Talk:Homeopathy

TODO

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care.

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)

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)

[<---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) 1. A mother tincture will contain appreciable amounts of the supposed active ingredient. I also suspect that 30ml of "PURE ALCHOHOL" would have observable effects. 2. What you are proposing is an uncontrolled experiment, from which nothing can be deduced about possible effects of the mother tincture. 3. This talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the Homeopathy article, not for general discussion of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I propose this experiment because, the 'zero molecule' tincture will generate precisely same dominating symptoms that the tincture in minutest quantities was supposed to heal. This personally happened to a 'Doctorate' in Chemistry who started out to disprove Homoeopathy and challenged that he would go for blind tests.(He tested potentiated tinctures in Atomic spectroscope, NMR which proved the Tinctures as PURE ALCHOHOL)) He had his 'shocks' of learning starting with Natrum mur 200. His big shock was blind test of same nature with Argentum Nitricum200. (Desiring sweets, fearing heights but desire to jump etc etc) and after hurting himself from jump, he opened his windows of learning, subsequently proving 21 medicines on himself and now became a great Homoeo doctor, healing many big cases(as I have myself witnessed) in Convulsions, Diabetes, TB, Menses problems, Creatinine etc etc. He was a scientist with a big conglomerate in USA for 10 years. Left everything to be a Homoeopath in life. So, I hereby request people to have an open window in their minds.30 ml or 15 ml does not matter. You in fact should dilute it with pure water and sip it as I suggested. Homoeo- A fine, inexpensive system that is capable of helping millions of poor people. Let it live and flourish. For the love of our future generations, at the least. The Pharma giants may disagree and think of only their share value. But where is the cure for common cough and cold? For Creatinine in Blood? Kidney problems? Cancer(It is not just located in those 'affected tissues'! Thats why it keeps coming back)? Head aches? Convulsions? (I am talking abt 'cure'. Not MANAGEMENT or cut and paste technology)How many women with Gynec problems are suffering with 'unending harmone taking' thru out their life? Congenital problems? Anger? Depression? Laziness? My daughter and son are 12 and 7. Never used any other medicines. If I can, anybody can.With a little care. It is true that we come across 'very good' homoeo docs rarely. that is because, too much hardwork and intellect are involved in learning it properly and serve the patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.132.32 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Do you have reliable sources for any of that? If not, it is not relevant to the article or to this talk page. Brunton (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) In any case, even if you have sources, the fact that medicine cannot cure certain conditions is not relevant to an article on homoeopathy, and neither is the alleged preoccupation of "the Pharma giants" with their share values (BTW, Boiron seem happy to announce on their website that their share price rose by 75% in 2009). And nor are anecdotes about "great Homoeo doctors" who believe that homoeopathy works. Brunton (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Bringing attention to your ' A mother tincture will contain appreciable amounts of the supposed active ingredient.' No sir, the problem here is, if Mother tincture of 13 C does not have any molecules.(Zero molecules as per 'scientific' reasoning) 200C which is 187 times further diluted at 1:100 with Alchohol will have one(1) in a billion -chance of having 1 molecule in 100 ml of Alchohol So, this can't be right. Yes, even after these dilutions, if the mother tinctures are able to create dominating symptoms of the material(After undergoing the test I suggested)in the Humanbeings,that is what TODAY'S SCIENCE SHOULD PURSUE. AND RESPECT Dr.Hahnemaa's genius. Note, Human beings are the medium of test here. Take 100 volunteers and start the blind tests like I suggested. All, for the good of humanity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.87.250 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Old Chestnut. A similar “trial” was done back in 1835, and the homeopaths didn't accept the (predictable) outcome, so why would anyone bother to repeat such a trial? This is not a forum (or your blog), so please stop posting your anecdotes and ideas. You're welcome to help improve the article with valid sources, but this isn't the place to proselytise “allopaths”.--Six words (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Replying to 122.175.87.250: A 13C (or 200C) remedy is not a mother tincture. The MT is the undiluted initial preparation from which the diluted remedies are made. Brunton (talk) 17:03, 27 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) 1. This is nothing more than an uncontrolled anecdote. The article uses peer-reviewed reviews of controlled trials as sources. 2. The placebo effect is well known to work on small children and babies, most often in the form of "mummy will kiss it better". The placebo effect has also been observed to work in rats. See Conforti et al. Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007 Jan 17;7:1, noting the "discrepancies" between the single-blind and double-blind phases. 3. It was a generally established fact in Galileo's time that the world was round. What got Galileo in trouble with the religious (not scientific) authorities was his observations of the moons of Jupiter, his arguments for the heliocentric solar system, and (perhaps most importantly) a book in which he put the Pope's arguments into the mouth of a character called "Simplicio". In any case, to quote Robert Park, "to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right." The evidence from properly conducted studies suggests that Hahnemann was no Galileo. 4. As already noted, this talk page is for discussion of changes to the Homeopathy article, not for general discussion of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Short answer: Yes. Long answer: It’s more like confirmation bias – you’re just seeing what you want to see, i.e. baby acts one way, you give him a homeopathic ‘remedy’, and he acts another way, therefore the homeopathic remedy must be actually doing something, and that something’s good. Ridiculous. Placebo effect and confirmation bias are kind of related. In one, your mind might actually produce some real, measurable effect. In the other, the effect is totally imaginary. Anyway, Brunton is right, this isn’t quite an appropriate discussion to be having here – Talk pages are for discussing articles, not their subjects. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 05:33, 24 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)

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 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)

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)

So your main concern is that the article doesn't say “homeopaths believe homeopathy works”? That pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? --Six words (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)::

No. The article should present their opinion on why they believe it works or why they believe it does not tested correctly. you still don't respond to the actual concern. It is not only the peer reviewed meta studies in major international medical journals but the controversy about them as long as this appears in reliable sources. like the Lancet or even the press.

Please provide specific changes you would like to make to the article, give us the sentences you wish to add and where you want to add them. Then give us the sources you would use to support those sentences. I personally see nothing worth adding from the sources you have provided. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will do. As I said It is not only the peer reviewed meta studies in major international medical journals but the controversy about them as long as this appears in reliable sources. like the Lancet or even the press. Readers should also know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

When even robtex gives Vitholkas' website a poor reputation, one wonders why we'd waste any time on it. His claim that he sent the letter to Lancet doesn't seem to be supported by any other source, and I see no indication that it was ever published by any other publisher. Hence it is, at best, self-published. On its face it has gross errors, such as the incorrectly spelled author names in the listed references. It doesn't come close to meeting wp:MEDRS, and should be ignored for this discussion and for the article. Konzept has yet to answer the direct questions posed above. Until we get an actionable proposal to edit in or out some article text, the tag should come off. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User leadsongdog and all : 1. Vithoulkas is a famous homeopath and thats why there is an article about him in wikepedia. He is self published but that does not mean that his opinion on homeopathy's effectiveness does not count. Furthermore the article on Homeopathy makes a direct reference and criticism to him ; therefore his opinions are notable and relevant . Linde 's objection to the Lancet ( published ) on Shang study is just shows a controversy among the researchers which is too big to be ignored. Please. How many editors need to tell you that the entire thing is biased and unbalanced in order to start suspecting that something is wrong here? Your approach is totally irrational, emotional and weakens the skeptical point of view for homeopathy. The only reason that the article remains in this state is because you block or threaten to block everybody who point out these facts.

I will retag the article. It is fair the readers to know that some editors disagree with this biased approach. I will make suggestions in a while. --Konzept1933 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fame of an author doesn't matter on wikipedia. Certainly an anonymous wikipedia editor's opinion on his fame doesn't matter. What does matter is that unpublished letters cannot be verified per wp:V nor are they reliable per wp:RS. If and when you find support for his claims that is 1)a review or other secondary source per wp:PSTS, 2)published as such in quality peer-reviewed journal, then it might have a chance of meeting the standard of wp:MEDRS. If you had taken the trouble to read the above comments, you would know that. Still, if you really can't accespt what you are being told here, you are always welcome to raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Removing the unjustified tag.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Leadsongdog this is published in vithoulkas;s website Did yo read the article you are defending? .Again there is an entire paragraph to criticize his statements you have chosen . Is he notable enough to be criticized and have his own article but not notable enough to include his own opinions on the subject eh? And Linde 's objection to the Lancet ( published ) on Shang study which shows a controversy among the researchers is also not notable enough or irrelevant or what? The Lancet is not good enough for you? --Konzept1933 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, until you provide specific changes to the text of the article there is not much point in this conversation. You have your opinion of the sources and the article, but that is meaningless until you provide us with specific changes you would like to see made to the article. Those specific changes can be reviewed based on wikipedia policy and the sources you provide to back them up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will do. It is not so bad though to accept that you make a mistake. You know that I m right. No editor responded rationally to the above concerns about the censored Vithoulkas' s and Linde's objections.--Konzept1933 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was explained to you in detail multiple times. Anyway, we are all waiting for your specific changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that there are "Some researchers who say that it is not proven and but it is not only placebo." To establish this you will need to provide references to published systematic reviews or meta-analyses that conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. A letter criticising the conclusion of another study is not sufficient. Brunton (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother…. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't have to do that Brunton. It is not that the point. Wikipedia requires that you have to report whatever controversies exist on a subject as long as there is evidence published in reliable sources. Here you have a objection letter in the Lancet ( stating that homeopathy is not only placebo and it not proven as well) by researchers who are considered notable and important and whose research and quotes are used in the article. So you have to report it. Do you understand that? --Konzept1933 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a reliable source. If he's done some scientific studies that are peer reviewed and haven't been dismissed as flawed in some way, well that would be a valid source. Millahnna (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor to the LAncet by the people the article quotes in many paragraphs is not a reliable source and evidence of a controversy which must be reported according to wikipedia policy?--Konzept1933 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on your specific changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)