP:UNDUE

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

I am not saying the Frenkel review changes everything. I am not saying that it is now the accepted mainstream view. Far from it. However, in ANY reading of the wiki rule of "all sides of the debate" and even if this review is considered a minority viewpoint, it certainly deserves its place per WP:NPOV with the exact notations of why related above.

I don't have any issue with the majority scientific viewpoint being the majority of the article. However, this is a reliable, peer-reviewed, secondary source from an industry expert with a differing opinions from the current majority in quite a few areas of this review. The information from it should be included and can still be noted as a minority view that is not in line or agreement with the 5 or 6 other "meta" type reviews that have been recently completed from the mainstream scientific groups. The major point for me is that Frenkel clearly has distinguished homeopathy from placebo in his review or at least in his opinion. I am fine with that being a minority, but to just not include the most recent, comprehensive review from a secondary source because it is a minority position is wrong.

It should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.247.98 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream medicine has its failings (and they are myriad) in no way validates homeopathy. That is irrelevant and a logical fallacy (false dilemma specifically). Calling Vioxx ridiculously dangerous is more than a little absurd - may be slightly more risky than existing medications, but taken properly, it does what it is supposed to; treat pain with bearable side effects.

I am not advocating the review be ignored based on NPOV, I'm advocating it be placed in context - there's lots of high-quality reviews stating homeopathy is placebo only, that its theory is meaningless and contradicts much basic physics, biology, chemistry and medicine, and one review article on one topic, that is itself very susceptible to placebo effects (notable side effects of cancer treatment - pain and nausea; symptoms very amenable to the placebo effect - pain and nausea) does not negate those other sources. If you read closely, I'm arguing that this single review, if included, should be restricted to a brief summary that it has been suggested that homeopathy may be useful for the side effects of cancer treatment, period.

But you missed my final, and most relevant point. Until there is evidence beyond a Scribd posting (in other words, user-generated content that's about as reliable as YouTube) the review shouldn't be included and isn't worth discussing. Until someone can demonstrate that a journal has actually published this, through a pubmed link, DOI number, journal webpage or otherwise, it's simply not worth talking about. We're not a news agency breathlessly trying to get a scoop on the latest story. We're an encyclopedia that uses reliable sources. A Scribd document might be a useful convenience link for our readers, but it is not a reliable source. It can only be used after the source itself is published, and not at all if there is a free full text available. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Skycop: "it is not your job as an editor to validate the studies or basis of a peer reviewed secondary source - that would be the job of the peer-reviewed secondary source to do that and reach a conclusion, which was done. Your opinion would be irrelevant as the secondary sources opinion would be superior to your opinion whatever that may be." I am not talking about "validating" the paper, I am talking about evaluating what it says in relation to this article and the sources already considered - and that is what we do on talk pages here (we have had a few other editors suggesting that papers must be included because they are peer-reviewed - this is clearly not the case: we can't reference every single peer-reviewed study, if only because it would make the article ridiculously long). The paper's digest says that there are a few laboratory studies showing an effect: any chance of the references?

WLU: I think that the journal itself is using scribd as a platform for online access to papers - if you go to the journal's website and click on the link to a paper it takes you to scribd. Brunton (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, until I see evidence it's actually out, I'm not going to bother looking at it. I checked google scholar today, nada. If it's actually on the journal's website, that should be easy to substantiate via a weblink. I'm not going to bother doing the heavy lifting though - anon or Skycop can if they want, at which point I'll look into it further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For an analysis of that "paper" see http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/ which dismantles it line by line. Of course it too is not usable, for the same reason: it hasn't been properly published. None the less, its criticisms stand on their own merit and are worth reading. LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead Song Dog, posting random "scribd" opinions of unpublished internet blogs is the EXACT thing that is condemened when the pro Homoepathy folks link something like that. It is useless. The fact that you posted it and then said it was useless makes no sense to me. Unless you are just position defending in which case please review WP:NPOV.

WLU I agree with you on bad medicine not proving homeopathy - wasn't the point of my argument. My point, as was your point, was their is no point to that argument. We finally agree! I am glad you feel that if included, the review does deserve at least a small section assuming it has actually been "published" in a peer-reviewed journal. Here is the link to the journal [8], the review is the first article on the front page. I ordered the actual journal article for the $15 from the publisher. This is not a "Scribd" document.

I still have never understood the statement from either side for "Homeopathy to be Proven" in some sort of undeniable format - either the "sceptics" or the homepaths. It is too large of a subject to even approach that concept as it is not "one thing" to test. The Frenkel review shows there is evidence to suggest that homeopathy may be a useful treatment for some things. It may be useless for other things as has also been preliminarily shown. Frankly, the amount of "reasonable data" showing it does or does not work is pretty small from either respect, tested with only a very small % of the total homeopathics available on a very small number of total indications available. So any statement as to what is "known" about "homeopathy" is pretty weak. I think the only thing that can be "known" in the near future is whether or not an ultra-dilute substance can cause a change greater than placebo. That is the bottom line. This review really puts out a viewpoint that irrespective of what the mechanism of action might be, there is data that suggests there is a mechanism that may not related to placebo. That is a significant position, albeit a minority position at this time.

But both sides should stop with any talk of overwhelming evidence from either side (there is very little evidence relative to the body called "homeopathy") as that is a ludicrous statement considering less then 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1% of homeopathics (especially considering complex homeopathics) have ever even been tested against a single potential indication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, now we have something to talk about. The journal is pubmed indexed, the web page does link to the scribd document, and the blog posting from LSD is indeed not a reliable source to edit the page. If anyone has an electronic version, could they ping me so I can get a copy?

Skycop, there's lots of evidence against homeopathy actually - the best evidence is consistently that it's simple placebo. For me the utter absurdity of the approach in how the remidies are identified, chosen, prepared and taken, as well as the utterly nonsensical amount of special pleading that surrounds homeopathy cripple it far more than its research base. Something to think about - I would suggest reading Shelton's Homeopathy: How it really works (2004) as a very thorough discussion of just why homeopathy doesn't make sense. And as Ben Goldacre points out, it's actually very easy (trivial even) to test any homeopathic approach - a randomized controlled trial, which can be used irrespective of the symptom, disease, patient or remedy.

Finally, the paper deserves at best one sentence, not a section. A single paper, in a sympathetic journal, does not a section verify. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just read the abstract and this paper is worthless. Allow me to demonstrate (please pardon or correct any typos). Superscript indicates a comment, referenced below:

Homeopathy is a controversial⁽¹⁾ system of care that is practiced extensively in Europe, Asia, and South America primarily for functional and minor ailments. In this review, published studies on homeopathic remedies and cancer were examined. Data were obtained from multiple research disciplines, ranging from basic science to scientifically valid animal and clinical studies. The data from a few⁽²⁾ laboratory experiments in cancer models show some⁽³⁾ beneficial effect on homeopathic remedies on selected⁽⁴⁾ cancer cell lines. However, in the clinical arena this effect is not clear.⁽⁵⁾ Several published outcome studies and some⁽⁶⁾ randomized controlled trials have shown that there may⁽⁷⁾ be a role for homeopathy in symptom relieve and improving quality of life⁽⁸⁾ in patients touched by cancer. Such effects have not been demonstrated unequivocally, and specific antitumor effects have not been shown in any controlled clinical research to date⁽⁹⁾, which raises the need for further clinical trials⁽¹⁰⁾ to investigate the use of homeopathy in cancer care.

1. Damn skippy this is controversial, that's a low-ball if I've ever seen one and articles like this are the reason why.
2. The emphasis is here because it's accurate - there is no convergence of evidence, only a minority of studies which equivocally, selectively and sporadically support homeopathy, and have failed replication. Research normally uses a 5% p value for a reason - to filter out the random noise in a systemic manner. But with that filter comes a price - a 5% p value means one experiment out of 20 will give you a false positive, where because you left your microwave running, your post-doc didn't know how to titrate properly, the janitor bumped your beaker or cosmic rays were unusually strong that day, the results aren't due to intervention, they're due to chance. This is why replicability is so important - over time the real effects are repeated and the chance ones are discarded as chance. Add to a 5% p value the file drawer effect, where large numbers of those 95% failed experiments end up, and single studies that lack replication are ultimately useless and tell you nothing (see Ioannidis, 2005 for more [9]). This is a general comment, not a reason why the article should not be used.
3. Again, the effects found are weak, equivocal, and unclear - there is a lack of replicability and a propensity to run with any positive result, no matter how little it meshes with previous evidence, or how weak, or how many fishing expeditions are taken. Like 2, not a reason to not use the paper.
4. Again, selected - not all cell lines, just some. This is reasonable, even for chemotherapy, since cancer is a set of quasi-related conditions rather than a single disease entity like say, ALS or measles. But it also points to homeopathy not being a cure all. Like 2, not a reason to not use the paper.
5. Here is a reason to not use the paper. What can we say with this sentence? Some bench lab work has produced some suggestive results, but there is no evidence that this is a repeatable effect. Homeopaths have been unable to prove their remedies actually help. There's a reason we don't report in vitro or animal results as if they had bearing on humans - because we just don't know if they will.
6. Per 2, a lack of consistent, replicable results indicates problems with the research base. Per 2, not a reason not to use it.
7. Per 3, the equivocation indicates a lack of consistent results. Per 3, not a reason not to use it.
8. This just irks me - homeopathy has, in this review, retreated from its statement that it can treat cancer, but still tries to claim, with flawed and equivocal results, the ability to treat symptoms and improve quality of life. I'm guessing those symptoms are pain and nausea, both of which are very amenable to the placebo effect. Not a reason not to use it.
9. This is a reason not to use this paper. There, in black and white, is a statement that homeopathy has no proof to substantiate it being useful for treating cancer, or even it's damned symptoms/quality of life issues! Even this review, in an apologetics journal, where a friendly reception is guaranteed, Frenkel admits that the effects are equivocal, and there's no evidence of clinical efficacy, that there's ultimately no reason for homeopathy to be included as a part of regular cancer treatment.
10. This is the usual outrageous cop-out based on an a priori assumption - that homeopathy works but the research, somehow, just hasn't caught up. That the problem is the research, not the intervention. I'm sorry, but research on any pill- or potion-based intervention is absurdly easy to do. Randomize, control, and identical looking placebo and treatment substances. Trivial, easy, and consistently fails to demonstrate benefits when done properly. I'm sorry, after 200 years with an intervention that has schismed more than some religions, the answer may not be more trials. But that's not a reason to not use the article. That's just snark.

The ultimate reason to not use the article is contained in the abstract - the research is inadequate, has failed to unequivocally demonstrate consistent benefit in bench, animal or clinical trial, for either straight-up cancer treatment or symptom relief. This research could be best summarized as "Moshe Frenkel has called for more research on homeopathy's use in cancer treatment because research has been unable to demonstrate any benefit." It certainly couldn't be used to claim homeopathy is in any way useful in treating cancer or its symptoms. Anyone who thinks it should be, please present your suggested wording, and I will shoot holes in it in short order. Far from being trumpeted as a vindication of homeopathy, this article is a testimony to its ineffectuality, its sorry research base, and its proponents inability to demonstrate any merit to its approach. This is a worthless reference on even a noncontroversial page with an equivocal research base, it's utterly worthless for homeopathy when it does little but illustrate the criticisms.

Actually, scratch that. I might use it as a reference to say "homeopathy has not been demonstrated effective in either laboratory, animal or clinical trials, in the treatment of cancer, symptoms of cancer, or quality of life". That's the most accurate, NPOV way of summarizing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That was all well and nice and I can certainly appreciate your analysis. I have no interest in going through the whole paper, bringing all of the other things he said that might be viewed by some as supportive, and further debating the issue with you. The reason is simple, your analysis of what you think the value of a peer-reviewed, secondary source, from an expert in the field means is not relevant. The question is simply what we quote directly from what was said by the expert as it relates to a minority position in the field. I appreciate that you want to put it in YOUR words, and your interpretation of what is being said, however, your words are not what wiki relies upon as you have said for a long time (and reminded many others of) in your posts, but have seemed to have forgotten today, when you would prefer the opposite.

I also don't know why you keep saying things like "the research is inadequate" as if that proves homeopathy does or does not work, it simply means we don't know enough to know. This whole "homeopathy" debate is based on a very small amount of data on a very small number of homeopathic ingredients tested for efficacy in a very small number of indication. I know the skeptics want to just wipe Homeopathy away and say enough already and the homeopaths want to trumpet victory with the recently published (and somewhat controversial)data but the facts are it is neither here nor there. The testing of what is and is not possible with ultra-dilute substances is in its infancy. The fact that people who are scientists have taken this overwhelmingly firm position based on such limited overall data is a fallacy in itself which is just as bad as the other side thinking anything has been definitively proven. Oh wait, now I am doing what you were doing, giving my irrelevant opinion. In any case, we will need to update the wiki with the most recent peer-reviewed, secondary source in order to give the minority viewpoint to people who MAY be interested in what the expert himself, in a peer-reviewed journal had to say, versus an anonymous internet guy named WLU who said he thinks it is worthless and that this article basically says exactly what the wiki already says. C'mon now, neutrality needs to be part of the discussion. Your only goal seems to be to bash one position and defend the other position and the anger is almost palpable. It is a waste of energy and not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the abstract misrepresent the contents? What summary would you suggest based on the source? What would we say about the minority viewpoint anyway? Wouldn't it essentially be that there are no homeopathic treatments that have any clinical efficacy? That's how I read it.

And on a WP:FORUM note, how can the testing of ultra-dilute substances still be in its infancy when it's over 200 years old? By contrast, vaccination has eliminated smallpox as a public health issue; diabetes, cancer, heart disease and HIV are now treatable rather than a death sentence (the latter going from public health scourge to treatable condition in less than a generation); even cancer itself has developed a series of specific chemotherapeutic agents to treat its myriad different conditions. In the meantime, homeopathy has failed to develop a coherent theory, failed to demonstrate any consistent benefit, failed to explain how it could work, failed to replicate consistent results, failed to test itself rigorously (that was left to skeptical scientists) and so forth.

But anyway, my objection to using that article in a positive way is simply that it can't be portrayed positively. Frenkel's conclusions are there are no homeopathic treatments proven clinically effective at cancer, cancer symptoms, or quality of life improvements. That's my relevant opinion - if you've got some suggestion on how to integrate the paper, stop trying to prove homeopathy works and just present your suggestion on this specific paper. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I will give it time for more comments from folks. While we wait, did you really just say that because something has been around a long time (200 years) then the actual testing of it can't be in its infancy? That is almost as good as a homeopath saying it works because it has been around 200 years. I didn't know that time correlated to level of testing. WLU, I still am unclear why you are trying to summarize Frenkel versus just letting Frenkel say what he says. I understand that you would have preferred he wrote what you wrote, but he didn't. We are going to update the wiki with his actual writing, but we need to give people time to review and digest it. I don't think it is necessary that you try and draw your own statements from his very simple and frank statements. His statements start with capital letters and then end with periods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To repeat WLU's question: does the abstract accurately represent the conclusions of the paper? Brunton (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And to repeat one of mine: can you provide the references for the "few laboratory experiments" which it says show "some beneficial effect of homeopathic remedies on selected cancer cell lines"? Above you state that one of your reasons for including this paper is that it includes "recent 2010 studies(including MD Anderson)" - assuming that by "MD Anderson" you mean the Frenkel et al International Journal of Oncology paper, as has already been noted here (in the section headed "MD Anderson Cancer Center Study on Homeopathy") and elsewhere, this is not a very good paper. But if you give us the references, perhaps some of the other studies it cites are better? Brunton (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"I still am unclear why you are trying to summarize Frenkel" - we can't just copy and paste the text of the abstract into the article (copyright), and also it would by its very length give this single rather inconclusive paper undue prominence, so if anything is to be used it needs to be summarized. Brunton (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We summarize because we use summary style. To show good faith and force the issue, I have integrated the reference into the page. Is everyone now happy? I have, I believe, accurately summarized the state of the art in clinical homeopathic treatment for cancer, per Frenkel. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU, your bias is so strong, and your desire to prove homeopathy is nothing, makes your edits far outside of the NPOV and you clearly should not be editing anything. You should remove your edit. It is far from accurate and by no means bears the same tone as the Frenkel article. It is extremely biased and looks to simply accentuate any possible negative viewpoint. I will send Mr. Frenkel an email and see if he agrees with your summary. As a matter of fact, I may just have him write a very small summary as who else would be more qualified than the author to summarize the work. Brunton, please learn to look up your own references if you would like to be a contributing editor to this page. Why do the most extreme people, with the most biased views, always want to start an edit war? I won't change for now, but please take down your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the full paper, so I cannot "look up [my] own references". This is a paper that you are presenting as important enough in its conclusions to include as a reference - it might therefore be considered up to you to provide supporting information. You have implied that you have the full text of the paper; if you do it should only take you a few moments to post the references.

Which of my edits would you like me to take down? You didn't specify. Brunton (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Having no clear effect is a better summary, I edited that into the article, excuse my clumsy wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see this wording as any clearer. Frankly I don't care if the whole line is taken right out. For me the take-home message, one in line with the body of research, is that homeopathy clearly has no clinical role in cancer treatment (rather than lacking a clear clinical role). That "narrative summary" is a paen for more research, and little else, but it does say clearly that there are no unambiguous outcomes that favour homeopathy. I also think that this discussion is essentially over - what else is there to say? Does anyone else have any other suggestions? Bench work on cells are equivocal with no clear clinical effects. Randomized controlled trials show only equivocal results for both symptoms and direct treatment. What else is there to say? This is one reference out of nearly 200, how much weight should we give it when it's own abstract gives such a weak conclusion? I'd rather consider the issue over and not have to read any more evidence-free assertion of homeopathy's effectiveness when even the advocates in scholarly literature can't prove any real use. Any more sources? No? Then the only thing to discuss is how to word this one. So, if anyone has any suggestions on wording, let's hear it. Otherwise, just let it die. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice that this is a narrative review rather than a systematic one. What effect does that have on the weight we should give it? Brunton (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you WLU. Your position and desire and suggestions are clearly stated - we understand (and hopefully it is true) that you have nothing left to say on this new information until an edit is made. That is one person. Many of us don't have time to post every hour and read every change to a wiki every few minutes - I understand you do. However, a few weeks of discussion and feedback for a topic like this with a significant new secondary source review is certainly reasonable prior to making edits. I am unclear why you would be concerned about letting others discuss this topic - just because you say something does not make it correct or a foregone conclusion here. Skycop12 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that WP:NOT#FORUM. Unless there's a proposed edit that is likely to gain concensus, the we are done with this topic. WP is not a debating society.LeadSongDog come howl 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree but was disagreed with in turn. Skycop doesn't seem to realize that consensus is against him - I'm far from the only person who thinks Frenkel's review doesn't add much to the page. Skycop, the only person who thinks there is anything substantive to the review, has not suggested any changes to the page. I think we can now consider the issue dead.

As to the weight, I think one sentence well in line with the mainstream consensus, is sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it warrants even that - its a single paper about a single condition (or set of conditions), and doesn't really add anything to the article (a statement along the lines of "homeopathy doesn't work and doesn't work for cancer" would contain a certain amount of redundancy, wouldn't it?). It was also a little out of place where it was - if anywhere it belonged in the following section which deals with meta-analyses and systematic reviews (although this paper isn't itself a systematic review). I've removed it for the time being (apologies - I forgot to include an edit summary). Brunton (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me and IMHO your reasoning is sound. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked Mr. Frenkel to summarize his recently published summary for us. From my perspective, the first part of what he says is already in the article many times over. However, the 3 sentences are key. The minority viewpoints are clearly indicated in 2 and 3 and the skeptics should stop trying to eliminate the "however" with respect to published, peer-reviewed statements, which these three are almost word for word from some lines in the article although slightly summarized. Number one is accepted by both sides. I am not trying to put this forth as my personal research, as primary research, or as anything more then one anonymous editor providing a recommended update. However, although it makes no difference this is from Frenkel (which is the oddest part of Wiki) I am going to submit 2&3 as my proposed additions, but I want to give credit to Dr. Frenkel as I asked Dr. Frenkel to write for me what he would propose as a wiki update related to his peer-reviewed journal summary.

Dear XXXX, Thank you for the interest in the two articles that I recently published concerning homeopathy and cancer. I would suggest adding the following paragraph that reflects my thoughts about homeopathy based on my basic science research and the literature review:

Data from multiple research disciplines, ranging from studies that evaluate the effect of homeopathic remedies on cancer cell lines, to scientifically valid animal and clinical studies raise some clues that need to lead to further clinical studies. Several published outcome studies and a few RCTs suggest a few facts that cannot be ignored or attributed to a placebo effect:

1. Homeopathic remedies used in clinical trials appear to be safe and without adverse effects.
2. There may be a role for homeopathy in improving quality of life in some cancer patients.
3. Based on review of the studies on the use of homeopathy in cancer we can conclude that specific anti-tumor effects have not been shown in any controlled clinical research to date. However, the positive reports from laboratory experiments in cancer models done in reputable institutions such as the Samuelli Institute and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and clinical observations in clinics in India are indeed noteworthy and raise the need for further properly designed clinical research.

Let me know if this paragraph fits your needs.

Skycop12 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal communications are not considered reliable sources even with WP:OTRS. Also, the large-scope, mainstream opinion is what is important, not the opinion of one researcher who is well within the CAM fold. Frenkel is also doing nothing but call for more research. Personally, I think more research is good money thrown after bad, but as an editor it's also a worthless statement to be put into the page. All topics need "more research". The best trials strongly indicate homeopathy is nothing but elaborate placebo. Regarding his other points, that homeopathic preparations are safe doesn't mean they are effective (because what else would you expect from water and sugar pills), and giving someone medication because it is safe is meaningless if it is ineffective. Homeopathy's role in improving quality of life again goes back to it being a placebo. And laboratory experiments, and animal research, are not relevant to clinical research until actual RCT are completed. When those are done, and they are found to be of high quality, and a review article is published indicating homeopathy is effective as well as safe, then the information can be included. Right now Frenkel's review is still saying nothing more than "no results, more research". That's pathetically weak and inappropriate for the page.

Vitamin C is safe. Pepper is safe. Water is safe. Wood chips are safe. Human blood, if drank, is safe. Urine is safe. Nitrogen is safe. That doesn't mean any of them are effective. Safe is an absurd cop-out and a total non sequitur. Nothing homeopathic preparations are "safe" is meaningless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I already noted that the personal communication was simply to give the source. Other than that, I think you are wrong. This is an appropriately short, minority opinion, which is by no means being given any material portion of the wiki relative to the entire size. I think as far as peer-reviewed secondary sources go, as the best source of information, not only should it be in, but it is a better source than many of the other statement sources that are currently in the wiki. The simple statements are, "There may be a role for homeopathy in improving quality of life in some cancer patients" and "Several published studies and a few RCTs suggest a few facts that cannot be ignored or attributed to placebo effect." This is a minority opinion and statement, a couple of sentences to summarize the most recent a peer-reviewed secondary source. It should be included.

In addition the House of Commons is a single report that was non-peer reviewed and was also partially generated by politicians that is given far more space. In addition we should be adding, if we are using the House of Commons report, the http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ US government NIH report states the following:

The Status of Homeopathy Research

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.

That statement should be integrated as well, and frankly the NIH is a far better source than a political appointee body reviewing scientific literature as the House of Commons did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a proposed edit. Until then, you are simply wasting your time and ours.LeadSongDog come howl 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"the positive reports from laboratory experiments in cancer models done in reputable institutions such as the Samuelli Institute and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston" - References please (the ones from the review perhaps?). We can't assess the conclusions without knowing exactly which studies were considered in arriving at it, especially since this was a narrative review. Merely asserting that they are reliable because they come from particular institutions looks like an appeal to authority.

The comment from the NCCAM website is essentially the same as statements already in the article, e.g. "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence. While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy." We could add it it as an additional reference to support this statement, I suppose, but we already have plenty of sources, mostly peer-reviewed, supporting it. Giving weight to the statement that there are some positive results, which generally seems to be be the reason for introducing this source, would be tantamount to cherry-picking. Brunton (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this section is 52K long.

Just a note - per WP:MEDRS we shouldn't be reviewing or including primary sources, and this secondary source is saying the results are unclear. This narrative review is worthless for the purposes of adjusting the page; it's an apologetic for homeopathy's failings and a further effort to justify milking research-funding bodies of more resources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU, we know your interpretation of the review. I don't agree in the least and neither did the actual author. If you keep saying what you already said, it doesn't make it any truer. It would be nice to allow anyone besides the same three people that read every post every day/hour to comment before I make the edits. WLU, we have heard your opinion, no need to try and monopolize the wiki, we have nothing but time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you acknowledged the source- and policy-based reasons why the review is not appropriate for making any positive claims about homeopathy. You keep making points, I keep illustrating why they are not good ones based on the rules around here. Your suggestions have garnered little support, you've not been able to substantiate or justify them through reference to anything meaningful on wikipedia, yet you continue to push for them. At times silence implies consent or consensus. Well, I'm not being silent because I think your suggestions are flawed and inappropriate. Frankly, if there's time that's being wasted, it's by edits that have zero chance of standing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"The data from a few laboratory experiments in cancer models show some beneficial effect of homeopathic remedies on selected cancer cell lines." That is a peer-reviewed, secondary source, that is stating their opinion. The source is good. The peer-review is fine. It is a short & succint minority position statement. Why should it not be included? It is not our job to agree or disagree with his review as editors, just to put those sources in the wiki. Brunton, there is no need to review the secondary sources peer-reviewed opinion. Your opinion of his peer reviewed opinions of the studies would be meaningless. Also, please don't confuse clinical data with laboratory data. This simply states that in the lab, that an effect has been shown. Clinical has a long way to go, that doesn't mean that this information isn't important. The opinion of the Frenkel review, irrespective of the mainstream view, is there is an effect seen in the Lab. It is clearly a minority position but deserves to be included. There are no wiki rules as to why it should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to point out "some" and "selected", as well as "cell lines". In other words - petri dish research. You also leave out the next line. We do not summarize exploratory research. These results are meaningless for clinical research, and when years of clinical research show only placebo effects, there's no reason to include tentative, unclear, ambiguous, unreplicated lab results. Why not include it? Because it's meaningless in terms of clinical research (i.e. use in humans) and Frenkel admits this. Plus, we don't report on preliminary cancer treatments in general because there's a lot of them and most of them crap out without good results. There is a big difference between lab and clinical data, and we don't include preliminary lab data, particularly when it's mixed and unclear. When there's consensus that real results are being found, through replication and convergent scientific consensus, then this information which apparently refutes homeopathy's placebo-only status, then it can be included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU, can you tell me again where in the wiki guidelines it says that an editors opinion is superior to actual subject material generated and reviewed in a peer-reviewed published statement from a secondary source, from an industry expert, in the most recently published data on the topic, in which his opinion clearly was that those statements are valuable to the topic and are worthy of being printed? I know you want your opinion to be stronger than the actual source, but it isn't. It is also disputed, at least in the minority, that ALL clinical homeopathic data reflects placebo. Also with respect to cancer in any form, you don't get to decide what is and isn't crap and what is or isn't included in wiki, the peer-reviewed secondary sources do. If you want to put your opinion in, get published.Skycop12 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. WP:NPOV, specifically the section on undue weight states that we should represent issues as they are found within the mainstream research community, particularly with an eye towards what the highest quality sources (such as the three Cochrane Reviews, generally seen as the most prominent source of expert guidance and evidence-based medicine in the world) have to say about things. WP:MEDRS states that we should respect secondary sources and the overall scientific consensus.

In conclusion, the best research, properly blinded with adequate randomization, placebo groups, large N, adequate control, shows that homeopathy is no better than placebo. NPOV is one of the occasions where editor judgement is required, otherwise the page would be open to just any old nonsense being thrown in, and the page would be cherry-picked into inappropriately claiming merit for homeopathy. Not that that is required in this case, since as Frenkel clearly states there is only equivocal evidence to suggest homeopathy has any merit in cancer treatment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors

My proposed inclusions are a significant view from a reliable source, that relative to the two total sentences I am proposing, is certainly in proportion to the entire size of the article.

You of course, summarized what the undue weight says, and modified to try and fit your point when in fact it actually simply says the following as a introductory sentence:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views;

Two sentences from a reliable, peer-reviewed, secondary source certainly qualifies as a proportionate response and it is clearly permissible to provide the information even if the mainstream does not endorse the opposite viewpoint or the opinion of that source or the conclusions of that source. It is a reliable source in proportion to the article.

I will likely also be removing some information that relates to sentences in the wiki attributed to the "Homeopathy; Shelton 2004" book as a source. We should be careful of our double standard in this article for value of sources. The book is written by one guy, over 6 years ago, that was not peer reviewed, and that was published by prometheus publishing which ranks at the bottom and second to the bottom list on two publisher rankings List 1 and List 2(for the few lists that even mention it or rank it). It is a publisher that is barely one step above self-publishing and is clearly an unreliable source that has no clear fact or publishing standards and per WP:MEDRS should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

section break

Disagree, and no consensus for inclusion, as well as the fact that any summary would be so weak it would be irrelevant. Prometheus books is a well-known publisher of skeptical literature, and as I read that list it's on par with a variety of university press so good for it. Also, Shelton is used for a variety of basic level citations and fundamental flaws - be careful what you remove as in many cases you should provide a replacement citation. It also offers criticisms from the level of basic sciences and methodology - miasmas for instance are nonsense, violation of Avogadro's number, the misuse of quantum mechanics (note that the author is a physicist), evidence for homeopathy decreasing as the quality of the trials improves, and so on. Basic citations, hardly controversial. The book is far from being self-publication, and it really looks like it is being removed because you don't like what it says. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As already noted, Shelton is a single person. It is not reviewed and would be considered a primary source. Prometheus has no guidelines or standards for fact checking. Thus, assuming one guys unproven, unreviewed, opinion that was published by a Publisher with no standards for even basic fact checking would be inappropriate and inconsistent for even basic information and is certainly inconsistent with WP:MEDRS and is no better than a random edit. If there is no good source, and no reputable person or body has ever made the statement, it doesn't need to be in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU, your reversal of an edit that was referenced to Shelton is unreasonable. Shelton is clearly an unreliable and unusable source. It is out of line with WP:MEDRS and should not be used as a reference for any information. I will manually delete the edit reversal unless there are some additional facts that would make this terrible source somehow usable in this article. If you feel those two sentences are important ot the overall wiki, please produce a reliable source for them. Otherwise, they should not be in the wiki. Using the "reliable source" requirement when it suits you one day and then throwing it out the next does very little for your personal credibility. Also you noted the Author is a physicist as if that is relevant. So, if I find an unpublished, unreviewed document, written in first person as a primary source, published by an unreputable publishing house with no standards, that happens to be written by a physicist your opinion would be I can I use it for fact substantiation as well? Skycop12 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That the book was written by a single person is irrelevant. Books are not primary sources. Prometheus is a reliable publisher, here (which states PB is acceptable for broad claims about Islam, but is less acceptable for more minute and extreme claims) and here (which stats PB is clearly acceptable), not all claims need to be university press, but the very sources you provide indicated that PB was on par with some university press, and the important fact is the reputation of the publisher. Prometheus books has a good reputation from what I know. MEDRS applies to strict medical claims, while Shelton is mostly used for basic claims of fact. WP:RS would seem to apply more, which only forbids self-published books and Prometheus books is not vanity press. I would argue that your removal of Shelton was unreasonable and calling it a terrible source is woefully inaccurate. Have you read the book? I have. It's quite logical, thorough, even-handed, and frequently cites noted homeopaths such as Dana Ullman. Also note that I did add more sources [10], which were found in the lead. Shelton is a source for basic information which is well-within the mainstream. I've posted on RSN, we'll see what they say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the most recent discussion of Prometheus Books on the RSN came up as Shelton being a reasonable parity source for a fringe article like homeopathy [11]. Obviously, if more reliable sources come up it can be replaced (I think it's better to keep it as a supplement) and for more controversial statements attribution may be appropriate, but it's still a perfectly reliable source given the topic. Obviously this could still change, but that's certainly a reasonable summary and use in my opinon. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

additional internal inconsistency criticism

I have briefly searched the discussion archive, and didn't immediately find anything about this:

The criticism section rightly points out the absence of convincing evidence for efficacy, and the incompatibility of the high dilutions and its supposed effects with physical and chemical knowledge. In addition, it already briefly points to internal inconsistency as a third independent pillar of criticism, which doesn't rely on knowledge of the sciences or literature:

• Furthermore, since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance. By drinking water one would, according to this interpretation, receive treatment for every imaginable condition.

I think it would be informative to add to this the remark that the concept of extreme dilution also introduces obvious problems for quality control of the alcohol or water that is used for the preparations. How does one make sure that the solvent is pure and not previously contaminated by other homeopathic substances? If one can't separate a homeopathic dilution from pure water after preparing it, then how would it be possible to do it before preparing it?

I can not provide a source for this, but I think it would be worth looking for one and adding this as a second short example of internal inconsistency. --JH-man (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim is generally that the water used is "double distilled" and that this wipes the water's memory (although, as you suggest, there would appear to be no way of telling whether or not it actually accomplishes this, since water's memory has yet to be detected, and I don't remember having seen any source which indicates that Hahnemann, for example, used double distilled water in preparing remedies). Another claim is that succussion as well as dilution is necessary to force the substances into the water's memory so the water won't remember anything. Brunton (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That the water is boiled is also something waved about to excuse this. As always, Shelton has a section on this and can provide further citations.

The lack of consensus on what homeopathy is, and what the most useful versions are, is also a consistency issue - I see it as almost directly analogous to the discussion of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It's all predicated on whether you believe in angels. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So what about including it together with those citations and reference, then? Like I said, I think it deserves its place as another example of problems with internal consistency. --JH-man (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I could try to dig through Shelton again and see what he's got. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a clear problem in the section on dilution: when discussing the size of the universe, it is stated that there are appx. 10^80 atoms in the known universe, yet it goes on to state that therefore, a single MOLECULE in the universe is at a 40C dilution. Isn't a molecule made up of multiple atoms, generally? the reference points to a section of a book, which as far as I can tell is not available online. 174.30.12.247 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "about" 40C, as does the book. Given that the mother tincture from which homoeopathic remedies are produced is itself often of unknown concentration this is probably about as precise as it is possible to be. Of course, given equivalent starting concentrations, a larger molecule (or collection of molecules) would require even more universes for the distinctive substance to be present, so strictly speaking we would need to multiply that 10³²⁰ universes by however many atoms it takes to make Oscillococcinum distinctive. Since it is a preparation of duck organs likely containing a large number of different molecules in different concentrations this would be rather difficult to work out. An approximate number is almost certainly the best that can be done. Brunton (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am specifically asking is "how many molecules are in the known universe?" - the number may be very close to the 10^80 estimate for atoms (perhaps 10^79, IANA physicist). whatever the case may be, the sentence should be altered so that the first and second clause both refer to molecules, for the sake of clarity (not accuracy). Otherwise, readers of this article will get to this sentence and be confused. "wait a minute," they will think, "if the original duck liver concoction had molecules made up of 100 atoms, then a single molecule standing alone in the universe would be at a dilution of only 39C, not 40C!" I realize these are only estimates when discussing the size and composition of the universe, but the sentence itself should at least be internally consistant. 163.41.136.11 (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

More Neutral Intro

I agree with the user Skycop. The reviews he/she suggested should be included in the article. Also in the light of these reviews and of what the http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ US government says on homeopathy, the lead should read: 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. ( no copyright problems they encourage duplication).--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive difference between your proposal and improvement upon the current wording within the lead:

While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy.[15][16][17][18][19] Furthermore, higher quality trials tend to report less positive results,[17][20] and most positive studies have not been replicated or show methodological problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[9][12][21][22]

— Scientizzle 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! Then we can go ahead and change it. Since some users believe that there is a difference I m sure this is a fair compromise. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, since you may not have seen my edit summary...I don't see how your text is in any way an improvement. The current text is heavily cited to reliable sources. — Scientizzle 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As you see some editors dispute that the current text is neutral and it is accurately cited to reliable sources. Since you see no difference with the above ( which belongs to nccam and there is no copyright) then we can change it. A fair compromise.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why make a change with no substantive improvement? — Scientizzle 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to make a change? Propose specific wording that incorporates (correctly) the current sources. Your current suggestion appears only to expand "some individual studies have positive results" to "some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects". That's just more verbose with no new information, and it leaves out the point that higher-quality studies typically show little-to-no effect. — Scientizzle 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Less bias is an improvement.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see less bias, only the removal of an inconvenient, cited claim (higher quality associated with little-to-no effect) and extra prose without use. — Scientizzle 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some users see bias. A fair solution should be found. What is more fair than a statement which belongs to such a major organization with no copyright and you think that it is acceptable in terms of bias.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears the working consensus of editors here don't see a bias problem...when you change some minds, a change in the text should follow. You haven't currently changed mine. You can--it's an open mind--but you need to make a clear case. Just saying "it's biased" doesn't make it so... — Scientizzle 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"bias" = "saying something negative about homeopathy"? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

[undent] Replacing a statement that is extensively supported by peer-reviewed sources with a quotation from a non-peer-reviewed source is not an improvement, and neither is introducing additional redundant wording to a lead that (while it has to be this length to summarise the article) has been criticised as too long. Brunton (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ and archives. Neutral doesn't mean "positive" and the most reliable sources converge on homeopathy being effective only as an elaborate placebo.

Finally, that would place undue weight on primary sources when we are supposed to base the page on reliable, secondary sources. So no. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

no this is wrong: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.The sources we are talking about are major reliable sources: Naccam, Lancet, frenkel review. You cannot exclude them - whatever they state positive or negative- If you want to edit according to the Neural point of view. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Prominence is based on volume and quality of sources - again, best quality sources (Cochrane collaboration, Lancet, BMJ, AMA) are resoundingly negative. The idea that homeopathy works is present, it's just less present than the more dominant viewpoint of it being bunk.

What Lancet would that be then? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably the one that, according to a later paper by its authors, "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". Brunton (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is little question good secondary sources, such as the recent Frenkel review (and others if they can be linked/substantiated) should be included, even as smaller sections. However, they need to be labeled as minority opinions and should be given less space than the current majority opinion. However, the wiki already states in no uncertain terms what the current majority opinion of Homeopathy is so there is no need to be further concerned about making sure that is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this seems to be a continuation of the archived thread "NCCAM and the "Linde letter", and seems to be to some extent repeating the same arguments. The opinion of these sources does not differ from what is already reported in the article, and is therefore not being "excluded". Brunton (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Brunton and all : you keep misinterpreting the actual reliable sources: Linde;s letter to the lancet states clearly that homeopathy has not been proved as a therapy but it also states 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. "

This point of view is not included like the naccam point of view as the previous editor stated. Please do not do that.it is not only me who object to this kind of misinformation. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two issues here - you are proposing pasting in a statement from the NCCAM that is effectively the same as the statement you want to replace, that is supported by a series of references, on the grounds that this viewpoint is not represented in the article. It is, in the sentence "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy," and in the following sentence which is also quoted above by Scientizzle.

Then you introduce the completely separate issue of a number of criticisms of a particular paper that you want included. "The conclusions that physicians should tell their patients that "homoeopathy has no benefit" and that "the time has passed for ... further investment in research"" that Linde and Jonas criticised were not even conclusions of the paper in question - they are the views of a Lancet editorial, which is not cited by the article, and they are not currently included in the article - we don't need rebuttals of positions that are not included in the article (and if we want to include them, we would need to include the views of the Lancet editorial that they are objecting to). All you are left with here is a complaint that the conclusion of the Shang paper (which had passed peer-review) was an overstatement.

Incidentally, on the subject of "further investment in research" into homoeopathy, I assume you remember the source (only a blog, but there's no reason to think it isn't an accurate account) linked to in the now archived section of this discussion, that quoted the current director of NCCAM as saying that "in the last two years (under her directorship) the NCCAM has not funded any studies of homeopathy." Do you think this "NCCAM view" should be included? Brunton (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is pretty much the same stuff Brunton says, but by the time I started typing he hadn't answered. I'll post it anyway to demonstrate that Brunton isn't the only one objecting your views.It's funny that you think Linde's letter is “the actual reliable source” - why would you think that a comment/letter about an article is more reliable than the article itself? The part you're citing isn't even about Shang's conclusions but about the Lancet's editorial. By the way, who is that previous editor who wants to include the “naccam” point of view? I thought that was you (and that agency is still called NCCAM). How many times do you need to hear that “While some studies have positive results, systematic reviews of all the published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy. (that's what the article currently says) and the NCCAM's “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.” are quite compatible? I don't see any kind of misinformation there. --Six words (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor aren't reliable sources. Otherwise, fine with Six words and Brunton's statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor of the Lancet from major researchers who are cited and quoted in the Homeopathy article are reliable sources.

Brunton: why are you keep repeating this kind of misinformation. After a while I start hearing the word "lying" which I don't want to use. Linde's letter is a direct and severe critisism to Shang conclusion that homeopathy is placebo( emphasizing the same time that it has not been proved as a therapy):Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What in my post above is "misinformation"? Are you claiming that your quotation "The conclusions that physicians should tell their patients that "homoeopathy has no benefit" and "the time has passed for ... further investment in research"" from the Linde/Jonas letter is not about the Lancet editorial? Are you claiming that The Linde/Jonas letters comment about the conclusions of the Shang paper is not, as I said, that they are an overstatement (remember that the comments about reporting were addressed by the authors)? You appear to be making accusations based upon a misreading of the source and/or what has been posted here, and would perhaps be well advised to WP:AGF. Brunton (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to find the letter itself and had no luck. Can someone link it?

The letter is nowhere near so reliable as the article it addresses, and further the important issue is the convergence of evidence, above even a meta-analysis or Cochrane review. The convergence of evidence, from Linde's own studies, is that homeopathy is essentially indistinguishable from placebo, as well as being theoretically incoherent, based on primitive magical thinking, and lacking convincing evidence of efficacy. There's also that whole section that points out there research supporting homeopathy is really not that great, while the evidence it is no more than placebo is pretty broad and deep. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This is misinformation. If someone does it on purpose is lying. Linde's letter says clearly the above which I repeat. Linde himself says exactly that in the Lancet: "Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Again, link to letter please. And again - that is a single reply, by a single person, about a single meta-analysis, about a single issue. Homeopathy must deal with all sources. Picking one letter to the editor, as if it addressed all sources and criticisms, is inappropriate. At best it could be put in as a qualifier for that one study, but I would only endorse that if I can review the text itself. So again I ask - can anyone provide a link? And are there any follow-up statements by Shang? Plus, the Shang et al. conclusion isn't definitive - it merely states that it supports the idea that homeopathy's clinical effects are due to placebo - as do many others. I will not agree to cherry-picking of tenuously reliable sources to verify statements that contradict a body of literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A claim made in a letter to the editor, even of a peer reviewed journal, is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, Linde and his co-authors are homeopathic practitioners themselves, or work for think tanks promoting homeopathy. They have had to backpedal on a previous meta-analysis they did (1998) that claimed to show effects beyond placebo. While a peer-reviewed meta-A of theirs should not be ignored due to suspected bias, a letter to the editor is a different story. btw WLU you can find that letter and other relevant papers through PubMed. Don't include obvious biased editorials in this article.163.41.136.11 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU: the letter can be found here.

Given that it says in its opening paragraph that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", it cannot possibly be taken as a statement that homoeopathy works, and it cannot be said that this viewpoint, which is the only general view of homoeopathy itself expressed in the letter, is not in the article. Brunton (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the letter. Given the criticisms are substantively methodological, I'm inclined to leave them out (and again, this is a single study, of many, that found similar results of homeopathy = placebo). It certainly shouldn't be in the lead, as this section ostensibly advocates for. If this letter were incorporated into the body, its criticisms would only apply to a single paper, and certainly would not be sufficient to adjust the lead. And as Brunton says, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of homeopathy's effectiveness. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The strong criticisms of the Shang study in the Lancet show that Homeopathy's efficacy is highly controversial and this should be appeared in the article and in the lead according to the wiki rules for controversial topics. Many reliable sources states that:

Controversies Regarding Homeopathy http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. For these reasons, critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile.

Major scientists you quote and cite in this article dispute that homeopathy = placebo. Not including these views is totally inappropriate and heavily biased editing. --67.81.109.134 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a tad confusing. What words would you like to see added? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Critics say" is one suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.109.134 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "Linde letter" here, that is a methodological criticism of the Shang paper. To use it as anything other than a criticism of the Shang paper would be WP:SYN. If you want to include this alleged view of "major scientists", you need to find reviews or analyses that they have published which unequivocally state this view as their conclusion. Your "critics say" suggestion, incidentally, is a form of words discouraged by WP:Weasel. We have multiple sources cited for the statement you want to apply it to, so it is entirely unnecessary. It is also introducing bias to characterise the scientists who produced the research used to source that statement as "critics" simply because their results are not positive for homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brunton: They dispute both the methodology and the conclusion homeopathy = placebo. Hence the the point of view homeopathy=placebo is stated by critics and not by all scientists who are involved and published in the reliable sources we are using. --67.81.109.134 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NCCAM's position is represented in the section on meta-analyses. "Critics say..." is not acceptable per WP:AWW. And again, the best evidence, the most respected sources, state that homeopathy is a placebo. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Idem here. "Critics say" is an inapropiate attribution here. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Dogweather (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The best evidence is defined by the reliable sources not from your point of view. And here again the scientists you are citing disagree. :Shang says it is all placebo and Linde that the assumption is an overstatement and it is not supported by the data. Both are published in the Lancet. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the "best evidence". If it were Linde would not object to the Homeopathy = placebo.--67.81.109.134 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)