Talk:Homeopathy
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy. |
Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy. Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Wikipedia include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Wikipedia policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics. Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Wikipedia consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.)
A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction.[1] This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.
Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be considered a fringe theory. Q5: Should studies that show that homeopathy does not work go into the article? (Yes.)
A5: Yes. Studies that show that homeopathy does not work are part of a full treatment of the topic and should go into the article. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Non-experts have suggested that all the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased, but this has not been borne out by the mainstream scientific community. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" be created? (No.)
A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.)
A7: No. Alleged proof that homeopathy works should not be included in the article. That is because no such proof has come from reliable sources. If you have found a reliable source, such as an academic study, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. Note that we do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence.
Note also that it is not the job of Wikipedia to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, nor to dissuade those who believe that it does work, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why. Q8: Should all references to material critical of homeopathy be put in a single section in the article? (No.)
A8: No. Sources critical of homeopathy should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Wikipedia. Q9: Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism? (No.)
A9: No. The article should not mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or speculation. Q10: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.)
A10: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia. Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.)
A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide, so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
TODO
|
---|
|
Excessively dignified arguments
What seems lacking here is a more cynical take on what is involved. I think that most people who try such products see something like "10X" and the name of one or more herbs and think that it is a concentrated herbal medicine of some sort. This isn't truly a pseudoscience but a simple street hustle. Wnt (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- While your point about the ignorance of consumers may well be true (see for example Beliefs about homeopathy among patients presenting at GP surgeries New Zealand Medical Journal, Vol 122 No 1295 p 94, which found that 59% thought that homoeopathic remedies are "moderately" or "very concentrated") what you suggest would not really be an appropriate approach. Brunton (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a pretty good source, but what's frustrating both in this source and in the article at large is that "homeopathy" is not subdivided according to whether it uses real drugs/supplements or not. Products like Zinc lozenges and sprays can be effective (and consequently, potentially can have serious side effects), but are labelled and described as "homeopathic" even though they have nothing to do with the "20X" products. I think the article can be shifted in this direction, nonetheless. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Scare quotes"
Per [1] - what terminology are we not endorsing, and why? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see no reason to suggest that it isn't really a form of alternative medicine. Brunton (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- At this time, I would tend to concur, but perhaps there is something I have not thought of/am not aware of. I have asked LeadSongDog to reply here, and explain his/her rationale. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, KC, I omitted to explain here. To anyone unfamiliar with the controversy behind it, the term, "alternative medicine" could be taken as plain language, completely missing that it has a dual meaning of "alternative to medicine", as when applied to various placebo, faith-healing, and sympathetic magic practices. Scare quotes have numerous uses. These scare quotes serve to alert the reader to the potential irony inherent in that dual meaning. We should not mask the existence of the controversy. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The term is linked; the term applies. I'm not seeing your justification; would you try to be more specific? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Linkage is not a substitute for getting it right. Some readers do read print copies of articles. The simple fact is that the meaning of "alternative medicine" is not what most readers would take from the simple application of normal rules of English grammar. One meaning is nearly the polar opposite to the other. The scare quotes alert the reader to that fact.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The term is linked; the term applies. I'm not seeing your justification; would you try to be more specific? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, KC, I omitted to explain here. To anyone unfamiliar with the controversy behind it, the term, "alternative medicine" could be taken as plain language, completely missing that it has a dual meaning of "alternative to medicine", as when applied to various placebo, faith-healing, and sympathetic magic practices. Scare quotes have numerous uses. These scare quotes serve to alert the reader to the potential irony inherent in that dual meaning. We should not mask the existence of the controversy. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You state "the meaning" is "the opposite" of what "most readers would take". I disagree. I see no reason not to presume most readers comprehend the term correctly; if they are in doubt, they can follow the link. You have given no reason other than your bare assertion, which is insufficient. I am removing the scare quotes. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Should anecdotes counter to homeopathy be included?
In the section "Ethical and safety issues", (2nd para, 10th line et seq.), I see:
"Also, in one case in 2004, a homeopath instructed one of her patients to stop taking conventional medication .... The patient was admitted to hospital ... and died eight days later.....[152][153]"
Which looks , well, rather anecdotal to me, so would seem to be counter to NPOV (since anecdote is generally not permitted in support of homeopathic claims). Am I wrong here?
Also, "the final diagnosis being acute heart failure due to treatment discontinuation" would seem to be very much opinion, albeit highly respected opinion. In logic, of course, there is no proof that said patient would definitely have survived given continuing conventional medication.
One might speculate (within the boundaries of that thought) that, as an alternative hypothesis, the death could have been a result of unwanted effects of the conventional treatment already received, or other external (or internal) cause.
The learned view of the medical enquiry might just possibly have been a tad biased, too, coming from a faction whose advice had not been followed. That too, is speculation, but not, I hope, an unreasonable notion.
The details of this case seem rather strange and atypical, however, and could not be proposed as a general occurrence (IMHO).
Perhaps a new rule to keep some semblance of unbiased order here, that anecdotal accusations should not be used either way? BLaChenal (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Although it may 'look anecdotal', it is linked to a reliable source (a UK national newspaper) which is reporting on the findings of an investigating tribunal. An excerpt from the report: 'A woman who gave up conventional heart medication on the advice of her homeopath made a "catastrophic" decision, a medical tribunal heard yesterday. The patient, from London, collapsed and died of a heart attack during a visit to France. Her death came within months of Dr Marisa Viegas telling her stop taking all the medication prescribed by cardiac specialists.' This is relevant and from a reliable source, i.e. not anecdotal. --TraceyR (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- And walks like an anecdote, and quacks like an anecdote. Clearly skeptics like an anecdote, too, expanded from reliable sources, selectively quoted; but it looks to me as if the Wiki-reader is being invited to make a Faulty generalization. BLaChenal (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not anecdote, and trying to brush them aside in that way is poor behaviour. These are the supported findings of investigations. There is no parity between "anecdotes" here. Verbal chat 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a thread regarding this at WP:EAR#Homeopathy. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The tribunal's findings about the then Dr. Viegas can be found here. The tribunal suspended her medical registration for 12 months; I have read elsewhere (no reliable source yet) that Viegas was subsequently struck off the UK medical register because she still considered that she had been right to advise the patient to discontinue her heart disease medication. --TraceyR (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- From the horse's mouth. This may be helpful http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/minutesfiles/Viegas%20%28M%20rev%29%2011%20June%202008%20-%20PUBLIC%20ANON.htm This is the from the official page of the GMC, and it's often quite useful for tracking down medical miscreants in Britain Max Quordlepleen (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. You already had that. I feel silly now. sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Quordlepleen (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that's the second decision from 2008, not the 2007 one we already had. Brunton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- From the horse's mouth. This may be helpful http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/minutesfiles/Viegas%20%28M%20rev%29%2011%20June%202008%20-%20PUBLIC%20ANON.htm This is the from the official page of the GMC, and it's often quite useful for tracking down medical miscreants in Britain Max Quordlepleen (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The tribunal's findings about the then Dr. Viegas can be found here. The tribunal suspended her medical registration for 12 months; I have read elsewhere (no reliable source yet) that Viegas was subsequently struck off the UK medical register because she still considered that she had been right to advise the patient to discontinue her heart disease medication. --TraceyR (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a thread regarding this at WP:EAR#Homeopathy. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not anecdote, and trying to brush them aside in that way is poor behaviour. These are the supported findings of investigations. There is no parity between "anecdotes" here. Verbal chat 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- And walks like an anecdote, and quacks like an anecdote. Clearly skeptics like an anecdote, too, expanded from reliable sources, selectively quoted; but it looks to me as if the Wiki-reader is being invited to make a Faulty generalization. BLaChenal (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
[<---undent] As far as the inclusion of documented examples of individual cases like this is concerned, this is not really comparable with anecdotal accounts being used to support efficacy. The "Ethical and safety issues" section cites reliable sources, and the examples used as illustrations do not contradict them (in any case, this sort of thing can hardly be investigated under controlled conditions because people have a tendency to behave themselves when they know they are being watched). Anecdotal accounts of miraculous cures, however, would flatly contradict the evidence from well-conducted and peer-reviewed analyses of controlled trials. Brunton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether Homoeopathy really works or just a placebo effect.
WP:NOTFORUM Brunton (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Let me state at the very begining that 'it works'. Let any of the 'non-believing' rationalists under go the following test: 1. Take 30 ml of potentiated mother tincture of Tuberculinum Bov 200 for 10 days by sipping it slowly for 5 minutes. It is supposed to contain 'zero' molecules, no doubt. Simply lt him make note of what happen to him through the 10 days period and 10 days next.. Now we will have the best result. One may try even other medicines like Graphites200, Glonoine200 or psorinum200 or Aconite200. Let them just try. PURE ALCHOHOL!!! is n't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.74.221 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I spoke research officers of CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR HOMOEOPATHY RESEARCH www.ccrhindia.org about this discussion.They are surprised that still the basic questions exist. They said they would officially contribute. Till then Bye. and Thanks. Just I state here: ALL I WROTE IS TRUE. NO FICTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.185.216 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
Can placebo effect be seen in a 3 month old baby ?
WP:NOTFORUM Brunton (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can placebo effect be seen in a 3 month old baby ? This is my son's case where I saw cure in 5 minutes, honestly(started in 3 sec) First time vaccinated at 11.00am on that day, my baby son developed high fever, skin turned dark and kept his eyes closed(not opening for anything or anybody or any reason), wailing every 5 minutes like wounded animal.Not even drinking water or milk. Not able to see his condition,(he was in my lap) at 9.30 pm, I administered Belladona 30C- 5 pills in one small spoon of water, shook it and took it to his lips and let the first drop touch his lips. With in 3 seconds he opened his eyes(not sleepily but with an expression of 'where did that nectar come from...').Then I gave him the whole spoon of water with medicine. With in next 2 minutes, he became very active, turning his head freely, looking clear eyed and we offered him milk bottle(full feed) and happily after approx 10 minutes, he consumed his milk and finished his bottle. Body temperature turned normal. We shifted him to the bed room and my wife accidentally(Intentionally) caught both his thighs and settlled him in a better position for sleep. He did not wail or even show slightest pain (Before medicine, even if you touch the 'uninjected' thigh or even leg, he would wail verrry loudly). NOw we said 'HAil Hahnemann' and went to sleep, whole episode of vaccination-trauma forgotten. back to business from next day. Explain this in terms of his body weight vs the medicine administered? Not just possible. Just because today's science can not 'measure' it, pl don't conclude saying its 'placebo effect'. It is equal to hanging Galeilio when he said 'earth is round'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.74.221 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I facilitated cures for some people recently.1) Subject 13 yr old, suffering from convulsions for last 6 years before . With STRAMONIUM 10M, cured. No recurrence in last 2.5 years.2) Convulsions 38 yr old man. Cured with Arg.Nitricum1M. No recurrence last 3 years.I want to tell them its only placebo effect? There is a man whose creatinine level came down from 10 to 1 in 2 months. What do I tell him? A diabetes patient with 10.5 value coming down to normal in 2 months. Placebo? My wife advised to take EPTOIN for 4 years after cysticercus infection in brain. Cured with Belladonna and Dulcamera (inimicals) in a day.(They were taking all sorts of alloathic medicines for years).So pacebo effect I believe. Since I realize that this is no forum for 'discussion', I shall not write here any more. But I am deeply pained by the fact that www.wikipedia.org, which people believe will impart knowledge: will deliver wrong message to millions by carrying a negative info filled article(starting from para 3)and continue to EDIT OUT all criticism stating their own 'formulated' rules. How sad!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.185.216 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
Accuracy and neutrality issues
Several users have stated that the paragraph needs improvement. Please respond and improve the article taking into account their suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Try to be a bit less vague: what paragraph are we talking about? Which suggestions have been made and not taken into account? --Six words (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Based on where you put the tag I would assume you meant the lead was the problem. I don't see any undue issues with it. Millahnna (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a dichotomy among the researchers on the effectiveness of homeopathy and the interpretation of primary studies and meta analyses. This is one concern. Give me some hours and I will show you specific examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please refer to WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE while you gather your response, paying particular attention to the points on relying on secondary sources such as review articles (and not juxtaposing primary articles to try to debunk secondary reviews) and which describe which sources are to be used - we rely on high quality peer-reviewed research. Tempted to remove tag but will wait until I see examples given. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, particularly the point about not using tempate messages as a Badge of shame. Given the number of times we've had this discussion without any real sources coming up, I'd like a 24 hour maximum limit on the tag. If nothing surfaces in that time, it should come off. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Brunton (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, particularly the point about not using tempate messages as a Badge of shame. Given the number of times we've had this discussion without any real sources coming up, I'd like a 24 hour maximum limit on the tag. If nothing surfaces in that time, it should come off. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please refer to WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE while you gather your response, paying particular attention to the points on relying on secondary sources such as review articles (and not juxtaposing primary articles to try to debunk secondary reviews) and which describe which sources are to be used - we rely on high quality peer-reviewed research. Tempted to remove tag but will wait until I see examples given. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a dichotomy among the researchers on the effectiveness of homeopathy and the interpretation of primary studies and meta analyses. This is one concern. Give me some hours and I will show you specific examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a controversy on the interpretation of the high quality studies. There are 3 positions.
1.Homeopaths ; who say that the meta analyses somehow prove their therapy and that individualized homeopathy differs from placebo giving specific examples. 2. Researchers and skeptics from the mainstream majority point of view who say that it is non sense and placebo. 3. Some researchers who say that it is not proven and but it is not only placebo.
Only #2 is stated. The other points of view are not there )not as the majority view but just as minority views - appropriately weighted. Hence , my concern and objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Should I cite sources for this? They are well known but I could if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- You have failed to cite specifics, did you look at wp:undue? Can you provide high quality sources that state an opinion that you feel is not represented at the appropriate level in the article or lede? Until this is done there is no reason to tag the article, removing it again and you need to look at [[wp:3rr]. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- you have to wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't. The onus is on you to produce sources, you don't get to just tag an article and tell the rest of us to "wait." Produce what we have asked for, or stop placing the template on the article. It should be removed until you produce a high quality source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- you have to wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have to kindly wait. You may be professional editor but i m not. I showed you my concern. I will give you the sources. The other editors said they can wait for 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have got 10 hours max, or until someone else comes along and removes it sooner. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have to kindly wait. You may be professional editor but i m not. I showed you my concern. I will give you the sources. The other editors said they can wait for 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- that;s so kind;thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- 1 Shang's study in the lancet and more in the article : Mainstream view (kind of- since many MDs at least in Europe they don't practice it but they don't reject it either ) 2. Vithoulkas 's view about the complexity and the bias of the meta studies and analyses. http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/186/9/lang,en/ 3. LInde's view "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". this is from a letter to the lancet from Linde you can subscribe and read it for free.
There are high quality sources. I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you not see the difference between a peer review meta study published in a international medical journal, versus a guys website, and a letter to the editor? Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Vithoulkas website Linde and Jonas letter are not peer reviewed, and the Vithoulkas letter was not even published. Can you produce a peer reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis which concludes that homoeopathy works better than placebo? Brunton (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm still confused how the lead has undue weight problems; since that's the paragraph indicated by the tag and all. Millahnna (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter if there are letters to the editor to the Lancet. The fact remains: These are different views which reflect the controversy among researchers on homeopathy;s meta studies and you want them out of the article for no reason.? VIthoulkas is a famous homeopath and has his own entry in wikipedia. His opinion on homeopathy;s effectiveness doe not count ?This is not reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you really need to read up on wikipedia policy. It matters very much where a source is published, how it is published, and who publishes it. A peer reviewed meta study in a major international medical journal will always trump some guys website no matter how "famous" he is in homeopathic circles. Without sources of similar quality to the meta review, I see no reason that any changes should be made to any section, let alone the lede. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- GA-Class pharmacology articles
- Unknown-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
- GA-Class Alternative Views articles
- High-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages