Jump to content

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62→Archive 65

What we could say

Where we say:

its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos

It would be more accurate to say:

homeopathy is not demonstrably effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo

This does address the concern that the bald statement is something of an over-simplification - not that I find it problematic, personally, but we have had an awful lot of querulous argumentation about that statement over the months. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds okay, and clearer for those who may come to the page without any understanding that homeopathy's extravagant claims are unsupported by fact. --TS 16:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well. If you want to be precise you should state who says what. Because the reviews I cited above do NOT say that - most of them are more positive but inconclusive / unconvincing. Given Linde objection to the Lancet about Shang's conclusion there is not consensus among -researchers --- they have clearly stated they dispute results and methodology. Readers should know about these facts. -- --TineIta (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting rather tired of pointing out to you that cherry picking the bits you like from published documents is not giving readers "facts". The text above is drawn from the sources already cited and is the conclusion of a systematic review of systematic reviews, so encompasses all relevant published findings that meet specified criteria of quality. Of course, your point might have slightly more weight if there was a single study in a reputable journal that conclusively demonstrated any remedy to be effective by any objective measure, or which conclusively showed homeopathy to be effective for any condition by any objective measure. No such study exists. No result has yet been published which convincingly refutes the null hypothesis. This is not a surprise to anybody who understands what hoemopathy actually is, and who has even the most tenuous grasp of concepts such as bioavailability. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are getting tired - take a break. To the point - I don't need a study stating that you say- they do exist but it is not our topic here. Why don't you want the readers to know that there is disagreement among researchers about homeopathy's efficacy? How is this justifiable per wikipedia policy? --TineIta (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Because its not like there are some researchers who say "It doesn't work" and some who say "it works". There are almost all who say "it doesn't work" and a very small number who say "there is a handful of trials that had an ambiguous result that might be slightly more than placebo, but we don't know for sure, it could also be errors in the studies, or the 95% confidence issue. ". When there are secondary studies that say "Yes, there is clear evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in situation X" we will say so. See this wonderfully illustrative example of WHY a small handful of positive results is expected for something where there is no real effect. https://xkcd.com/882/ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This is false . But it is not what I asked. Can you answer the question : Why don't you want the readers to know that there is a disagreement among researchers about homeopathy's efficacy? Which is clearly demonstrated in the Lancet from researchers whose work is extensively cited in the literature particularly in reputable sources and in wikipedia. --TineIta (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "a disagreement among researchers" is probably a good start for a rewrite. If by some freak of grammar our article has failed to clarify the magnitude of the evidence against homeopathy, we probably need to find much, much stronger language to express the facts. --TS 23:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


TinIta. Please point to the secondary study that says there is an unambiguous positive result greater than placebo for any ailment. News at 11 : 99 eye witnesses positively identified the suspect as the perp. One witness said he didn't see well enough to know for sure. You are asking the jury to say there is reasonable doubt. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not responding. The question was "Why don't you want the readers to know that there is a disagreement among researchers about homeopathy's efficacy?" you pretend you did not hear it. Try to give a reasonable good faith answer. --TineIta (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We can't imply that some researchers have concluded that homoeopathy has efficacy over placebo without MEDRS sources (i.e. systematic reviews or meta-analyses) that have concluded this. Brunton (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You dont have to imply anything --you just report their objections as you supposed to be doing. You are not allowed to censor this piece of information -- because you worry that the readers will believe the homeopathy works. According to the neutral point of view -- you have to report it. Of course if you want to write a propaganda type of article you could edit out ----anything you want ----no matter if it appears in reputable source. Is this admirable ? . I don't know.--TineIta (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
For us to say that there is a disagreement, the disagreement must be reliably stated. The source I asked you for would be that reliable statement.00:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is reliably stated - They state it in the Lancet the best reliable source. Are you kidding me? --TineIta (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It is the peer-reviewed article, not the journal it is published in, that is the reliable source. And the letter you have cited doesn't express a significant disagreement with the consensus reported by the article - it says that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." It doesn't support the statement you want to use it to support unless you indulge in quote-mining. Brunton (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with Guy's suggestion, and we seem to have a certain degree of agreement, so I'm implementing it. If anyone feels strongly enough about it, feel free to revert and discuss further here. Brunton (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of sad to take some time away from Wikipedia and see that TineIta is still beating a dead horse on here. Have you even read WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or any of the other links that have been provided for you TineIta. This has got to stop.--Daffydavid (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Tinelta, there is no disagreement between researchers. There is disagreement between believers and researchers, just as there is in the case of evolution. There is no serious body of scholarly research that shows homeopathic remedies at the potencies normally used to be anything other than inert. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Is not a kind of hypocrisy to say that ---when the same authors much cited in most reputable journal in the world and in wiikipedia for their work dispute in the Lancet that results and methodology of Shangs study? Unless you change the meaning of the words and "I disagree" really means " I basically agree. "--TineIta (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You keep repeating this mantra. You forget: science moves on. The fact that Linde 1997 was published in The Lancet is as relevant as the fact that my 1983 Volvo 365 GLT had an MOT certificate in 1997. It was scrapped in 2001. The 1997 finding shows no convincing evidence of effect for any condition but says the results are not completely consistent with placebo; the 1999 re-analysis says even this was overstated, and Ioannidis shows that an inert treatment would be expected to yield a small net positive evidence base, and also shows that when prior plausibility is low, the chances of a positive result being a false positive, are much higher. A 2002 systematic review of systematic reviews (which includes the Linde findings) concludes exactly as I proposed above and as is now in the article. There's no condition with convincing evidence of effect, and no remedy convincingly shown to perform beyond placebo. Twelve years later, nothing has changed. This article is controversial only to believers, scientifically, it is a straightforward statement of the facts as established by research and published in the peer-reviewed literature.
Do feel free to come back when homeopathy has developed credible proof that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis for cure, that dilution does indeed cure potency, that highly dilute remedies can be transferred to the body with objectively determinable bioavailability, and (rather importantly) when you have some results that actually refute the null hypothesis.
Please forgive us if we don't hold our breath. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Their methods largely reproduce those of our meta-analysis on the same topic published in The Lancet 8 years ago. We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." doesn't really read as disputing their results to me. Especially coupled with their statements in their own mentioned analysis "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" They do say that " Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." but saying there should be more research is not the same as saying there is a debate on its effectiveness. The default assumption for all treatments is that it does not work, and it it is up to a trial to prove that it does. You have been given lots of WP:ROPE. You are at the end of it. You have already received a short term block, if you persist, its likely to result in much more severe sanctions. (Trust me, I exceeded my own rope and am now topic banned somewhere else). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you change the meaning of the words -- there is definite disagreement " they say Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. Maybe you dont want readers to know these details - it is better for them to know-----that they basically ...agree? This gross misinformation and misrepresentation of the sources only as a joke can be accepted but if everybody concurs that this is not misinformation why I should argue ? This is also correct.
They said Shang overstated the conclusion, not that the conclusion was wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Significant overstatement means it is correct? They also said " If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered." Come on you cannot justify it - Would you want as a reader to ignore these facts? Unless you wanted to read a propaganda article about homeopathy. --TineIta (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Worth reading: When further research is not warranted Science Based Medicine (October 2008). Clarifies the nature of the common "further research is warranted" motherhood statement.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope it does not advocate censorship of reliable sources to promote a point of view as it is done here. --TineIta (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is going absolutely nowhere, I suggest someone close it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

... and of course MOS:MED counsels us to avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". One problem is that lay readers can sometimes think such statements have an endorsing quality. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
No more research is needed until there's some reason to suppose homeopathy should work and some remotely plausible means by which it might work. The only function of "more research" is to endlessly prolong the inevitable. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

TineIta, We cover the positive results, in quite a bit of detail in the "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" section. Thats not censorship. But we aren't going to change the overall summary of the topic to reflect the minority view, particularly when that minority view itself qualifies its statement with so many conditions and exceptions. This discussion has run its course. If you really insist on taking it further, open a neutrally worded and concise rfc that asks for support for a specific sourced change and see where it gets you (I predict exactly the same place you are now). But persisting in the current manner is disruptive and will lead to sanctions Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not say ---I m disruptive. Why are you discussing with me then ? It is sound absurd, Disruptive to what ???to misinformation? Of course - I see that there is consensus to keep the article in the this terrible and absurd state - feel free to ignore my suggestions. But do not tell me that the "minority view itself qualifies its statement with so many conditions and exceptions". You are deluding yourself. They are the most cited authors published in exceptional sources and wikipedia refuses to include their opinion on the last meta analyses which you use to support the lede statement it is all placebo. This is the fact. Think about it in private. I will stop here - unless you want to continue discussing . --TineIta (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There is consensus to keep this article in its current state which accurately reflects reliable sources, whether or not accurate. (My personal opinion is that it is accurate, but that is irrelevant.) In the event that the weight of scientific evidence were to support efficacy, we would include it in the article. But one study, or even one survey, does not override that evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I had no more to say but since you want to discuss it : this is original research - you are not supposed to read the Reliable sources and decide as an editor if homeopathy works on not. You suppose to report the findings and the objections to the findings as long as they appear in equally weighted reliable sources. It is not one review just reports positive but inconclusive - thats false. I showed you above, And you do not do that. You just report from the reliable sources only the researchers who believe that it is all placebo. Which is not neutral according to wikipedia. --TineIta (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)t
And we don't do that. We report th fact that the scientific consensus, and the best quality reviews, show homeopathy to be ineffective for any condition, consistent with the absence of evidence supporting its doctrines. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I m afraid you do- since you want to continue the conversation. If you didn't - the linde letter to the Lancet (objecting the findings of Shangs study and pointing out the 3 meta analyses showing- according to the authors-- that there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions) would be cited and not censored along with its high quality supporting sources. --TineIta (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
A letter to the editor is not a peer reviewed source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter. Is the evidence check a peer reviewed source which support the statement that it is all placebo ? No-- but it is pointing to peer review sources similarly to the Linde letter pointing to 3 meta analyses showing- according to the authors-- that there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions and not for others. --TineIta (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It DOES matter. Letters to the editor count for nothing, yet you keep mentioning it. You seem to not understand our rules, and just keep wasting our time. Please stop. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the evidence check is an exception - right? - Listen ---do not participate in the conversation if you think you waste you time. They asked me questions I reply - They want to drop it - I m also OK with this. --TineIta (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you drop it now please? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Telling other editors that they are "wasting our time" is extremely rude and contrary to WP's policies and guidelines on editor behavior. It discourages participation which directly contravenes what WP is about. I think if any of us feels that any of this is a wast of our time, including me, then we need to find something else to do with our precious time. So, please knock it off and try to act more like how Wikipedians are supposedly supposed to act. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Any editor who persists in making arguments which are against consensus is wasting our and his time. One persistent time-wasters (which, because of a mental state, cannot or will not enter coherent statements, even though his edits may very will be in good faith) has been indefinitely blocked. I see no reason why Tinelta and Cla68 should not join him if they persist in making arguments which have been discredited. (Yes, this is a threat. Although I obviously won't block either of you, I will suggest it if you persist in repeating discredited arguments.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are threatening us - we will have to stop then ---to present our "discredited arguments". No need to talk to any "uninvolved" admin . We see that blocking anyone who disagrees is an effective way to build a consensus.--TineIta (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in your use of the word "we". Does it mean you have been tag teaming? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I cannot answer anymore after all these threats. --TineIta (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When did it become acceptable to discuss editors on article talk pages? Wikipedia:CONDUCTDISPUTE says nothing that would indicate this is a good idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the policy doesn't say anything to indicate it's a bad idea, either. An uninvolved admin reading this could take it upon herself to block TineIta. But it's probably time for an WP:ANI discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not the policy, but The talk page guideline does. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of a plural invites speculation re shared accounts, off-wiki collusion or a concerted POV-push by a conflicted body. This should certainly be reviewed. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Another petition

The lunatic charlatans are at it again: Call to action to update Homeopathy at Wikipedia.

Great news for anyone who wants to practice patiently explaining to a legion of newbies, why the article's not going to change. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I often wonder why pseudo-science supporters are so incoherent. At that petition I see "...no action has been taken by the Wikipedia in this regard". The Wikipedia? Also, "We must come together in large number..." (no "s"), "The article is bias and unscientific" ("bias" is not an adjective, and it's homoeopathy that's unscientific), "homeopathy is the almost perfect medicine" (LOL), "Millions use homeopathy all the world", "I am a homoeophathic doctor and I saw and see so much success with homoeopathic medicin" (no, there was no "e" there.). Such illiterate people have no credibility with me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I like that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans article. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Wale's response could be reused verbatim in that case. There is nothing else to discuss. Darkdadaah (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Our ability to reject such petitions is the reason why we're by far the most trusted source of information on the planet. Science does not progress through petitions, it's not a democratic process - so the number of people pressing for a change is simply not relevant here. Our ability to openly, publicly, reject such petitions makes us stronger in the eyes of those who matter...our readership. So bring it on...let's have petitions from the holocaust deniers, the flat earthers, the moon-landing deniers, the 9/11 conspiracists and the perpetual motion machine makers. Give us the opportunity to show the world that we're sticking to our science-based reporting of mainstream views and rejecting lunatic charlatans - no matter how many there are or what pressures they apply.
These people bemoan the fact that so many people read (and, presumably, believe) our articles - and ask that we change. They don't understand that the reason we're read and trusted by all of those people is precisely because we don't bow to petitions when mainstream science says that we're in the right. My response to those people is that this encyclopedia is built according to this set of rules - there are plenty of other encyclopedias, many with rules that would allow Homeopathists to express their ideas without mention of the prevailing mainstream science. For sure, you can go hog-wild on those platforms. The trouble is (and the reason Homeopathists aren't pursuing those outlets) that most people simply don't read those encyclopedias...and the reason for that is simply because Wikipedia's rules make us more trustworthy.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedians, when it comes to editing an article, we're supposed to act like we don't have an opinion on the validity of either side of a dispute or debate. That's why we have a neutrality policy. If you have strong feelings about the veracity of homeopathy and it's causing you to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND towards this topic and the editors who edit it, then do you really believe it's a good idea for you to be trying to influence the content of this article? Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The article is not about a dispute or a debate. It's about a pseudo-science. That is not an opinion. It's a fact. I do have an opinion on those editors trying to change the article to state that the topic IS scientific. While they may be editing in good faith, they are wrong, and we must be vigilant against their efforts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No we're not. We're supposed to act like we accept the consensus view of the subject. We don't pretend to have an open mind on the age of the earth or evolution by natural selection, because it is a well established fact that the earth is billions of years old and life evolved by natural selection. We don't keep an open mind on whether the climate is changing due to human activity, because the dissenters from that view are motivated by blatant self-interest. For the same reason, we don't pretend to keep an open mind on a set of ideas founded on refuted doctrines and contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics, quantum physics and all established knowledge on chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and human anatomy. We treat homeopathy exactly as we treat humoural medicine, and for exactly the same reason. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The really depressing thing is that the petition has over 12,000 supporters as of right now. That, and the fact that they don't link to any peer reviewed studies they just assert that "Much evidence proves the scientificity [sic] of homeopathy". I guess Jimbo will have to smack them down like he did in March. Jinkinson talk to me 01:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
They won't like that, and will probably say nasty things about him. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - I m not here to advocate for homeopathy but for neutral representation of what reputable journals state. And among the researchers there is some disagreement- recorded in reputable journals. I would not say that wikipdedia should say that homeopathy works but to present all opinions about its efficacy as long as they appear in reputable journals. This is the minimum to ask - -Do not censor or edit out all these info - an encyclopedia should inform the readers not try to convince them that there is false consensus when the same authors who are cited here clearly state that there in NOT. --TineIta (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Where is the refereed article in a reputable journal that says it works? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The article is not about a dispute or a debate. It's about a pseudo-science. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a trick . Linde and all meta analyses say it is not placebo through not clear and conclusive but also criticize shang saying that their meta analyses state that there is some evidence that it might work for some conditions. Your responsibility is to inform the readers about this and not to edit out to give the false impression that they agree that it is placebo. This is dishonest. --TineIta (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
What? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
"all meta analyses say it is not placebo" No, they don't. Brunton (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion, as a believer. In practice, a systematic review of the systematic reviews finds: "Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo." Which we accurately reflect in the article. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that our core policies forbid us to treat all opinions as equal, though there are some who would have us believe the opposite. Neutral doesn't mean "wishy washy". The key to our neutrality policy is that we present opinions weighted according to their representation in reliable sources.

We must be especially vigilant in matters such as pseudoscience like homeopathy, and in matters of science that are under politically motivated attack, such as evolution and climate science. Strongly motivated or misguided editors openly and repeatedly misstate policy to suit their fringe opinions. It is a common error to push for the inclusion of relatively poor studies to provide "balance" to an overwhelming scientific consensus. This should be resisted, though the external forces Wikipedia faces are often quite strong. --TS 08:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Prof. Cox stated this rather well:

The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!

— Brian Cox
Seems to cover it. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In the same vein, I've always been fond of Okrent's Law:

The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.

— Daniel Okrent
Okrent was the first Public Editor (essentially, 'ombudsman') of the New York Times. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I m sure he did not mean " edit out whatever reliable source you don't agree with to create a version of truth suitable to your beliefs." Or "keep the reader in the darkness by not informing about what all reliable sources state ---to make him believe that everybody agrees that the X method is useless " He is a good editor. --TineIta (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure quackery shills had developed that technique when he wrote the above, but in any case it's only a special case of the law. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't "edit out" reliable sources...if you have sources that meet our standards (WP:MEDRS, in this case) - then we can, and probably will, use them. The problem with your ongoing bullshit campaign is that your sources are not WP:MEDRS-compatible. So they aren't "reliable sources" in terms of this article and by rejecting them, we're not "editing them out". They simply don't meet the required standard for our encyclopedia...and that the end of the debate...except that it's not because you're still talking - despite claiming to be "RETIRED" and being punished for continuing to push this nonsense.
It's often felt (and said) that you have a right to free speech or a right to put your case here. But that's simply not true. Wikipedia isn't bound by those kinds of consideration. We have our own rules, and thats what we live by. Our readers are perfectly at liberty to look at those rules - they are widely publicized and freely available - and if they decide that they don't think that those rules are fair, they are perfectly at liberty to go to some other source for information. The fact is that they rather like our rules - and that's why we're the fifth most popular website in the entire world. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An example of power of homeopathy

I find this Wikipedia page at this stage very critical of homeopathy. However I will give you one example of an noted and well known allopath doctor of India Dr Mahendra Lal Sarkar switching over to homeopathy. Dr Mahendra Lal Sarkar This gentleman was the physical of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa. If homeopathy is a pesudoscience then why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured. Thousands of Homeopathic hospitals are there in India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmallick27 (talk • contribs)

Public use of purported remedies is not indicative of the medical viability, efficacy or reliability of that substance said remedies. Mindmatrix 15:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, stating "...why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured" without a shred of evidence is just an opinion, not a fact. Mindmatrix 15:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Truth is not determined by democracy. It doesn't matter how many people in India (or anywhere else for that matter) think that homeopathy works. Our standard for "Truth" is mainstream scientific publications that meet the WP:MEDRS standards. 25% of US adults believe in astrology. India has rolled astrology thinking into politics and use state money to research it. In Japan, there was such a huge belief that being born in certain years is bad luck that the birth rate dropped by 25% in one particularly inauspicious year. That doesn't make astrology true either.
This Wikipedia page is very critical of homeopathy because mainstream science says that it's a pile of steaming bullshit (although they say it more politely than that!) - the rules of our encyclopedia say that we follow the mainstream science viewpoint, no matter what. Homeopathy simply doesn't work - and when you look at how it's claimed to work, that's no surprise. A decent encyclopedia should have the courage to come out and say "IT DOESN'T WORK" as clearly as possible - and that's the stand we take.
Who knows why that doctor switched from modern medicine to homeopathy...maybe his patients demanded it...maybe he finds dispensing water and sugar pills cheaper than mainstream painkillers, beta-blockers and anti-bacterials - and he's decided to make a quick buck. Who knows? And as an encyclopedia - who cares?
"why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured." - because most illnesses go away on their own without any treatment at all...and because the placebo effect means that for many conditions, simply pretending to provide treatment - even if it's just water or a sugar pill - is enough to cure a significant percentage of people. But why so many people use homeopathy is one of those crazy things - when people are prepared to ignore scientific evidence, they do a lot of very stupid things. One mission of our encyclopedia is to educate people - and that's just one of the reasons we follow the mainstream science perspective.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
One fairly obvious reason why Sarkar (he lived 1833–1904) could make the switch to homeopathy was that, at the time, homeopathy (doing nothing) was often safer than using the "heroic" methods they used at the time. They did some pretty dangerous things, and some of their drugs did more harm than good. Since most conditions presented to a physician are self-correcting, it's better to do nothing.
That was a very long time ago. We have learned a lot since then, and homeopathy still hasn't been able to prove it's anything better than a placebo which "works" fine on self-correcting conditions, but not at all for any serious illness. Heck, there still isn't any known method for proving the difference between two bottles of water, one which is succussed water, and the other succussed homeopathic water, and blinded studies also show that the homeopathic one has no more effect than the other. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Homeopathy isn't even self-consistent. If putting a tiny drop of something into water, succussing and diluting repeatedly, adds potency - and if it actually worked by "imprinting" the water with some pattern - then every microscopic impurity in the water would have also imprint on it, and because it's already fairly dilute, would have far greater potency than the thing you're trying to imprint. You could argue that starting with the highest quality distilled water would fix that - but the claim is that homeopathy's "imprinting" works even when there are statistically zero molecules of the original substance present. Since even the purest water has come in contact with (for example) human sewage at some point in the past - it follows that *if* homeopathy worked, we'd be treating patients with an empowered human sewage, an empowered plastic dissolved from the container, and empowered versions of everything the water ever touched. You'd wind up with millions of other powerful homeopathics mixed together with the one we're trying to cure them with. So, even in their own terms - using their own crazy view of science - it's can't possibly work. I've yet to hear a homeopath explain that one away! SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The great Tim Minchin does a hilarious, but serious, job of dealing with this glitch in homeopathetic "logic" (yes, it's pathetic!):
  • "If you show me that, say, homoeopathy works, then I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. I'll be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling, 'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!' You show me that it works and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve 'Fancy That' on the side of my cock." From "Storm", by Tim Minchin
Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a way to get that into the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Going back the original question, there is no way whatsoever that we would use a Doctor who was a practicing homeopath in the 1800's (we can easily infer that on the fact that he died in 1904) as credible evidence to counter modern scientific studies.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Arthur, Storm is the source for "Minchin's Law" (by definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work or has been proven not to. The name for alternative medicine that's been proven to work is: medicine). We can't include it here of course, but it's amusing. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You ask "why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured". As far as I can tell there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever. So actually the question is, if it's so marvellous, why is all the evidence, even after 200 years, still so weak and equivocal, and why has no study ever convincingly refuted the null hypothesis? Guy (Help!) 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If someone walks into a homeopathist's office, gets some treatment and then gets better - they will obviously claim that the homeopathist cured them - and then they are converts. The difficulty with that is that the other dozen people who did the exact same thing and DIDN'T get better are not listened to.
When you do proper science, instead of listening to random anecdotes from converts - you get a statistical measure of the percentage of people:
  • ...who got better after seeing the homeopath,
  • ...who got better after someone TOLD them they were getting homeopathic treatment (but instead were getting un-succussed water without the raw duck liver or whatever),
  • ...who got better with no intervention of any kind,
This is called "a controlled experiment" (with the second and third groups of people being the "controls") - and doing this kind of trial is what separates the true scientists from the pseudoscientists. Pseudoscientists prefer anecdotes because it allows them to leverage the few people who got better by themselves (or because of the placebo effect) and use them to create stories about the effectiveness of their treatments. Controlled experiments merely expose them as charlatans, so they have to be done by mainstream medicine - and now that homeopathy is comprehensively busted - enthusiasm for continuing to do human trials is bound to fade...just as NASA doesn't attempt to disprove the Flat Earth theory.
In all of the studies that tried these kinds of controlled experiments, the results for these three groups show that the people who got homeopathy and the people who thought they were getting it, but didn't - recovered at about the same rate - which for some medical conditions was actually slightly better than just letting them recover by themselves.
This is the "placebo" effect - where, for a small percentage of people, merely suggesting to them that they are getting treated is enough to make them either get better faster - or at least tell the researchers that they are getting better faster.
It is likely that a large percentage of people who go to homeopathists do indeed "get cured"...most of them because their bodies are fighting off the disease, and they would have recovered without any treatment whatever - and a smaller number who got better (or at least think they did) because of the power of suggestion alone..."The Placebo Effect".
It's not true to say that people who visit homeopathists don't get better...certainly a lot of them do...but the key point here is that they don't get better because of the homeopathy - it's either because they recover on their own, or (more rarely) because of the placebo effect. The true evil of homeopathy is when it's used for conditions that the patient cannot recover from by themselves - and for which the placebo effect is negligable...in those cases, it can (and frequently does) kill people who could have been cured by mainstream medicine.
Homeopathy is still a gigantic scam, backed by pseudoscience of the worst kind - but enough people will get better after using it to convince them that it works...and that's why this nonsense is still being propagated.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Question: For the placebo effect to work, does the medication need to be packaged in bullshit? In other words, does it need a "pseudo-science" around it, for the recipient to believe, for it to work? Maybe in that small, silly way, Homeopathy serves a purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Very definitely not. Every medicine has a placebo component. Recent research asking how many doctors prescribed placebos caused some confusion in this respect: doctors counted antibiotics for viral illness as a placebo (which it is in this instance) even though it's an active medicine. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
But prescribing an antibiotic for a virus IS packaging it in bullshit. The doctor knows it won't work, so is, in effect, lying. I'm not defending homeopathy in the slightest. Just saying that in providing that essential dishonest packaging for a placebo, it serves a positive purpose. That doesn't excuse the damage it does when it takes people away from treatment that does work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of a study, its intent is to have no effect (or at least be a baseline effect). However, it does usually actually have an effect. The mechanism is usually either some kind of unconscious biofeedback control (which is itself pretty awesome, we need to figure out how to control it!), or just taking care of hypochondriac psychosomatic symptoms. Per Placebo "..prescribing placebos... usually relies on some degree of patient deception" However, there are some studies that have shown that placebos work, even when the patient is being told they are getting a placebo (some sort of Cargo cult effect?) http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/27/placebos-work-even-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/ Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That article says "Those given the placebo were told that they would be taking “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes.”"...so they weren't told, "We're giving you pills that don't do anything". They were told that this treatment would help. So all this shows is that telling the patient that you are giving them something that'll help is what triggers the effect...not lying to them and telling them that they are getting some powerful anti-viral medication. That doesn't really surprise me - I think a lot of people basically zone-out when given complicated explanations of things and only listen to the bottom line. "The doctor said <blah><blah><blah>...and you'll get better."...and they do. SteveBaker (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a hugely difficult problem. For example, our local pharmacy carries a shelf full of homeopathic "treatments". They look just like real treatments - and they cost a similar amount. I'm fairly sure that a lot of people don't even see the tiny word homeopathic> on the packaging...let alone know what it actually means. But paying $8 for a tiny bottle of water is a total rip-off. Doctors might consider prescribing homeopathic remedies for viral diseases instead of antibiotics - which are actually a BAD thing to use as a placebo because of the whole drug-resistance thing. It would be better for them to prescribe a sugar pill - but they can't do that without violating ethical guidelines about lying to their patients. If they tell the patient they are giving them an antibiotic (without mentioning that it won't do anything) - then they are staying well within ethical bounds. Arguably then, it's worth paying the outrageous cost of homeopathics as a benign way of tricking naive patients without actually lying to them.
It's also been pointed out that true placebo pills are actually quite expensive - they are regulated like drugs, and have to meet similar purity standards...so it's possible that even at inflated prices, homeopathic treatments are cheaper than true placebos. Honestly, the sanest thing would be to take a pack of TicTac mints and put them in a brown plastic bottle...those are vastly cheaper than actual placebo pills. Maybe the doctor could adequately describe them as "dietary supplements".
But that's only dealing with a mainstream doctor who has decided that there is no treatment for this disease, so a placebo gives the patient the best chance of recovery. That's vastly different from a homeopathist who prescribes these useless treatments for very curable diseases - and thereby worsens the patient's outcome by preventing or delaying their access to the mainstream cure that they really need.
It's not the little bottles of water that are the problem here - it's the people and businesses who promote and prescribe them as cure-alls who are at fault. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To respond to HiLo48's question—yes, sort of. There are a number of ways to increase the perceived effectiveness of a placebo. The placebo effect is certainly stronger if a doctor (or fake doctor) appears to believe strongly in a treatment; the effect is stronger if the patient spends more time with the doctor (or fake doctor). It doesn't have to be pseudo-scientific bullshit for this effect to work; a doctor could prescribe a sugar pill and say – honestly – that a reasonable percentage of patients who received that intervention experienced a statistically-significant improvement in their condition.
Studies have shown that the placebo effect depends on the color of the pills used. It depends on the price of the treatment—more expensive placebos are actually more effective. What homeopaths have done is established a set of nonsensical rituals that result in reasonably potent placebo effects; the important part is that patients and their fake doctors share the belief in efficacy, not the underlying mythology. This 'works' as far as it goes, but since its practitioners are wedded to their particular dogma, there's no opportunity for improving the potency of their placebos further, nor to acknowledge that there are some conditions that really should be referred to real doctors (because not everything can be treated effectively with a placebo). Instead of messing about with banging bottles of very-minimally-dirty water around while blathering about similars, homeopaths could perform a real service to medicine if they were to help understand how doctors could make more effective use of placebo effects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Placebo#Expectancy and conditioning discusses the topic. The "new and improved" big red pills that "three out of four doctors recommend" supposedly do induce more effect than the "try these once a week and we'll see if it might give you some relief". LeadSongDog come howl! 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
One time I was visiting a doctor for a foot injury - I happened to have a streaming cold. The doctor did actually offer me an antibiotic. I said something like "I know this doesn't work on colds - are you trying to offer me a placebo?" and he sat back, looked a little stunned, and slowly and carefully said: "We sometimes prescribe antibiotic to help keep 'secondary invections' at bay and give your body the relief from bactierial infections so it's better able to fight off the cold virus"...then he thought for a bit and said..."Yeah - basically, a placebo. Sorry." ...draw your own conclusions! SteveBaker (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, red, yellow, and orange pills work better as stimulants, while blue and green work better as depressants. [1] Everymorning talk to me 20:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh no. My Fluoxetine are yellow and green. Uppers and downers all in one ! What shud I do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A pledge for make this article a GA (or why not FA?)

Hello. I'm a user from Wikipedia in spanish. I want you to know I've translated this article and furthermore congratulate you for all your arduous work. However I've been seeing you have lost a lot of time lately by discussing the same over and over again (usually against the same user), despite you have already reach a agreement with the community of active users of Wikipedia. We simply don't pay attention at argumentum ad nauseam when it have already refuted. My humble advise: let's focus in working to make this article (both in english and spanish) a GA, and why not a FA. The job is almost done (thank you all!), let's carry on! --Hiperfelix (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the fact that it is hated by every homeopath on the planet means it's extremely hard to get it to GA because we seem to feel a need to constantly add their latest crank papers and their refutations as they come along to demand inclusion. I think it could do with being about 2/3 of the current length. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What about this : instead of listing every review with their conclusions, we should use the reviews as references in support of a synthetic summary of what works and what doesn't work. Darkdadaah (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that would be fair to the homeopaths. What has been shown to work is nothing, but there are some metastudies which show positive, but insignificant, results. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not grasping the meaning of "insignificant". It isn't that they show "positive, but insignificant, results". It is that they show insignificant evidence of positive results. If one flips a fair coin enough times, it will at some point show more heads than tails. That does not mean there is "positive, but insignificant" evidence for a pro-heads bias. It just means the experimenter either doesn't understand basic statistics or he does, but hopes the reader doesn't. You might have a look at Significance testing.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

69.168.34.239 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "[1] Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience.[2][3][4] Homeopathy is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.[5][6][7]"

This is a totally inaccurate statements and needs to be deleted, ASAP.

As you'll see if you click on the little blue numbers after each of those statements in our article, we do have very strong evidence that those statements are, in fact, completely true. Wikipedia has standards for what we state as "The Truth" - and for articles about medical matters, such as this - that standard is WP:MEDRS - and there is no doubt that the references we've provided meet that standard. So, your suggestion that these are inaccurate statements is incorrect - and hence they most certainly should not be deleted. We've had VERY long, extremely complete discussions about this - and it's very clear that unless Wikipedia's core guiding principles were to change, that these 100% factual statements about homeopathy will remain in this article.
The fact is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience - and it doesn't work.
Perhaps, rather than coming to our article with pre-conceptions about it's subject, you'd be better off learning from the article - and perhaps checking out some of the exceedingly reliable reference material that we used in writing it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this true? Maybe, However, the statement that homeopathy is a pseudoscience conflicts with Cohrane's review conclusion for oscillo for instance-----which states -

"There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®. "

I think this is the best review available. --Tina2843627 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look through the archives of this talk page. That source and the overall tone of this article has been rehashed numerous times. Cannolis (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok I scanned the pages - I see that - just I cannot understand how a method is classified as a pseudoscience and ineffective when the best review according to the article points out that -- Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but', given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. " Ok have no time right now to analyse it more ----if there is something that can explain that - please drop a note in my talk page to take a look later. thanks--Tina2843627 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is perfectly explained in the article. You just need to read it. --McSly (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The "pseudoscience" label relates to the fact that homeopathists make claims that are highly out of sync with mainstream science (that water has long term memory - that dilutions beyond the point of utter elimination of the active ingredient have an effect). They make these claims, but make absolutely zero effort to perform experiments to see how this claimed effect might work. If a mainstream scientist finds a result that he/she simply cannot explain, then this is a reason to urgently dive in and explore the ways in which it might come about. Homeopathists do not do that...not in the least degree. They simply assert boldly and loudly that it cures people - but make absolutely zero effort to explain why.
It you look up the word "pseudoscience" in any dictionary, you'll see that it refers to fields in which scientific claims are made - but the scientific method is not followed. Homeopathy claims memory effects in water - yet does not a single scientific experiment, hypothesis or any, even half-assed effort to show how this might be.
Makes scientific claims...check...doesn't follow the scientific method...check...ergo: Pseudoscience.
Furthermore, we have plenty of reliable sources that say it's a pseudoscience...and the matter was taken before the highest authority in Wikipedia ("ArbCom") who have ruled very specifically on this point.
So, it really doesn't matter whether Tina2843627 cares to go off and think about what that entirely poor statement means. Homeopathy is the very poster-child for pseudoscience. We've discussed this to death - it's decided - it's not going to change.
SteveBaker (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's classified as pseudoscience because that's how reliable sources classify it. And a systematic review that found that there is insufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that homoeopathy works does not alter the scientific consensus reported by the article. The fact that its results "do not rule out the possibility" of an effect is hardly surprising given that a trial or review is not designed to rule out the possibility of an effect. The two possible results are that a significant effect is found or that a significant effect is not found. This one failed to demonstrate an effect. Brunton (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. I see that the point of your own research-- But they are the most reliable source you have here and what they say Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, conflicts with wikipedia definite categorization for Homeopathy as ineffective and pseudoscience. Maybe a little modification would help so the article would reflect what the best sources say and not to look as a skeptic blog. ( Nothing wrong with the skeptics blogs - just there are not encyclopedias. --Tina2843627 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't understand Tina, but the article does reflect what the best sources say, and does not need modification. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There is another disconnect here - the label "pseudoscience" has nothing whatever to do with "effectiveness" - it's only a description of the procedures involved in generating things regarded as "truth" within the field in question.
For example:
  • Some pseudosciences do seem to be valuable: Freudian Pschoanalysis is widely regarded as being useful - and also frequently cited as an example of pseudoscience. Freud and his followers don't follow the rules of scientific investigation - but that doesn't necessarily mean that the approach it takes doesn't work.
  • Some failed/debunked ideas are not pseudosciences: The field of Cold Fusion research is a good example of that. The people who fervently believe that cold fusion is possible have indeed done a ton of proper experiments and written properly peer-reviewed papers, published in mainstream journals. It's generally believed that cold fusion doesn't work - but it's not a pseudoscience.
  • Some things that mainstream science generally assumes to be false aren't pseudosciences for other reasons: Religions are not generally considered to be pseudosciences, because even though they do no solid experimentation - they don't generally make scientific claims.
Homeopathy (whether it actually works or not) is a pseudoscience because it makes scientific claims, but does not investigate them scientifically.
So the issue of whether homeopathy is or is not a pseudoscience is an entirely separate question from whether it actually cures diseases effectively. SteveBaker (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think he cohrane review above it was a scientific investigation. --Tina2843627 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a statistical test of efficacy - not a serious effort to find out how homeopathy works. If I was interested in studying homeopathy, I'd be stuffing homeopathic medicines into X-ray crystallography machines, doing spectrograms, looking for other properties of these supposed cures such a boiling and freezing points, density, electrical conductivity, pH...basically searching for any physically measurable property to reliably distinguish them from regular water. I'd be testing them on lab animals and bacterial cultures to see if there are reproducible effects that other experimenters could use to verify my findings. Homeopathists do literally NONE of those things. It's like they aren't even mildly curious about how these supposed treatments work and are quite happy to claim that some random ingredient cures some particular disease without doing ANY serious animal or human trials.
So homeopathists continue to spout the same nonsense that was told to them by others. Nobody in the community has lifted the slightest finger toward understanding what is supposedly going on. Even the relatively large companies with the funding to do these studies are happier just to sell their little bottles of water for $14 a pop rather than trying to do any scientific work whatever to explain what they think they are seeing.
So - it's a pseudoscience. Pure and simple. Doesn't matter whether it works or not. If you make scientific claims and you don't do the scientific research to back them up - you're a pseudoscientist. Not my opinion, that's the dictionary definition of the word. SteveBaker (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I might add that there is no particular shame to being a pseudoscientist - if you're completely happy making scientific claims without backing them up (eg, because you have 'faith' or because you believe that what you're saying is so obviously true that you don't need to do science to prove it) - then being a pseudoscientist is what you are, and you shouldn't have to apologize for that. Being described as a "pseudoscientist" is no more of a negative connotation than being called an "amateur" golfer - it's merely a description of what you do that helpfully tells people that you're not earning money while you're having fun playing golf...or, in this case, that your scientific claims are not things that you feel the need to prove with scientific rigor.
We use the term quite carefully here because our readers need to understand that Homeopathists do not feel that need for the scientific process...they are not scientists, yet they are not faith-healers either. They are pseudoscientists. They believe that there is science behind what they do, but don't feel it's necessary to prove it. Of course if homeopathists do feel that they should be providing evidence for the things that they claim (the 'memory effect' of water, for example) - then they need to get out there and do some hard-core science. And if they did that, then they wouldn't be called "pseudoscientists" anymore. SteveBaker (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
All true SteveBaker, but then if they did that they wouldn't be called homeopathists any more, or have a nice steady income stream from their victims. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions shakeup

Note to editors here that there is likely to be an upcoming shakeup in the discretionary sanctions applied to this page. [2] DS will still be active via the pseudoscience/fringe cases, but will not be subject to its own individual sanction any longer. This has no practical effect, as sanctions are sanctions, but just want to make sure people are aware that if they see the old one go away, what is going on. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

Wikipedia Bias

That's enough. Soap boxing and petty bickering are not what this page is for. If there are *specific* changes anyone wants to suggest, please start a new topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

From the Cochrane Library:

-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)

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: [3]. 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" [4] and the NHS currently cites it [5]. -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.

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, [6] 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.

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)
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)

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)

Swiss, British and Australian government against further funding

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.
sourcing and emphasis explained WRT source. No need to rehash debate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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”, [7]. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In both documents I can't find the foundation of the statemant above, it must be your interpretation. --Freital (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Given your extremely limited editing history, I am inclined to dismiss your concern as the result of motivated reasoning. The quoted text above and the Gurtner source:
Mandatory health insurance in Switzerland offers coverage only for services that are in accordance with the Swiss health insurance law. The following criteria must be fulfilled: “Wirksamkeit” (efficacy/effectiveness), “Zweckmässigkeit” (appropriateness / comparative effectiveness / risk-benefit-ratio), and “Wirtschaftlichkeit” (price level / cost impact / cost-effectiveness). [...] In May 2005, the main results of the evaluation were made available and presented to the commission that advised the ministry concerning coverage decisions. In June 2005 the minister made the decision to end any existing coverage of the five CAM methods [...] In December 2010 the advisory commission again came to the conclusion that for all five CAM methods, the proof of efficacy, effectiveness, appropriateness and cost impact was not convincing enough [emphasis added]
makes it plain that the withdrawal was due to lack of evidence of efficacy, and this is further supported by the sources Gurtner cites (which are mainly in German). The facts are also established: Switzerland withdrew reimbursement after the review, the UK review has been cited in withdrawal of referrals in Lanarkshire and elsewhere. You are, I'm afraid, on the wrong side of history. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
According to the Swiss Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) five methods of complementary medicine (médecine anthroposophique, l'homéopathie, la thérapie neurale, etc) will be funded for 6 years i.e. until the end of 2017[8]--Freital (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that's only for a further trial period, and is as a result of a 2009 referendum vote, not because of any further evaluation was carried out or because of any finding of efficacy. As Guy's source says, the government's advisory commission decided in December 2010 that the therapies didn't have sufficient evidence of efficacy etc. to be reimbursed (and your source actually confirms this recommendation: "de la recommandation, du 7 décembre 2010, de la commission fédérale des prestations générales et des principes qui a estimé que ces médecines complémentaires ne répondaient pas aux critères permettant leur remboursement par l'assurance obligatoire des soins"). As is made clear by the source Guy cited funding was withdrawn as a result of the PEK report. See also here, if you want another reference. Brunton (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
As Brunton says, that is for a trial, and is the result of a referendum. The sources make it crystal clear that the referendum happened only because reimburselent had been withdrawn. Withdrawal was enacted, not merely proposed, and that was a sa direct result of the PEK process. Do you know of any governm,ent-level evidence reviews that conclude differently? Guy (Help!) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you guys arguing over the efficacy of homeopathy, or over how it should be addressed in this article? If the former, do you think you might be a little too emotionally involved in the topic? Cla68 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
That question seems to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand—which is about how to accurately source and represent information about government funding (or not) of homeopathy. Freital appears to have had a mistaken understanding of how, when, and why the Swiss government was funding homeopathic medicine, and JzG and Brunton seem to have responded to that with brief, detailed reference to relevant sources in order to clarify the situation.
Why would you try to drag that discussion off course? And if editors were emotionally involved, in what way would it be constructive to interrupt a clear and focused discussion with an invitation to bicker about individual editors' beliefs on the topic? Such a suggestion reflects very poorly on you, Cla68, not on the other editors here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Cla68: there are certainly people who are emotionally invested in homeopathy. They come here, one by one, and advocate inclusion of the views of Dana Ullman and other self-identified homeopathy promoters. Science advocates are not vested in homeopathy at all, only in the scientific rigour of coverage of all alternatives to medicine. I have signed up to All Trials, and I know several people intimately involved in that. For us it's all about good science. The fact that homeopathy falls by the wayside in any remotely competent scientific analysis is not our problem. Science, as a process, is entirely dispassionate. It's as comfortable saying homeopaths are wrong, as it was saying that Einstein was wrong about determinacy. When Tony Pinkus of Ainsworths was lambasted for promoting quack alternatives to vaccines, it was not skeptics who made the running, it was the BBC. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Provisional funding until the end of 2017 means that there is funding and not no further funding. In the document which Brunton refered to it says "The Swiss government has given complementary medicine a second chance to prove its worth as an insurable health cost." --Freital (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Funding was withdrawn following the recommendation of the PEK process. Fans of quackery then demanded (and got) a referendum, following which it was reinstated, on a temporary basis, pending a further review in I think 2017. This is all pretty well known, I suggest you do some background reading. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And the article already covers this, in the section headed "Government level reviews", where it specifically states that the Swiss government reinstated funding for a further trial period, after a referendum. There doesn't seem to be any problem with content or sourcing here. Brunton (talk) 11:19, 19 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.

Locked article to prevent vandalism or to promote a specific point of view ?

The editing history of this page provides little evidence of vandalism. It provides plenty of evidence of many editors who disagree with the specific point of view of this article. The talk page also shows that a group of editors close quickly every topic or thread discusses the neutrality of this article. Is this compatible with the principles of an open encyclopedia? --Ytsurctoh (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just an observation but 7 days is not that quick. There are also many discussions still open as well. If you have specific problems with the article please bring them up. VVikingTalkEdits 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
7 days is good if you are professional editor . Closing any topic that discusses the accuracy and neutrality of the article and keeping the article locked with the excuse of vandalism ( which is false as anyone can see in the editing history) is strong evidence that different groups try to control the article--Maybe they should close down the talk page as well. --Ytsurctoh (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is merely semi protected. Try reading through some of the archives of this talk page if you find fault with closing discussions that are resurrected and rehashed with no new evidence or arguments to the nth time. Cannolis (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you show me where the above topic has been discussed before? Please? --Ytsurctoh (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Again do you have something specific to add to this discussion or are you just going to gripe about how unfair this talk page is. If you have SPECIFIC concerns with the article there are many editors who will discuss these concerns with you. The problem is many people come and just try to insert the same information that the community has deemed unreliable. If you think the information is reliable you can take the information to other locations such a request for comment. Or notice boards that pertain to that sort of thing, reliability notice board, fringe notice board, etc. VVikingTalkEdits 01:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
My specific concern is described above: you locked the article closed topics claiming they have been discussed before. Can you address my specific concern by providing the diffs? Where they have been discussed? Swiss, British and Australian government against further funding ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytsurctoh (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The section above this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Why should we do your homework, however this is one[9], and there are at least a few others. And again, seven days is fairly common for wikipedia discussions to be open. If you have further information about that specifically you want to bring up, bring it up. A Closed discussion does not prevent you from creating another one. Now if you are done complaining about the talk page, the talk page is a place for discussion of the article. If you have issues with the way certain editors have acted on the talk page take it to that editors talk page.VVikingTalkEdits 13:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy and hormesis

I have identified two papers discussing how homeopathy might actually be a subset of hormesis [10] and how it might be able to be "integrated into mainstream biomedical assessment and clinical practice." [11] 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 [12] 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)
Human & Experimental Toxicology is a low-impact venue (in the bottom quartile, which puts it into the long tail of scientific publications). It's not that it's necessarily an out-and-out bad journal, but no researcher goes out and buys rounds of drinks to celebrate "Our paper got into Hum. Exp. Toxicol!", either. A bit of speculative wishful in its pages doesn't a notable occurrence make. In other words, even if (arguendo) we were to set aside RS (or MEDRS) concerns, we thoroughly fail to clear the bar of WP:UNDUE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that the abstract for the first cited article states that "hormesis is potentially a subset of homeopathy", not that "homeopathy is potentially a subset of hormesis", a simple twist of words which implies the accepted validity of homeopathy - an assumption which is unsubstantiated. It is also important to recognize that papers such as these are suggesting putative mechanisms of action for a phenomenon which has never been demonstrated to actually exist. If properly designed, executed, and statistically treated trials can demonstrate that homeopathy actually has an effect, then it may be time to discuss the putative mechanisms of action, but not before. Discussions of alien abductions are not polluted with theories of how extraterrestrials might have been able to travel faster than the speed of light to get here; there's no place for such musings in the absence of a foregone conclusion that such phenomena actually exist. -Puddin'Head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition to lead

An addition to the lead claimed that Swiss Medical Weekly had reported that "a report for the Swiss government, shows homeopathy is effective, appropriate, safe and economic". I have reverted this (unfortunately I somehow managed to complete the edit before I had completed my edit summary) because it doesn't adequately summarise the discussion of this in the article. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health has repudiated the version of the report in question, which is not the report prepared for the Swiss government but a later expanded version of it. When the original version of the report was submitted to the Swiss government 6 years earlier the "PEK" of which it was part resulted in the Swiss government withdrawing funding of homoeopathy. Additionally, the source used cannot be used to support the statement that was added to the lead per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE as a comment from it is being used, out of context, to support a statement it doesn't actually make; the source says that the report was "proclaimed by proponents of homeopathy" as evidence for homoeopathy, and the source is highly critical of the report, describing it as "scientifically, logically and ethically flawed". Brunton (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well done. The claim, endlessly recirculated by quackery apologists, is entirely false. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Right sources

I am going to show here some sources for use in this article, for those editors who want to talk well or righteouness about homeopathy. regards.

You can use this article for a right source:

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The article above is an irrelevant appeal to authority. Opinions of the British royal family do not constitute expertise in any medical field. Notably, the article states, "Charles’s faith in alternative medicine is grounded in the teachings of the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung and German philosopher Kurt Hahn, which adhere to ancient healing processes emphasising the treatment of the patient as a whole. His speech prompted the BMA to set up an inquiry (which found, in 1986, no scientific proof that any homeopathic treatments worked), and cleaved an ideological rift between Charles and much of the medical profession that endures to this day."--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You can use this other article for a another right source:

--Pediainsight (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not seem to sufficiently understand the source material. The cited source starts off by stating that "raising awareness of homeopathy is the quickest way to dispel any belief in it". The source goes on to unambiguously state quite forcefully that homeopathy is not only ineffective, but also that it causes harm as a result of its proponents' neglect of legitimate treatments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I like this new source - let's use it with Jeffro's quotes. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It fails MEDRS by leaps and bounds. -A1candidate 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The article may be anti-homeopathy, but it goes into useful detail on the concepts and principles of the philosophy and give some examples of how it's used in modern society. So, the article would be helpful to add some detail to this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a nice article (and very painfully accurate about the ineffectiveness of homoeopathy), but it is an opinion piece by a homeopathic skeptic at the end of the day. It can be used with that caveat. Some of the links may also be useful, however. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
To provide some context to my comments above, Pediainsight is a proponent of homeopathy, but does not appear to have read beyond the title of the article he's endorsing. The article rightly asserts the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, and I do not object to using the article as a source, but it doesn't "talk well or righteou[s]ness about homeopathy" in the manner inferred by Pediainsight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be wary - any proponent of homeopathy could (justifiably) cry foul with material discussing negative medical aspects sourced from the guardian. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It would depend on how the source were used. It would not be suitable as a source for a scientific perspective, but would be entirely appropriate in a section such as Public opposition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
An article like this can be useful when it republishes information originally taken from self-published sources. Normally, we wouldn't be able to use those sources because they're self-published, but when they get washed through a newspaper article like this, it puts the information in the form of a reliable source. I appreciate it that everyone here is stating that we're not here to take a side on the veracity of homeopathy, since WP's NPOV policy prohibits us, as WP editors, from taking a side in WP's voice in the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely - we go on what sources say and ensure we use reliable ones and weight accordingly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A1candidate: It doesn't matter if The Guardian fails WP:MEDRS - homeopathy fails to be medicine, after all. Marsh is a widely respected source on fraudulent claims. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Indeed, Homeopaths Without Borders – a group of doubtlessly well-meaning folk – are flying into places of crisis in the developing world carrying suitcases full of homeopathic tablets that contain nothing but sugar. It is not so much Médecins Sans Frontières as Médecins Sans Medicine." Ouch. --NeilN talk to me 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent CBC news coverage on homeopathic nosodes being touted in lieu of real vaccines may be useful. [13][14] LeadSongDog come howl! 01:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic seems to be heating up: [15][16] It appears that various provinces' Public Health Officers, heads of colleges, and Ministers of Health are taking strong positions against the licensing of these products. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

JAMA

Please, use this quote for do a defense in this article about homeopathy:

An article published in the March 4, 1998, issue of JAMA observed: “For many patients suffering from chronic problems that lack a specific diagnosis, homeopathy may be an important and useful treatment option. If used within its limits, homeopathy could complement modern medicine as, ‘another tool in the bag.’” [1]

--Pediainsight (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:MEDDATE. Not a review article. -A1candidate 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this a review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#cite_note-inquiry_4504-8? No- I wonder why don't you object to its inclusion to support the statement that Homeopathy is placebo ? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The quoted text ignores the context of the student submission from which it was taken, which does not claim that homeopathy is effective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You use this to support the sentence - homeopathy = placebo. This is not a review. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A seventeen-year-old quote cherry-picked from a short opinion letter in the medical students' section of JAMA (msJAMA) isn't really the sort of high-quality source we're looking for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
More particularly, the letter merely summarizes the claims of homeopathy - it offers no evidence of any kind to support these claims. The current introduction on the active Wikipedia page already acknowledges these claims and offers appropriate citations. Regardless of the (low) quality of the JAMA letter, it doesn't offer any value to the current Wikipedia article. - Puddin'head198.11.28.36 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this kind of quotation serves little purpose in the article (especially in the lead), Pediainsight has a habit of copying material from literature published by the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). His quote here, including his introduction to the JAMA quote, is actually lifted from the journal, Awake! of 22 October 2000, page 9. It states:

An article published in the March 4, 1998, issue of JAMA observed: “For many patients suffering from chronic problems that lack a specific diagnosis, homeopathy may be an important and useful treatment option. If used within its limits, homeopathy could complement modern medicine as, ‘another tool in the bag.’”

It is a direct copy and paste from that source, and Pediainsight should say where he got it rather than giving incomplete details about the source he claims to have found it in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and Pediainsight has alreasy been given the standard AE warnings; I suggest that he/she stops doing this, or a topic ban will be the inevitable result. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), of November 11, 1998, observed: “Alternative medical therapies, functionally defined as interventions neither taught widely in medical schools nor generally available in US hospitals, have attracted increased national attention from the media, the medical community, governmental agencies, and the public.”

What do you think about if we use this comment or content on the article? --Pediainsight (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First, this quote addresses the broad and ill-defined vacuum of "alternative medicine" and not any particulars of homeopathy. "Alternative" medicine is simply medicine which has not been shown to work or, in many cases, has been shown not to work. Second, it posits an appeal to popularity in an effort to substantiate a tautology - in other words, it suggests that, although "alternative" medicine is defined as 'alternative' because it is not acknowledged as effective by those who practice evidence based medicine, it has attracted attention from the media, the government, and the public. No one denies any of this. The question is, why should anyone care? It's no different than stating that the Kardashians are defined as vapid twits, but they attract attention from the media and the public. The statement is undeniably true, but it doesn't offer any substance that establishes the value of the Kardashians, let alone homeopathy. - Puddin'head198.11.28.36 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This latest quote 'supplied' by Pediainsight, including his introductory text, is copied verbatim from the same issue of Awake! (22 October 2000) as his prior attempt, but this time from page 3. Because Pediainsight is simply quote-mining JW literature that has in turn quote-mined JAMA, Pediainsight is paying no respect to the context of the material he's citing. The quote is not useful. Pediainsight, you have been told previously that you are supposed to say where you read it rather than dishonestly quote-mining JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Pediainsight, you may also want to take a moment to ask yourself: "is this REALLY the best evidence that I can find - after 219 years - to support the notion that homeopathy is any more than a suggestion that Mr. Snuffleupagus actually exists?". I appreciate that such a statement may be perceived as offensive, but that is not my intent. I am only trying to point out the fact that the Wikipedia article, as it stands, simply reflects the aggregate best available evidence. The cherry-picking of poorly conceived quotes doesn't do anything to contradict 219 years of failure, particularly when that failure is coupled to an utter void of any plausible mechanism by which one could expect anything other than said manifest failure. - Puddin'head198.11.28.36 (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If homeopathy do not works, why is working now the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and others homeopathic hospitals in U.K, in Mexico, India, and why worked other hospitals in the past, in other countries on XIX - XX centuries? --Pediainsight (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for personal debate on whether homeopathy works. Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, bases content on published reliable sources - and by policy, the appropriate sources for medical content are review articles in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, and similar sources of recognised academic status. And the consensus amongst such sources is overwhelming. They state that homeopathy has no more effect than a placebo, and accordingly this article will say the same thing. Wikipedia policy is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It is overwhelming ----------- if you do not count and of course edit out all reliable sources which don't support the notion that homeopathy has no more effect than a placebo Then yes ---you are right. .--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathic hospitals

Please improve this section and introduce it on the article:

In India, Mexico and U.K are working homeopathic hospitals. In U.K. there are four homeopathic hospitals; two are The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and The Glasgow hospital built in 1999. [2]

--Pediainsight (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not an improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Details about India and Mexico not in cited sourced, but that is essentially unimportant, since the existence of an institution or product is not evidence of the effectiveness of the product or service. The existence of homeopathic hospitals is already mentioned in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
As well, it's a very selective (mis)use of the cited source. The linked article appears mostly to be about how the number of homeopathic hospitals in the UK is dwindling due to sharply declining funding and homeopathy's (deservedly) poor reputation. In particular, the Glasgow facility has soft-pedaled its association with homeopathy (renaming itself from a "Homeopathic Hospital" to a "Centre for Integrative Care"), and offers a range of complementary and conventional medical treatments. The article discusses how adding further non-homeopathy facilities to the hospital's offerings (a chronic pain center) is one way that they might be able to keep their doors open. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Therefore your ideal readers should not know that "In U.K. there are four homeopathic hospitals; two are The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and The Glasgow hospital built in 1999" ? Is this irrelevant in a article about homeopathy ? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary in the lead, and certainly not in a manner that takes the cited sourceas a quoted sound bite taken out of context. The article expresses doubt about the future of the hospital, which probably wouldn't continue to exist if it does not introduce valid medical services. The existence of homeopathic hospitals is already indicated in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So the readers do not need to know specifically --- that 4 homeopathic hospitals exist? I wonder why? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of such hospitals in the UK certainly doesn't need to mentioned in the lead, as it is undue weight to a particular location, and intended as a misleading endorsement of homeopathy. Wikipedia is not a directory, and doesn't need to indicate the specific number of such facilities in any particular locale.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It could be included in the body of the article - Undue weight as "intended as a misleading endorsement of homeopathy." ? You must be kidding me. Only in this talk page stating facts can be regarded as giving ...Undue weight and or "intended as a misleading endorsement of homeopathy-- It seems that you are worrying that some readers might be thinking - hey they are people who go to 2 homeopathic hospitals in the UK-- Maybe homeopathy works or they are crazy? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You are attempting to shift the goalposts. I quite clearly stated that it doesn't belong in the lead. The existence of homeopathic hospitals is already indicated in the article. The specific number is trivial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggested its inclusion in the body of the article. The number of the hospitals is trivial? I think it is reasonable the readers to know about homeopathy practice in detail in an article about homeopathy and not to be ignorant. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Another of the reasons that "the readers do not need to know specifically --- that 4 homeopathic hospitals exist" in the UK is that they don't. The Liverpool hospital closed in 1976 [17], being replaced by the Liverpool Department of Homeopathic Medicine at the Old Swan Health Centre, a GP practice. This has also been closed by the local PCT, and the doctors involved have formed something called a "community interest company", also based at the Old Swan.[18] The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital was transferred to the South Bristol Community Hospital following a report [19] showing reducing patient numbers, and the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital has been rebranded as the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine "in order more accurately to reflect the nature of its work."[20] The situation of NHS "homoeopathic hospitals" in the UK is only really relevant in the context of the declining usage of homoeopathy in the NHS, and is adequately covered in the appropriate article.[21] Brunton (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course compared to the current state of the article - you know editing out every reliable source which disputes the notion homeopathy is placebo - that's not so serious: why readers should know about the number of homeopathic hospitals ? We are trying to convince them that homeopathy does not work and no one cares about it anymore. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As you have been told repeatedly, the existence of homeopathic hospitals is already indicated in the article, and the article also indicates that there are proponents of homeopathy. The number of homeopathic hospitals is trivial, and you have already been informed that some of those mentioned in the source have either closed or had their purpose changed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"The article also indicates that there are proponents of homeopathy"? Oh this so neutral! - Ok - You guys are so kind. Thanks. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is to reflect mainstream views of the subject. Perhaps you do not understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Given the great preponderance of sources that report that homeopathy is not effective, the view to the contrary must not be given undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well - As I said the "preponderance" of sources reporting homeopathy is not effective is great because you choose to edit out all the other equally reliable sources which report quite differently --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Your assertion is a lie, and citing an archived discussion that I wasn't involved in is just stupid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is a lie and I m not so intelligent. Can't you tell? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with your false claim that I have edited out sources promoting homeopathy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You need to realize that the value of the meta-analyses you are promoting is dependent on the value of the data that they are analyzing and that, in light of several other meta-analyses establishing a lack of effect when considering the same pool of primary papers, and in light of the lack of any plausible mechanism of how homeopathy would work, it is reasonable to look at the quality of the studies that are informing your analysis of choice. For instance, your second source suggests that the inclusion of smaller studies yields results in favor of homeopathy. The problem is that most of those smaller studies are, often by the author's own admission, statistically underpowered. While this generally is interpreted as increasing the risk of false negative outcomes, it can also lead to false positive results, particularly in the case of claims such as homeopathic efficacy where there is little evidence to suggest that any real effect should be expected. Your proposed article also includes papers from Jacobs et al. (found here and here) which are either acknowledged to be underpowered by the authors or are based on a small sample size and do not give any information that would allow for one to calculate the power, but it ignores a larger, properly powered paper by the same group which found no evidence of effect beyond that of placebo. Running a meta-analysis on a collection of low quality, underpowered studies does nothing to inform any useful conclusions; it simply makes for a low quality meta-analysis. In other words, 1000 x 0 = 0. Better quality analyses which treat data from better quality studies find that there is no effect beyond placebo and it is these studies that should be included in the article. - Puddin'head207.93.211.50 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not you personally . It was the royal you. I meant the group which controls the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs)

I don't see why we can't mention the number of hospitals in the body, assuming that we know how many there are. Detailed information about specific countries would probably be better suited for Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. However, we should quite obviously not present outdated information, and if our sources indicate that the prevalence of hospitals are decreasing, that would be appropriate to include as well. Do we have a current and accurate source for any of this?

No group controls the article. WP policy controls the article, which is slated towards science and reliable sources. If you don't like our coverage, present better sources or find another wiki that has different policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see a problem with stating the number of homeopathic hospitals worldwide in this article if the sources give the number. By the way, if any of you here get frustrated with being stonewalled or hectored by some of the regulars here, don't lash back at them. Send me an email over my WP account if you'd like to talk about it further. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It was given before above, But sure (even it is a minor thing and it does not change the quality of the article from anti homeopathy propaganda to accurate information) it is something people should know. In my opinion anyway. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Two sources were provided; one from 1998 that was shown to be significantly out of date, and another that discusses only one homeopathic hospital ("Scotland's only"), and how it may soon be converted. Neither of these establishes "the number of homeopathic hospitals in the uk", which is what you are trying to add. Again: "Do we have a current and accurate source for any of this?"   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Here. By the way in reply to your comment "WP policy controls the article, which is slated towards science and reliable sources" : I brought several examples above which reliable sources have been edited out because they don't concur with the one sided information the article provides. This is not part of wiki policy of course. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Again... out of date. Two of those four websites our down, and other sources attest to them being defunct. We're not going to put incorrect information into the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If the source is old, you just put, "As of 2005 (or whatever it is on the date of that source) there were X number of homeopathic hospitals worldwide". Easy. I support adding the number to this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Should we then state that, as of 2015, most of theses hospitals cease to exist and have been proposed to have little value, as is indicated by their current operational status and the current literature.? Seems easier to just leave it out all together.-Puddin'head207.93.211.50 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cla Absolutely not... because it's not 2005 any more. Per sources, we could say there is one remaining hospital in the uk. I don't see any sources documenting worldwide numbers, and none sufficiently recent to indicate more than one in the uk.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's put in the text that there is one homeopathic hospital in the UK. What did the other source say about the numbers worldwide? It wouldn't suprise me if in countries like India or Brazil where homeopathy is widely practiced there are quite a few more. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The number of hospitals seems pretty trivial, particularly since exclusively homeopathic facilities do not seem to exist any more in Europe. Expanding information on the prevalence in general would be more informative, but that should go in Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, not this parent article. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Just how broad is the definition of a "homeopathic" hospital, and would we be in danger of overstating their number or significance? There's a substantial difference between a facility devoted substantially or exclusively to homeopathic remedies (warning, video contains humo(u)r) and one that happens to offer access to homeopathic treatments as part of a much larger spectrum of services. On its face, the phrase "homeopathic hospital" would seem to suggest the former—but as used in the UK example would seem to actually be much more the latter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in support of stating the number of homeopathic hospitals worldwide, but we have no current source for it, and I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that a "homeopathic hospital" focused exclusively on homeopathy. If it just includes homeopathy alongside a typical medical regimen, I don't see how the distinction between it and some other homeopathic practice is significant. We shouldn't try to match sources to content we want to add; we should derive content from the sources we have, and right now we have none. Until that changes, let's move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ JAMA March 4, 1998.
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26198043
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_60&oldid=1092027378"