Talk:Homeopathy

Homeopathy and hormesis

I have identified two papers discussing how homeopathy might actually be a subset of hormesis [1] and how it might be able to be "integrated into mainstream biomedical assessment and clinical practice." [2] I think it is OK to add this to the article because Human & Experimental Toxicology is a respectable journal with a decent impact factor, but I want to get some feedback on whether there is consensus on adding information sourced to these papers first. Everymorning talk to me 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We don't, per WP:MEDRS, base content on single primary-source articles. Where is the evidence that anyone but the authors consider these articles significant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought that, since they didn't describe original research or results, then they were, in a sense, review articles and therefore were compliant with MEDRS, but evidently this may not be the case. Everymorning talk to me 02:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct.These articles dont describe original research or results, then they are review articles and therefore are compliant with MEDRS. --Neb46545 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that they are two different things, and shouldn't be conflated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They will not if one uses the sources as MEDRS dictates.--Neb46545 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly call this [3] a 'review' - having looked at it, I'd say that 'speculation' would be a better description. It cites nothing resembling a description of any specific treatment for anything. It also seems to be based on an assumption entirely contrary to current understanding of homoeopathic 'remedies' in that it states that they operate in the low-dose range. It has been amply demonstrated that to the contrary, homoeopathic 'remedies' repeatedly diluted in the normal manner contain no 'dose' whatsoever. And regardless of whether this speculation complied with WP:MEDRS or not, we still have no evidence that anyone but the authors take the suggestion that hormesis and homeopathy are in any meaningful sense connected seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Homeopathy+and+hormesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=SE55VP2sFMaBsQTDtIEQ&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA I think that there is evidence that "hormesis and homeopathy are in any meaningful sense connected seriously"--Neb46545 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC),

Would not use, per WP:WEIGHT. I see no indication that this has been widely accepted (4 cites by google scholar, two self-cites, one self published book and one foreign language dissertation). The actual text appears to be nothing but speculation how it might work, and a "note" in one of the article stating "Some forms of homeopathy claim that clinical and biological effects occur when dilutions are made beyond Avogardro’s number. Clearly these are not hormetic effects..." basically seals the deal about how useless it is, as homeopathy generally requires high dilution past this level. Yobol (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Hormesis refers to low doses, homeopathy uses ZERO doses...none of the active ingredient left at all. The effect of serial dilutions is to leave (statistically) less than one molecule of the active ingredient left - ZERO amounts of it. Hormesis requires a significant amount of the substance to be present in order to trigger the reaction to it in the body without providing enough to do serious damage. If you look at the very top of our article on hormesis, there is a graph of stimulation/inhibition versus dose - and you'll note that the curve is below the line for very low doses...so even if homeopathy were to be applied in lesser dilutions where some of the active ingredient remains, hormesis would predict that it would have no effect. So, no....homeopathy isn't a "subset" - it's an entirely different thing and it's claims are actually contradictory to those of hormesis. So this is nonsense, and any suggestion otherwise is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and doesn't bear consideration without WP:MEDRS-grade sources to back it up...which you evidently don't have. SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside that those are principally speculative commentaries rather than proper review articles, and the issues with MEDRS and WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT) compliance already identified, it strikes me as immediately obvious that neither article actually draws the conclusion that homeopathy is "a subset of hormesis". In other words, even if those sources were acceptable, they wouldn't support the proposed addition to the Wikipedia article.

The first paper, Oberbaum et al., lists five major differences between hormesis and homeopathy in its abstract – a far-from-exhaustive list, incidentally – and then suggests (for no particularly good reason) the someone should try introducing homeopathic methods (like the magic bottle-whacking) into hormesis-based experiments to see if it can make hormesis more potent.

The second paper, Calabrese and Jonas, speculates that some fraction of homeopathic practice might work through hormesis-based effects; again, even its abstract notes that the relevant doses associated with hormesis are measurable and significant, "...unlike most forms of homeopathy." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonas of course is a believer. There is a homeopathist called Joette Calabrese: I wonder if she is related to Edward of that ilk? Guy (Help!) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of explaining to homeopathy believers why hormesis does not validate homoeopathy. We have an article: hormesis. Read it. Look at the graphs. Pay particular attention to what happens to the dose-response relationship as dose tends to zero. Compare and contrast this with the homeopathy claim that dilution increases potency. For bonus marks, read and understand bioavailability. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You can personally believe whatever you want about the above reviews - ( non sense etc) however they are published in high quality sources and a serious and unbiased encyclopedia should report their point of view, Not as a prominent view of course - but as something which exists in high quality scientific literature. --Neb46545 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They are, however, written by proponents, and clearly have not changed the scientific consensus view. Wikipedia is not an exercise in mining every single statement ever made for or against something. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External link

I recently added a link in the "external link" section to a BBC show. If you have an issue with this link, then please clarify an EXACT reason why it shouldn't exist in the "external link" section. 1) "too many" links isn't a valid reason, because adding a 2nd link isn't a reasonable reason. 2) not a credible source or not notable aren't valid reasons either, because it's a BBC show that uses scientific methods to test it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#1; the link couldn't be used to support anything not already supported by a WP:MEDRS sources already used. The possible exception is the Randi $1M prize attempt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anything special about the link. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not the webpage, the video the webpage is about... • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcBHKMJDHaU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Wikipedia Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is extremely biased, and partially inaccurate according to Dana Ullman in his article "Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine" Huffington Post

Why has this not been fixed yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.173.61 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 December 2014 UTC (UTC)

Simply because Ullman's wrong. Read the Talk page here and its archives for enlightenment! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia documents the mainstream scientific and medical bias against nonsense. It also documents the existence of nonsense, hence this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note also that Ullman has a vested financial interest in homeopathy, and has used the Huffington Post to promote it. Mindmatrix 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example of how misleading the Ullman article is, he/she complains about a report called "Evidence Check" issued by the Science and Technology Committee of the UK House of Commons. Ullman wrote that "'Evidence Check' was signed off by just three of the 15 members of the original committee, never discussed or endorsed by the whole UK Parliament" - but no matter how good the science in the "Evidence Check" report, it would not have been discussed or endorsed by the whole UK Parliament - that kind of stuff is left to committees. Ullman simply cherry-picks facts to make it look as if he/she has a case. In the case above, the fact he/she cites is not even relevant.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ullman has rightfully exposed the tactics used by some Wikipedia editors to distort our articles and introduce factual inaccuracies into the text. I think his work deserves a mention and we could add something like: "Due to extensive POV-pushing by some Wikipedia editors, the article on homeopathy has received criticism in the media". He asks, at the end of his article, what could be done to rectify the problem? I think the solution is simple: Run a fact-check for all Wikipedia articles classified as "pseudoscience" using authoritative reference works and scientific reviews as a standard of comparison. I am confident that many, if not all, alt. medicine articles will not pass the test and these results would most certainly be worth publishing. -A1candidate (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A1c. Your repetitive nonsense is boring. Do you have any evidence for your silly claims. In fact, it has become disruptive, and you should stop. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Read Ullman's article if you want evidence. -A1candidate (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did. It's his normal nonsense, so I ask again, do you have any evidence for your silly claims? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it's nonsense? -A1candidate (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Dullman's article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ad hominem attacks and childish name-callling do not count as evidence -A1candidate (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure comment:

1. Dana Ullman is "not credible" as a source, according to a Judge in a recent court case, who rejected his sworn testimony in its entirety; therefore we should not give any more credence to his views than the judge did.
2. Dana Ullman is not a journalist. He is a homeopathy propagandist. Getting his nonsense published in newspaper's blog is not media coverage, it's a splenetic rant a True Believer.
3. Ullman is banned from this article. Citing his views is proxying for a banned user, and not a terribly good idea.
4. Ullman's claims are, in any case, entirely meritless. I went through it line by line, every single one of his points of "evidence" is false, and in some cases he has been told multiple times, even by the authors of papers he cites, that he is misrepresenting the facts.

I don't think we would include a blog post by David Irving as press commentary on an article on a holocaust-related subject, and that is a very close analogy. Ullman, like Irving, has a long and well documented history of misrepresenting, cherry picking and, frankly, lying about his subject. He is advancing an agenda, not commenting in neutral terms, and we absolutely should not endorse this in any way. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Veterinary homeopathy update

Recently the Australian ( http://www.ava.com.au/12057 ) and British ( http://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Policy/Medicines/Veterinary-medicines/ ) veterinary medical associations released statements removing all support for alternative medicines in general, homeopathy in particular. The relevant section should be updated to show the lack of support from veterinary professional bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.181.251 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to include this, shouldn't we also mention that the American Veterinary Medical Association has declined to take a similar position? Brunton (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no. Homeopathy is the medical equivalent of creationism, and the winding-back of homeopathy is still in pre Kitzmiller days. There are no veterinary associations that have reviewed homeopathy and found it to be effective, a few that have reviewed it but decided not to take action to do away with it yet, and a few which have taken action to remove homeopathy and some other placebo interventions from the list of supportable practices. It's analogous to the scientific proof of a negative, or the British government's decision to leave it to primary care trusts rather than make a central decision because they know that mandating against homeopathy is unpopular with a vocal minority. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mathie's recent meta-analysis and its assessment by scientific community

User:Brunton has recently added the the recent meta-analysis by Mathie et al. This paper's methodology was heavily challenged by the scientific community, most notably by Edzard Ernst [1,2], to which the lead author RT Mathie responded himself, and by Norbert Aust in his german blog. I am not discussing Mathie's reputation as a known homeopath (because both Ernst and Aust are known sceptics), but i would like to notify you that there are valid doubts about the reliability of Mathie's review. Maybe there is room for that in the article, or maybe that review should not be included in the article because of its faulty methodology. Rka001 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact it makes an exceptional claims raises a WP:REDFLAG, even apart from the commentary from Ernst and others. I wonder if it mightn't be better to wait until there is response in scholarly publications before including this meta-analysis. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Self-published blog commentary are not reliable sources. If Ernst and Aust publish their posts in reputable scientific journals, we could include their work. If these are valid criticisms, we'll highlight them but we should not and cannot remove MEDRS sources. -A1candidate (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mathie's RT is in contradiction to the scientific consensus, and it should be dealt with it accordingly. I remember the article about GFAJ-1, in which blogs of reliable microbiologists were used to cite the highly controversial nature of a finding reported by a Science paper (the journal). So, i do think your proposed remedy (leave as is, declare Mathie et al. as MEDRS-compliant) is not dealing with the situation. I agree that Alexbrn's proposal is handling the situation in a more reality-depicting way. Rka001 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

GFAJ-1 does not cite blogs, but the subsequent independent studies published later. The situation seems to be that Ernst is getting pissed that his 2003 trial did not meet Cochrane criteria, and therefore should not be included for meta-analysis. As for Alexbrn's proposal of waiting for responses in scholarly publications, please remember that Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and we cannot assume that these criticisms are valid enough to be published in the future. -A1candidate (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

GFAJ-1 does cite blogs by Rose Redfield, Alex Bradley, and articles published in Slate to cover the early criticism on the subject. Your statement about Ernst being "pissed" reveals you havent quite got what the problems are with the Mathie-paper. Before we continue discussion (i just realized you are kind of a CAM-crusader :P), do we agree that a) the Mathie-review contradicts scientific consensus, and b) do you agree that MEDRS does not relieve us from actually checking the validity of sources? Rka001 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

GFAJ-1 does cite blogs by Rose Redfield, Alex Bradley, and articles published in Slate to cover the early criticism on the subject

I'm sorry I missed those at first glance, but you're right it does contain several citations to Blogspot and Wordpress. Whether they're appropriate or not is debatable, especially when one considers the availability of a good scientific review (PMID 21387349) that specifically criticizes the methodology of the Wolfe-Simon paper. What Ernst needs to do now, is to consolidate his criticism of Mathie et al and send it for publication in a scientific journal. If it get's accepted, I'll support the inclusion of all relevant criticism.

Your statement about Ernst being "pissed" reveals you havent quite got what the problems are with the Mathie-paper

I can't read his mind so I don't know how he feels, but writing in ALL CAPS, as Ernst did at the end of his 27 December post, does give the impression of someone that can't keep his emotions steady. What I learned from Ernst's posts was that his study didn't get included for review because of the criteria set by Mathie et al. What I don't understand is this: Ernst admits that "we did report the severity-outcome, albeit not in sufficient detail for their meta-analysis". In other words, a shoddily written paper with missing data gets excluded from review. How is that proof of scientific misconduct? The claim that Mathie et al designed the protocol in such a way as to exclude Ernst's study is a little wild. Frankly, in the absence of some form of hard evidence, it sounds pretty much like a crackpot conspiracy theory.

Before we continue discussion (i just realized you are kind of a CAM-crusader :P)

I declare that I have no vested interests, neither as a practitioner nor consumer of CAM. I understand that it appears as though I'm trying to promote CAM, but let me say this for the record: The only thing I care about is the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical articles. I have seen numerous cases of editors trying to twist the meaning of medical reviews and consensus statements just to debunk a particular treatment, be it homeopathy, acupuncture, TCM, or transcendental meditation, etc. Using dubious self-published blogs without any form of editorial control and removing scientific reviews in reputable journals certainly isn't going to improve the verifiability of our content.

Do we agree that a) the Mathie-review contradicts scientific consensus and b) do you agree that MEDRS does not relieve us from actually checking the validity of sources?

a) To a limited extent - I am aware of an influential meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2005 that concluded that homeopathy is a placebo, but if I remember correctly it was heavily criticized in medical literature and some editors at Wikipedia were trying to suppress all forms of criticism about it. Also, Mathie et al seem rather cautious in their conclusions, i.e. the effect was found to be "small" and the quality of evidence was weak. This certainly does not contradict the conclusion of the following Cochrane review I posted below (which apparently hasn't yet been included in this article).

b) Absolutely not - The task of checking the validity of sources is covered by MEDRS itself. If a paper is deemed reliable per WP:MEDRS, it is not up to us to conduct an analysis of its review methodology and decide which paper to cherry-pick. Ask yourself this: If a new meta-analysis concludes that homeopathy has no effects whatsoever, and a homeopathic practitioner rants against its methodology for not including a prior study of his for review, are we going to remove the entire review altogether just because the homeopath's arguments may have a chance of being valid?

-A1candidate (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Although you seem to have read at least some of the content i provided, you totally missed the point of the criticism (hint: twisting the outcome measures, fringe study exclusion criteria). You also missed the fact that there are several other reviews backing up Shang et al, so, yes, there is absolutely no doubt about scientific consensus about the efficacy of homeopathy. Mathie et al. is actually a very bad paper, that happen to give studies an "A" rating which are commonly known as bullshit (Jacobs), while it excludes high quality studies (White, Walach). The whole review is cherry picking by textbook definition, as its outcome heavily depends on three (3) studies, which are (see above) widely accepted to be fringe. I guess you know that, and your evasion argument is that since its published in a peer-reviewed journal (which makes it MEDRS-compliant by itself), we are not allowed to assess its validity. I think this is a highly dangerous statement when its coming to write an encyclopedia. We are not using articles promoted in "Homeopathy" although it has a peer-review and its listed by several medical databases. We are not using it because its an incredibly bad journal. Always check your sources, especially when a bold statement is to be made. Yes, even a conclusion of small specific effects for homeopathic treatments is a very bold one. One would absolutely back that up with very sound proof, which Mathie fails to do. There are many bullshit papers out there. This is one of them. I hope i have raised the awareness for this, and my advise is to un-cite this paper until it has been confirmed by other studies, as its conclusion is clearly contradicting consensus. Once its confirmed i would be very happy to rewrite the article to reflect the new scientific proof in favor of homeopathy. 134.102.85.184 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well. Continuous use of the word "bullshit" does not count as a valid argument against papers published in reliable sources -- It does not matter what several anon users or other editors believe about the validity of a paper-- the fact that it is published in reliable sources really counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• There was a discussion of this on Edzard Ernst's blog. Mathie has failed to account for some apparently capricious decisions to exclude very high quality work that contradicts his belief. The study itself adds nothing to the debate since it's (a) fully consistent with the null hypothesis and (b) not different in character from a number of studies already cited. There's no evidence it has changed the scientific consensus, and it was explicitly rejected in the recent decision to terminate referrals to the Glasgow homeopathic hospital. It is not a high impact paper and we already have much higher impact studies advancing the beliefs of homeopathists. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

From the Cochrane Library:

• Peckham, EJ; Nelson, EA; Greenhalgh, J; Cooper, K; Roberts, ER; Agrawal, A (13 November 2013). "Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 11: CD009710. PMID 24222383.

-A1candidate (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that's a negative result, don't you? "These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of reporting in these trials, high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up, and sparse data. One small study found no statistically difference between individualised homeopathy and usual care (defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet sheets advising a high fibre diet). No conclusions can be drawn from this study due to the low number of participants and the high risk of bias in this trial. In addition, it is likely that usual care has changed since this trial was conducted."

The conclusions are entirely consistent with the scientific consensus that homeopathy is a placebo treatment. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

While the source is primary and of low quality, I disagree that it is a negative result. the same as "usual care" would seem to mean effective to me, unless the usual care is also only as good as placebo. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mate, I have been watching the hoemopathy shills for a very long time. This is a negative result, but the language used is such that it superficially appears not to be. The result is fully compatible with the null hypothesis, and there is an ongoing issue with studies like this because they fail to account for Ioannidis' well-founded conclusion that a null treatment will amass a small net positive evidence base simply through the processes of publication and experimenter biases. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but comparing A + placebo to A is a big design fallacy. These non-placebo controlled studies are extremely irrelevant and shouldnt be considered et all. On top of that, this study did not show any effect of homeopathic treatment anyway. The review mentioned is extremely irrelevant as well, as it is assessing three very old studies with a combined n of 213, of which one is falling to the "A+B vs A" design trap, and all three were of un-evaluatable bias. One needs to just read the abstract to see that the authors are actually aware how bad their conclsusion is. "GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the outcome global improvement as very low due to high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up and sparse data." I feel somewhat trolled that this review was proposed to be included in this article. 134.102.85.184 (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

History of the homeopathy

I would like comment i am going to introduce content about the history of homeopathy, some aspects about Napoleon Bonaparte and other notable people in relation with this medicine. --Pediainsight (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If no one think this content is wrong, i am going to introduce the last two points in the 19 th century history. --Pediainsight (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You have already been told on your talk page why this material is not acceptable for this article. Again, this is an article on homeopathy, not a biography of Hahnemann. The material is too peripheral to the topic to be included here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think, this content is talking about Hahnemann? Where do you see the problem here?:

The other part, is talking about Hahnemann's life or his biography or is talking about Napoleon? --Pediainsight (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That would fit into Hartung's biography. It's far too insignificant to the topic as a whole to be in this article, and even in the articles on Hahnemann and Radetzky. It's trivia of little use to help the reader understand any of these topics, and WP is not an assemblage of trivia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Dominus Vobisdu. Pediainsight, I thought your contribution was helpful for this article and sorry it was revert-warred out after you spent the time to add it. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree about it Cla68, I am with you. --Pediainsight (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

He didn't spend much time working on it. It is a copy-and-paste of various paragraphs—including all of 'his' citations—from http://authordebrabrown.blogspot.com.au/p/royal.html, with only minor edits to some parts of the text. (The blog entry is an extract of a book by Dana Ullman, who also writes a column in the Huffington Post and possibly other places; so it is possible that Pediainsight copied Ullman's text from a different source.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Others users can explain a view about this topic. If I am alone trying to introduce this referenced, historic, interesting and true content about Napoleon and homeopathy, really can be hard for me, because a lot of people here in Wikipedia are against homeopathy. --Pediainsight (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As you have been told repeatedly at your Talk page, copying text from other sources and pasting into articles as if it is your work is not permitted. The fact that homeopathy is a pseudoscience is another issue entirely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The history section shouldn't be used as a coat rack for a collection of 19th century celebrity endorsements, and we certainly can't include statements implying that homoeopathy cures cancer without MEDRS supporting them. As for the content about Napoleon, the the very next paragraph of Ullman's book (the source it was derived from) casts doubt on it, saying that biographies of Napoleon don't mention this involvement with homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• From what source I am copiying and pasting the content? these are my own words. The source is not the Ullman's book, is a book of Richard Hahel, year 1922. --Pediainsight (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that in the "Napoleon" passage you added also included a paraphrase of Ullman's previous paragraph and the (incomplete) references "(Haehl, 1922, II, 159; also Ewers, 1826, 155; Baumann, 1857, 15;, Krauss, 1925") in exactly the same form as in Ullman's book, and that the passage "German royalty. In 1797, he was physician to Duke Ernst of Gotha and Georgenthal" which you also added also appears there strongly suggests that the source, whether directly or indirectly, is Ullman's book. Brunton (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• John Henry Clarke talks about this:

Joseph von Radetzky, a nobleman and Austrian general, immortalized by Johann Strauss’s Radetzky March, suffered in 1841, from a tumor in the orbit of his right eye. He visited two professors of ophthalmology, Francisco Flarer and Friedrich Jaeger and they asserted that it was incurable.

Radetzky sought the care of the homeopath Dr. J. Christophe Hartung (1779–1853), a colleague and a student of Hahnemann. Radetzky was cured within six weeks. (Clarke, 1905, 103–106). --Pediainsight (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think can be significant to intoduce this in the history of the homeopathy:

Hahnemann became physician of the German royalty. In 1797, he was physician to Duke Ernst of Gotha and Georgenthal. (Richard Haehl, 1922, II, 125) --Pediainsight (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You have already posted those here, and it has already been explained to you why they shouldn't be included. Brunton (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

'Your' statements about Radetzky are also plagiarised from Ullman's book.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is explained the reason? please repeat here the argument. --Pediainsight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to repeat it. You can read it here. Brunton (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, as well-seasoned editors you know that if you don't like how a contribution is worded, you can just reword it yourself instead of reverting it and then templating the editor on his talk page and threatening him with a block. The way you all are treating Pediainsight is difficult to watch. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just a question of how it's worded, as can be seen from the responses above. Brunton (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Pediainsight is obviously plagiarising Ullman, and blatantly lying about it. He has also plagiarised other sources across a number of articles. He also has a habit of posting irrelevant 'sound-bites' that have little to do with the context in which he places them. He has already been told repeatedly at his User Talk page by a number of editors that plagiarism is unacceptable. See WP:COPYPASTE & WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, whilst in this case it is obvious that the short citations 'supplied' by Pediainsight are wholly plagiarised from Ullman, in general such short citations should be supplemented with a References section providing the full citation (see WP:CITESHORT). As these citations have been plagiarised here, providing the actual full citations may prove difficult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Two separate issues here, Jeffro, (1) your disagreement with the edits, and (2) the manner in which you all are treating the editor in question. Having a disagreement with an edit is, of course, fine. But, the manner in which you all behaved towards the editor was unacceptable. Templating regulars, threatening them with blocks, and ganging-up on them on their talk page with hostile comments are, as you all know, not the way that Wikipedia dictates that we treat each other. You all know better. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No. 1) It is not merely that I 'disagree' with his edits to this article, but that his edit is a copyright violation. 2) Pediainsight has a history of copyright violations, improperly citing sources and not presenting a neutral point of view.--02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment that his contribution could simply be reworded also isn't helpful because 1) unverifiable claims that a few famous people were cured by homeopathy is trivia and 2) proper citations aren't available for the sources Pediainsight claimed to use because the short citations were plagiarised from Ullman.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

These sources are right, I am not trying to do nothing wrong about this sources. --Pediainsight (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what plagiarism is?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quinidine

Not previously knowing even of the existence of quinidine I came upon this article and found it puzzling and uninformative, even evasive. Eventually I sorted it out I think.

But my attempt to clarify and save those that follow the trouble has been reverted, [4] I'm sure with good reasons. It seems to me that a link to quinidine would be helpful. Would someone else like to have a go? Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why. It's pretty peripheral to the topic of this article, and as the editor that reverted you rightly said, it is not mentioned in the source used. It is merely a bit of trivia in a top-level article like this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Agree that the exact statement I added is not in the source. But disagree with the rest.

There seems some controversy as to whether Hahnemann's symptoms were caused by the cinchona at all, but assuming as he did that they were there seems no doubt that it was the quinidine and not the quinine in the cinchona that caused them. Hahnemann then erred in concluding that the same thing that had caused his symptoms was also responsible for curing malaria. However the other possibility, that there were two different active agents in the cinchona, one responsible for the symptoms and the other for the cure, appears to be the case, quinidine and quinine respectively.

This is not directly asserted in the sources we have so far, but it's an obvious rather than a creative interpretation of them, so it's not original research as Wikipedia uses the term in my opinion... but that's also a bit controversial.

Anyway, as this error was the original motivation for homeopathy itself, it's anything but peripheral or trivia.

But as I said, I'll leave it to others. So far we have a rough consensus that nothing needs doing, and I've said my bit. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether the effects observed by Hahnemann were caused by quinine or quinidine is irrelevant to his reasoning, and irrelevant to an explanation of why was wrong (even if it makes him, in hindsight, even more wrong). He was investigating the effects of cinchona bark, not any of the particular chemicals found in it. Quinine was not isolated, or even named, until 1820, and quinidine was not described until 1848, so Hahnemann will have been unaware of the existence of either chemical at the time. Brunton (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely correct. The first critical sources pointing out Hahnemann's fundamental errors (as opposed to just attacking him on principle, as he attacked "allopathic" doctors) date, I believe, from the last years of his life, especially Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.'s Homoeopathy And Its Kindred Delusions of 1840. I think Hahnemann's beliefs were defensible according to the lights of his time. They ceased to be defensible in the last quarter of the 19th Century and by 1920 his basis for similia and infinitesimals were both refuted, rather than merely improbable.

There is of course no bright line between the period when homeopathy could conceivably have been correct according to the knowledge of the day, and the period when it is known to be false, but in as much as there is a separation it would be towards the end of the 19th Century and definitely after Hahnemann's death. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hahnemann's reaction was more likely because of an allergy to quinine, making the basis for homeopathy even more improbable:

"Modern research has suggested that Hahnemann might have been allergic to quinine as his detailed reports describe taking only four grams of cinchona powder.... If so, this means that the fundamental doctrine of homeopathy is based on a pathological condition of its founder." Source

Brangifer (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The source already used in the article (Atwood) says much the same thing: "It has recently been proposed that Hahnemann’s own experience was a hypersensitivity reaction to quinine." Brunton (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen this discussed in several sources. I think it's interesting, in as much as one of the great unaddressed problems with homeopathy is the fact that the entire doctrine of similars appears to be based on this one false inference, compounded by a lot of confirmation bias. Perhaps the entire thing could be condensed into a shorter para that includes this as well, I don't know. The article is frustratingly long with much redundancy, something I am trying to trim down at the moment.

edit request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is that a blog is not a reliable source for contentious material, even if on a reliable website. For other discussion, please start a new thread. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I think Huffington Post's columnist Ullman should be cited also :"Due to extensive POV-pushing by some Wikipedia editors, the article on homeopathy has received criticism in the media" as suggested by User:A1candidate - It is notable and relevant. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Not by a wide mile. That would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Violation of WP:WEIGHT ? Do they say -omit all the minority views even if they appear in a reliable source? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:WEIGHT says to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Ullman is a reliable source only for Ullman's own opinion, so his opinion on a Huffpo newsblog fails on both prominence and reliability. In general we place a high bar on inclusion of meta-content like this - Wikipedia itself is not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of most topics. Doubly so in a medically-related article, in which WP:MEDRS is our guideline for identifying reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - "Say something rude about Wikipedia and you get automatic inclusion in an article" isn't part of any policy I'm aware of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but perhaps not in the article. A link here on the talk page to the Huff Post article ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html I assume ) is a good idea rather than just dropping the name. A link to our own article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Huffington_Post&oldid=639890915#Alternative_medicine_and_anti-vaccination might also be helpful, perhaps even in the article (a wikilink not a permalink).

But serious researchers using Wikipedia will always check the talk page and article history as well as just the reflist. where they'll be warned of the possible problems with this article and check accordingly. This is an advantage Wikipedia has over many other websites, including in this instance the Huffington Post. Andrewa (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have already debunked Dana's comments in detail: [5]. The problem with Dana Ullman is that he is a propagandist. A court recently rejected his testimony in its entirety, calling him "not credible". There is absolutely no chance that we would include his views as a source of anything other than evidence of his own beliefs. He is also banned fomr this article due to relentless distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That second link seems to be broken, I get a 404:page not found error (your browser may phrase it differently but it's still a 404). I wonder has the page been archived somewhere we can find? The first link, to your own web page, is a very good idea, to disclose your own POV and help to avoid COI controversies. Andrewa (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

When I said "I have debunked", I would have thought it was obvious that the link would be to, you know, the debunking I did. http://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/393/2014/12/Prop-Stat-of-Dec-11-25-14.pdf works for me, right now. Context is also included in Dana Ullman. The case is Rosendez v. Green Pharmaceuticals, feel free to check it yourself. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the busted link.

But at the risk of being contentious, I'm not impressed by editors who change posts to which I have already replied. It makes the stringing invalid. I hope this clarifies that situation... you made a typo, as a result the link did not work as I pointed out, and you don't check your links either with preview before saving or afterwards. It was in hindsight an obvious typo but you can't expect readers to check your links for you, it's your responsibility to post links that work, the whole purpose of the link is to save your readers' time.

My comment was accurate for the post to which it replied, but it's now nonsensical because of your subsequent edit (see above for the diff). Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the diff clearly shows, it was not my edit. And now you look a bit silly. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• You know, when the regulars here get criticized for their attitudes towards this topic in a RS like the Huffington Post, then it's a fairly evident COI for those regulars to then vote against including that criticism in this article. Wikipedians penchant for unintentional humor never stops. By the way, I think the statement should be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement was by Ullman, in a blog on Huffpo. The blog lacks the editorial oversight necessary for his claims to be attributed to Huffpo itself. VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly do get the humour in suggesting that an opinion piece by a known pro-homeopathic POV-pusher complaining about NPOV should be included in the article. That's pretty funny. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no COI involved in ensuring that COI-driven POV pushers like Ullman don't get free publicity for their attempts to subvert Wikipedia for profit. AndyTheGrump (talk)

(replying to User:Black Kite 13:38, 8 January) Our purpose here is to inform, and in a controversial topic like this that's quite difficult but not impossible. Our procedures, conventions and policies do a remarkably good job, but only if they're followed of course.

So again at the risk of being contentious, what's the point of the bullet point in your post? It just makes the stringing hard to follow. Don't change it now! But this talk page is a mess, and part of the reason is that the talk page conventions are being ignored.

This messiness obscures the truth, however slightly, discourages other editors, and in every way just helps POV pushers at the expense of the quality of information which is our goal. As I said above, this talk page is important and will be read by serious researchers. If it's messy, some good faith readers will, with good reason, just conclude that on this topic at least, Wikipedia is not useful to them. And whenever that happens, we have failed our customers.

But worse, other readers will just give up on the talk page, history and other apparatus and just try to interpret the article as it is. And possibly be needlessly misled by it as a result. Which is exactly what the POV pushers want, is it not? Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The indentation of my comment was correct before someone put their comment inbetween! Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cla68, the Huffingotn Post's blog is not a RS - blogs, with very rare exceptions, are reliable only for attribution of the opinions of the people blogging, as you know perfectly well. In fact, the Huffington Post itself is often very unreliable, as I am sure you are also well aware. Ullman, like you, has an anti-Jimbo agenda, since Jimbo has publicly criticised hoemopathy. Unlike Jimbo, he has tried to edit here and been site banned for a year and topic banned indefintiely because of his complete inability to represent sources honestly. Ullman is not a reliable source for critical commentary on any coverage of hoemopathy, for the reasons laid out by the judge in rejecting his testimony:

The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.

The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted.

Mr. Ullman’s credibility was undermined by his admission that he advocated the use of a radionics machine, whereby a physician puts a picture of his patient on one side, and a few medicines on the other side, and then sees which of the medicines the needle points toward. He relied on his personal experience with a radionics machine.

Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.

As it happens, when Ullman made his claims, some months ago (when they were originally diccussed and rebutted here). You have I think previously been made aware that Ullman is absolutely not a reliable source on this. For example, I have spoken to someoen who was present when Klaus Linde told him not to quote his (Linde's) 1997 study because it is superseded by a 1999 re-analysis, and yet Dullman, in his rant on HuffPo, cites the 1997 study and not the 1999 one which makes it clear that the better a study is designed, the less likely it is to return a positive result.

We have extensive documentation to the effect that homeopathists hate this article, their problem is not with Wikipedia, it's with a universe in which like does not cure like, dilution does not increase potency, and homeopathy, like every single other medical system of the late 18th Century, is hopelessly wrong.

And against the rant of Ullman, who makes his money propagandising hoemopathy, we have reviews from the NHS, the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the Swiss, British and Australian Governments; we have statements fomr the UK's Chief Medical Officer and the current and former Chief Scientific Advisors. We have Professor Lord Winston describing belief in hoemopathy as "insane", despite his family connections with it. Pretty much every single reliable source not ideologically or financially committed to hoemopathy, acknowledges it as delusional. Ullman is ideologically and financially committed to homeopathy, and we have an unequivocal statement by a judge that his views on it are untrustworthy. At this point I think we can stop discussing Dullman's views on the Wikipedia article, just as we would not discuss David Irving's views on our articles on the holocaust. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 23:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is false; do you want me to cite right now 6 reliable sources according to wiki which they do not concur with your opinion that hoemopathy is "insane"\?--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The consensus scientific opinion is that there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work. There are a few dissenters form this consensus, primarily among those with ideological or financial commitment to homeopathy. You are extremely unlikely to find any source I have not encountered before, but feel free to try. Regardless, it is abundantly clear that Ullman's blog post is not reliable, accurate or relevant. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's probably all true, but in this context it's also unhelpful to the point of being counterproductive.

This talk page exists to help us to improve the article. Nothing else belongs here. It has an important side benefit of alerting readers to problems with the article, but edits here are primarily intended to help editors to improve the page.

Expressing your POVs, however sound, doesn't help that, and worse, it encourages the opposite POV to respond. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Ullman is not reliable is not a POV, it's an established fact with a court finding to back it. Cla68 is clearly not fully aware of the situation in respect of Ullman and his anti-Wikipedia agenda. I have remedied that. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot seriously say that " The Huffington Post which was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, and bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[12]" is not reliable source..This is absurd. Readers have the right to know what reliable sources including the press - say about homeopathy and wikipedia --and you guys you want to keep them in the dark......How admirable.--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, a blog without ant editorial oversight is unacceptable as a source on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source ? The ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, and bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast? Really? "HuffPo quickly established itself as a serious go-to destination for political news and commentary"— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. Our sourcing policy does not allow sources like this. See WP:RS. The facts you mentioned are irrelvant in terms of our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me where exactly says that ?Please. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the section called "Self-published sources (online and paper)" makes it clear that blogs of this type must be subject to the news outlet's full editorial control, which is not the case with the blog you wish to use. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh the irony: a homeopathy proponent mistakes popularity for reliability. I think we are done here, so if someone could archive this discussion? Guy (Help!) 10:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a self published source--but according to the Time "a serious go-to destination for political news and commentary" maybe Time magazine is also advocating for..... homeopathy, Who knows. Several people dispute the non inclusion of this -- so it is kind of rude to close the discussion----MarioMarco2009 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a self-published source because the only person responsible for the content is the writer. Sorry, but our policy is pretty clear about that, and there is no point in further discussion. Even if all the editors here agreed to include the source, it would still violate our core policies and thus could be overturned by a single editor. Consensus cannot trump policy, so any further discussion would be a waste of time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The ladies protest quite a bit, don't they? By the way, one standard of how well an article meets NPOV is how little objections it receives from observers. Cla68 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious to every good faith reader that not including such a notable source is hypocrisy and completely ridicules the concept of "neutral point of view" - Keep going and close the discussion -- despite all the good faith editors who support its inclusion. ( hey --and make sure that readers will not never know what Ullman says about homeopathy and wikipedia--he might convince them that what he writes about it is true). --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

By "every good faith observer", you apparently mean a brand new user with zero edits other than to this talk page (raising by now significant concerns of sockpuppetry) and a pertennial gadfly with an axe to grind. The long-term Wikipedians here are telling you that you're wrong. And you are wrong. Ullman's blog post is not a RS, Ullman is not an RS for commentary on homeopathy, Ullman's arguments are entirely false (every single one of them, I have checked them all in detail), and Cla68 is wrong to assert that neutrality can be judged by the lack of complaints, as evidence the very existence of Conservapedia, a project started by creationists who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on evolution. In fact the homeopathy fans have also started their own project, called Wiki4cam. It is moribund, even more so than Conservapedia.

A Judge has said, in open court, that Ullman's opinions on the validity of homeopathy are unreliable, because of his very strong ideological commitment to it. You are arguing that we should not only ignore this independent view, but should also violate our policies on self-published sources in order to include his polemic, a polemic whihc is demonstrably misleading in numerous important respects. No, I don't think we will, thank you all the same.

This article is robustly sourced. It conflicts with the religion of homeopathists. Sorry about that: Wikipedia is an unashamedly reality-based encyclopaedia and there is no doubt that reality really has it in for homeopathy, given the number of everyday facts that conflict with its doctrines. That's why the only thing keeping it from being shut down by regulators these days is basically politics.

In the world of medicine, the political machinations of believers in nonsense have created the field of "integrative medicine", where reality-based treatments are mixed with fantasy in order to be "holistic". I do not think Wikipedia aims to become an "integrative encyclopaedia", freely mixing fact and nonsense in order to protect the feelings of people who are objectively wrong. I base this opinion not only on long precedent (e.g. WP:ARBPSCI), but also on Jimbo's reaction to another group of believers in nonsense. I know Cla68 has an agenda against Jimbo, for reasons I have never bothered to even try to understand, but there is no doubt that Jimbo's opinion is still considered quite persuasive here. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Time magazine is wrong when they say Huffington is a serious and most popular blog is wrong. Not for the validity of homeopathy but the opinions of the people who advocate for it- which wikipedia has to report it proportionaly by default. Not to pretend that they do not say anything. Of course high reputable sources have published several papers favorable to homeopathy--- the only way to deny this is to pretend that this literature does not exist. As I said go ahead --close the discussion - perhaps it is better for readers to remain uniformed - in the dark according to you. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit melodramatic, and more than a bit silly. Believe it or not, it is possible to write a serious, comprehensive encyclopedia article without citing the Huffington Post. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Melodramatic? Silly? Well...... Wikipedians do not want to cite what the number 1 blog of world writes about them---it is kind of disturbing---you suppose to be the progressive people--science and enlightment etc not keeping readers on the dark, I agree with you - you can write an article about homeopathy without citing Huffington---- and if you exclude all the papers favorable to homeopathy published to reputable sources with different excuses -- as they have done now-- it is even better for readers-- they do not need to think, just to believe. Sorry hypocrisy is not my thing. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@MarioMarco2009: Having looked at the article again, I retract my support for it. -A1candidate (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean for the inclusion of the Ullmans article? If yes I would like to be informed why - I might miss something. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for the inclusion of Ullman's article. There are several reasons, but I'll give you the following example: The British House of Commons Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy report was not "widely ridiculed" as Ullman claims. On the contrary, the British government "welcomes this report" [6] and the NHS currently cites it [7]. -A1candidate (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, the reasons for not including it are that (1) it is not a reliable source, (2) Ullman is himself canonically unreliable in this matter and (3) having checked every single one of his claims, every single one of them is specious, or an outright lie. You could also focus on his misrepresentation of the claims about the notorious "Swiss Report" (which isn't a Swiss Report but is a case study of research misconduct), his use of Linde et. al. 1997 and not the 1999 re-analysis, and so on. I wish I was not so familiar with this stuff, but the misrepresentation of sources by homeopaths is a relentless tide right now, especially as they have just been kicked by the Australian courts and Lanarkshire NHS. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of a very notable homeopath about wikipedia and homeopathy does not mean one endorses his views. By default wikipedia should report it NOT as true but as a very notable minority view. Besides that ---starting from the end 1. - Guy is wrong about Ullman - in his article he refers both to Linde 1997 AND 1999 and what he writes is accurate- I challenge you to post here the original sources and see that what Guy says is false. 2. Many of his opinion that Shangs critisisms are not cited - and that all reviews do not conclude that homeopathy is placebo is correct. Check yourself A!candidate and you will see. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That would not only violate WP:RS, but WP:GEVAL and WP:SOAPBOX, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swiss, British and Australian government against further funding

I could not find any statement or a decision from the swiss government in the document.--Freital (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Section titled The review, last two paras:

But then there’s the “Swiss study” – a widely-misrepresented, independent study showing homeopathic remedies are cost effective – that’s often brought up as source of evidence by homeopathy’s defenders.

Undertaken by homeopaths, this was one of two studies commisioned by the Swiss government in a review of whether homeopathy should be covered by its insurance scheme. The study was heavily criticised, and the second one showed homeopathy was ineffective. Insurance coverage of homeopathy was removed.

It's also referenced further down via The report “Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs” is not a “Swiss report”, [8]. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsqDyEMkLpQ - Compared to the HARM CAUSED BY HOMEOPATHY! SCOFF!